# Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?



## Hanzou

In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.

Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?


----------



## Grenadier

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



Grappling arts had the advantage during the early UFC's, simply because the competitors who trained solely in stand-up striking arts weren't familiar with the ground game.  The game has changed a lot since then, and everyone who competes in MMA has a decent level of proficiency with some type of grappling art.  At the same time, pure grapplers who weren't accustomed to striking had to learn striking arts as well.  

Regarding the lack of "traditional" martial arts in the ring, if I were to guess, it's because those who want to compete in MMA are going to go with systems that can get you ready in a shorter time.  After all, the lifespan (competition, not actual) of a MMA competitor isn't going to be very long at all, and most of the competitors are going to be out of the game by the time they're in their 30's.  While it's true that Randy Couture competed in his mid 40's, he's more of the exception rather than the rule.  

If you wanted to become a proficient MMA competitor in the shortest time possible, then training in wrestling and boxing can get you there pretty quickly.  If you started at the young age of 20, and if your goal were to become a champion at MMA competitions, you probably wouldn't want to spend the years it would take getting to the black belt level in a respectable Karate and Judo dojos, when you could be ready in under a year of intense training in boxing and wrestling.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



I'll offer some points of consideration.  First, a TMA may have a specific overall slant that it focuses on in training.  For example, TKD specializes in kicking.  This can be great in a competition such as kick boxing or TKD specific competition.  Of course, since it doesn't have a specific component for training on the ground it generally doesn't do well in a venue that allows it.  The opposite would apply as well if a BJJ competitor entered a TKD or kickboxing tournament but the 'ground-n-pound' or submissions weren't allowed.

Another consideration are the inclusion of rules, any rules.  Karate can, and is an effective form of self defense and can be altered to fit into a sport venue.  And using karate as a further example, serious karate training has a plethora of body-unfriendly movements designed to injure the other person.  But these movements can't be done in a competition format.  Thus many of the principles/techniques from the TMA aren't allowed within the context of competition.  Again, using BJJ as a counter-example, removing takedowns and submissions would drastically limit and alter the art.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

In my opinion its the theres a few factors that take the TMA out of the lime light of MMA fights. 

The first is that most TMA practitioners dont have that mind set of wanting to go to the gym to train & spar hard to prepare them to go fight in a ring for fun or cash. Most of the people that attend TMA schools are usually looking for something to do in their spare time that will make them healthier and help them defend themselves if they are ever attacked. 

The Second thing is if you do get a serious TMA guy that wants to go MMA let's face it it would be better to go to a full contact competitive art where you can get those much needed hours of full contact sparring logged.   

The third thing is if you had a serious TMA  practitioner (with out a lot of grappling time logged) that wanted to compete in a UFC style match he would not do the best when he came across a great grappler or take down practitioner. This is why most MMA practice a grappling art with a striking art. 

But what people forget is that allot of these MMA champs did come from a TMA background and then stared training MMA or other full contact competitive sports. 

Just a few I can think of is Bas Ruten, Lidell  and Machida have a TMA foundation before going to MMA.


----------



## Blindside

The short answer is training method.  The early UFCs certainly highlighted the ground grappling range, and that wasn't just with regard to TMA, you had legit kickboxers and boxers (combat sports specialists) who just hadn't studied the range losing as well.  

Groups that train their techniques against resisting opponents are generally going to do better than those groups that don't.


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> I'll offer some points of consideration.  First, a TMA may have a specific overall slant that it focuses on in training.  For example, TKD specializes in kicking.  This can be great in a competition such as kick boxing or TKD specific competition.  Of course, since it doesn't have a specific component for training on the ground it generally doesn't do well in a venue that allows it.  The opposite would apply as well if a BJJ competitor entered a TKD or kickboxing tournament but the 'ground-n-pound' or submissions weren't allowed.
> 
> Another consideration are the inclusion of rules, any rules.  Karate can, and is an effective form of self defense and can be altered to fit into a sport venue.  And using karate as a further example, serious karate training has a plethora of body-unfriendly movements designed to injure the other person.  But these movements can't be done in a competition format.  Thus many of the principles/techniques from the TMA aren't allowed within the context of competition.  Again, using BJJ as a counter-example, removing takedowns and submissions would drastically limit and alter the art.



I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?


----------



## TSD Bean

Hanzou said:


> I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?



If I had to give a definitive answer, it would be because when you throw punches and kicks, you open yourself up to grabs, clinches, and throws. If someone's intent is to get you to the ground, out-maneuvering them is far easier said than done. A skilled grappler just needs to wait for you to throw something they can work with. For example, for a period of time in my classes I had a habit of catching the person's leg when they kicked. In fact, I wasn't always doing it on purpose, I'd just reflexively hook their leg before then could put it down. If my instructor allowed throws, takedowns would have been a no-brainer. Instead, because it was a TMA class, when I did it the match was stopped and we reset after I got chastised. 

To truly have the upper hand against a grappler is very hard for someone who just knows standing martial arts. It isn't a simple thing to avoid, and every time you go for a strike you open yourself up to a counter offensive.


----------



## Argus

Hanzou said:


> I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?



Part of it is training, I think. Not many Karate or Kung Fu practitioners have practiced avoiding takedowns and grapplers, and it would take quite a bit of training and familiarity with grappling to learn to do so in a UFC setting. Most people just accept grappling, and counter grappling with grappling, as opposed to learning to avoid the ground.

The other thing is that the rulesets still favor grappling and takedowns iin comparison to many TMA contexts. Striking is somewhat handicapped, or at least changed by the use of gloves, and rulesets are actually more strict than people give them credit. Some of the obvious and very vulnerable and accessible targets, such as the neck, are completely off-limits -- the significance of which, I believe, anyone who hasn't trained in a TMA with open hands will not appreciate. You can't do things like kick downed opponents, and even the ring itself is designed to allow practitioners to drop to their knees without injury.

But the greatest difference, I think, is the fact that Traditional Martial Arts tend to deal more with "earnest" fighting, whereas sporting competition is much more of a "game" -- or, at least, the "game" is different in either case. Traditional Martial Arts _tend_ to deal with committed attacks against an opponent who is truly trying to get in your space quickly and hurt you. Your attacker does not have time to feel you out, and he has to decisively engage you or else you can simply walk or run away, or perhaps even draw or grab a weapon in the case of unarmed fighting. Therefore, he can't be too cautious about attacking you -- he doesn't have time to play games and feint and poke at you from a distance. He's never seen you before. He's never fought you before. He doesn't even know if you're trained or not, or if so, what kind of training you have. He doesn't know if you will fight back or just try to run away. He may have a weapon, or he may not; he may have freinds, or he may not; he may be engaging you in an alley, on pavement, on a dirt road, or indoors; there may be sticks, pipes, bottles, chairs, rocks, and other implements laying about that you or he could grab. All of this impacts the way he will approach the engagement, and the way you will respond to it. The same contrasts could be made for a battlefield context, or a beimo context, or any other form of combat. Traditional Martial Arts are an answer to these specific contexts just as sportive martial arts are an answer to sportive contexts. The intention of the combatants, and context of the combat, are different in each case. It's not a surprise, therefore, that sportive systems tend to excel in sportive environments.

It is also a matter of training, as some have mentioned. If you want to be a successful UFC fighter, are you going to do all of the extra work that is required to make a TMA work in the ring, or are you just going to go with proven methods that will yield more success in less time? If you care about winning, which you probably do, you'll go with the latter, and stick to conventional method. Competition, in this case, cuts down on diversity and ingenuity to some extent (or rather, I should say, focuses it along a narrow path), as it leads to very serious specialization.

At least, that is my perspective. But I'll add the usual caveat that I may not know what the hell I'm talking about


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Hanzou said:


> I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?





			
				Argus said:
			
		

> The other thing is that the rulesets still favor grappling and takedowns iin comparison to many TMA contexts. Striking is somewhat handicapped, or at least changed by the use of gloves, and rulesets are actually more strict than people give them credit. Some of the obvious and very vulnerable and accessible targets, such as the neck, are completely off-limits -- the significance of which, I believe, anyone who hasn't trained in a TMA with open hands will not appreciate. You can't do things like kick downed opponents, and even the ring itself is designed to allow practitioners to drop to their knees without injury.



^This

As I mentioned in my post, many of the elements of a TMA are removed in order to subscribe to the artificial rule set imposed in a competition. The mind set is also different.  In a MMA match, taking someone to the ground or being taken to the ground is part of the game.  It can be quite different in TMA training.  For example, in the context in which I train/teach, being taken to the ground is considered deadly force.  As a result, deadly force is authorized as a response.  This means taking any action/movement to cause great bodily harm up to and including death on the person so taking you to the ground.  Gouging the eyes, striking the throat, crushing the testicles, striking to or grasping the back of the neck/spine area is frowned upon generally.  This doesn't mean one is superior to the other in-an-of-themselves, only that they are two different things that occur in two different venues.  If the rules were changed, the results may change as well.


----------



## Buka

I believe the fight game to be sport specific. An analogy would be automobile racing. Jeff Gordon seems to be the guy in NASCAR, Doug Kallita is leading the rankings in NHRA Fuel dragsters, Scott Dixon in Indy style racing, Tom Kristensen won Le Mans nine times in his life and Bryan Morris is leading off-road carts racing circuit right now. None of them would come close to winning in each others sport, despite the fact they all drive really fast cars and are used to racing. And my guess is they're pretty good drivers in real life as well.

Same thing for the fight game in my opinion. Same thing for MMA guys and TMA guys. And for all of us and the folks we train with. I know a lot of guys who train MMA, but you won't be seeing them in the UFC anytime soon. I know a lot of traditional Martial Artists, but you won't see them winning any competitions that their club might compete in. I could go on about boxers, wrestlers and us American Karate bastards  but you know what I mean.

We sure all can sling the bull, though.


----------



## Argus

TSD Bean said:


> If I had to give a definitive answer, it would be because when you throw punches and kicks, you open yourself up to grabs, clinches, and throws. If someone's intent is to get you to the ground, out-maneuvering them is far easier said than done. A skilled grappler just needs to wait for you to throw something they can work with. For example, for a period of time in my classes I had a habit of catching the person's leg when they kicked. In fact, I wasn't always doing it on purpose, I'd just reflexively hook their leg before then could put it down. If my instructor allowed throws, takedowns would have been a no-brainer. Instead, because it was a TMA class, when I did it the match was stopped and we reset after I got chastised.
> 
> To truly have the upper hand against a grappler is very hard for someone who just knows standing martial arts. It isn't a simple thing to avoid, and every time you go for a strike you open yourself up to a counter offensive.



All that said, I do think that, as TSD Bean mentions here, many people who practice striking arts do not have enough familiarity with or appreciation for what grapplers can do. A lot of strikers seem to allow grapplers to get underneath them, and then are under the illusion that they can deliver effective strikes to the back of the head or neck while they're being uprooted and thrown to the ground. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## TSD Bean

Argus said:


> But the greatest difference, I think, is the fact that Traditional Martial Arts tend to deal more with "earnest" fighting, whereas sporting competition is much more of a "game" -- or, at least, the "game" is different in either case. Traditional Martial Arts _tend_ to deal with committed attacks against an opponent who is truly trying to get in your space quickly and hurt you. Your attacker does not have time to feel you out, and he has to decisively engage you or else you can simply walk or run away, or perhaps even draw or grab a weapon in the case of unarmed fighting.



I agree with the rest of your post but I do want to comment on this statement. Yes, MMA has distinct limitations due to it being sport. No option to retreat, restrictions on striking, etc, do differ from TMA to an extent. However, the reason for the disparity between grapplers and TMA practitioners itself lies in the idea that grappling isn't a necessary to those TMAs. Jackie Chan once criticized MMA for it's promotion of the "barbaric" tendency to ground and pound. To him, "honorable" TMAs wouldn't follow up a fall with such a thing, especially in sport. Earnest fighting would itself have to consider the what if. What do you do if someone throws you to the ground and starts beating on you? It happens all the time in real world scenarios. 

This is not to disagree with your point. The rules instated do handicap the efficiency of TMAs in the ring, just as it can infuriate me to watch some competitive TKD fighters walk around with their hands and their sides, because blocking with the elbow could break someone's foot. However, the attitude of 'earnest' fighting can itself be an intricate debate when you start to break down the philosophies behind a certain style. 

Working within the rules of the game, it's easy to see why grappling could have such a big advantage.


----------



## Hanzou

Argus said:


> It is also a matter of training, as some have mentioned. If you want to be a successful UFC fighter, are you going to do all of the extra work that is required to make a TMA work in the ring, or are you just going to go with proven methods that will yield more success in less time? If you care about winning, which you probably do, you'll go with the latter, and stick to conventional method. Competition, in this case, cuts down on diversity and ingenuity to some extent (or rather, I should say, focuses it along a narrow path), as it leads to very serious specialization.





Buka said:


> I believe the fight game to be sport specific. An analogy would be automobile racing. Jeff Gordon seems to be the guy in NASCAR, Doug Kallita is leading the rankings in NHRA Fuel dragsters, Scott Dixon in Indy style racing, Tom Kristensen won Le Mans nine times in his life and Bryan Morris is leading off-road carts racing circuit right now. None of them would come close to winning in each others sport, despite the fact they all drive really fast cars and are used to racing. And my guess is they're pretty good drivers in real life as well.
> 
> 
> Same thing for the fight game in my opinion. Same thing for MMA guys and TMA guys. And for all of us and the folks we train with. I know a lot of guys who train MMA, but you won't be seeing them in the UFC anytime soon. I know a lot of traditional Martial Artists, but you won't see them winning any competitions that their club might compete in. I could go on about boxers, wrestlers and us American Karate bastards  but you know what I mean.
> 
> 
> We sure all can sling the bull, though.





Well why doesn't TMA work in the ring by default? Why do I need to do extra work to make a fighting art work in an environment with light restrictions? If a TMA training method is to stop an adversary with a punch or a kick, what exactly is preventing this same fighter from doing it in the ring as opposed to the street? Does the inability to strike the neck or the groin render some TMA styles completely useless?

If we took this in reverse, would anyone here doubt that Floyd Mayweather could knock someone out in a streetfight, just like he can in the ring? Does anyone doubt that Rickson Gracie could choke out someone outside the cage as well as inside? Anyone think that Ronda Rousey couldn't throw some drunk a-hole to the ground and snap his arm? So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?


----------



## K-man

Argus said:


> All that said, I do think that, as TSD Bean mentions here, many people who practice striking arts do not have enough familiarity with or appreciation for what grapplers can do. A lot of strikers seem to allow grapplers to get underneath them, and then are under the illusion that they can deliver effective strikes to the back of the head or neck while they're being uprooted and thrown to the ground. It just doesn't work that way.


Depends if you train against being taken down.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKxEdCdBog
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvgw1qIqE0

Or is they are already in ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNDHodUISw
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?


Because MMA is God's gift to the world?
:hmm:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem. 

When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your 

- kick, 
- punch, 
- lock, 
- throw, 
- ground work, 
- ...


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Well why doesn't TMA work in the ring by default? Why do I need to do extra work to make a fighting art work in an environment with light restrictions? If a TMA training method is to stop an adversary with a punch or a kick, what exactly is preventing this same fighter from doing it in the ring as opposed to the street? Does the inability to strike the neck or the groin render some TMA styles completely useless?
> 
> If we took this in reverse, would anyone here doubt that Floyd Mayweather could knock someone out in a streetfight, just like he can in the ring? Does anyone doubt that Rickson Gracie could choke out someone outside the cage as well as inside? Anyone think that Ronda Rousey couldn't throw some drunk a-hole to the ground and snap his arm? So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?



I didn't realize we were talking about street fighting. But, okay, I agree that Mayweather could knock someone out in a street fight. But I think he'd get smoked in MMA. I know Rickson could choke out someone outside the cage, but he'd lose in a boxing match. I think Ronda could snap anyone's arm, anywhere.... and look damn good doing it, too. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?" I don't think sport arts translate to other sport fighting arts at all, which was my point in my last post. I get the feeling you are headed to the conclusion that a TMA person can't win in a street fight. Yes? No? Not applicable to this conversation?


----------



## Hanzou

Kong Soo Do said:


> ^This
> 
> As I mentioned in my post, many of the elements of a TMA are removed in order to subscribe to the artificial rule set imposed in a competition. The mind set is also different.  In a MMA match, taking someone to the ground or being taken to the ground is part of the game.  It can be quite different in TMA training.  For example, in the context in which I train/teach, being taken to the ground is considered deadly force.  As a result, deadly force is authorized as a response.  This means taking any action/movement to cause great bodily harm up to and including death on the person so taking you to the ground.  Gouging the eyes, striking the throat, crushing the testicles, striking to or grasping the back of the neck/spine area is frowned upon generally.  This doesn't mean one is superior to the other in-an-of-themselves, only that they are two different things that occur in two different venues.  If the rules were changed, the results may change as well.



I'm pretty sure all of that was allowed in Vale Tudo, and grappling styles still did extremely well.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> I didn't realize we were talking about street fighting. But, okay, I agree that Mayweather could knock someone out in a street fight. But I think he'd get smoked in MMA. I know Rickson could choke out someone outside the cage, but he'd lose in a boxing match.



Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.

Am I wrong?



> I'm not sure what you mean by "So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?" I don't think sport arts translate to other sport fighting arts at all, which was my point in my last post. I get the feeling you are headed to the conclusion that a TMA person can't win in a street fight. Yes? No? Not applicable to this conversation?



Well no. I was merely pointing out that martial athletes are good fighters outside the cage as well as in. If you're a good fighter, you're a good fighter period. If the goal of a TMA is to develop a good fighter, why would a couple of rules hinder their abilities?

Again, extreme rule sets like Boxing, TKD, Judo are understandable, but we don't even see strong TMA representation in MMA/NHB where the rule sets aren't all that prohibitive for martial arts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Another reason is TMA may attract different kind of people which is different from those people that MMA may attract. 

The students in a 

- Taiji class are different from the students in a Sanda/Sanshou class. 
- BJJ class are different from the students in a Judo class. 

If you don't want to get

- hit on the head, you may take Taiji instead of Sanda/Sanshou.
- thrown on the ground, you may take BJJ instead of Judo. 

Since MMA all require to be

- hit on the head,
- thrown to the ground,

People that are interested in MMA may just be a special group of people. Many good wrestlers have good wrestling skill, since they don't want to be hit on the head, you just won't see them in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Depends if you train against being taken down.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKxEdCdBog
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvgw1qIqE0



I think the sprawl is a wee bit more reliable than those counters.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmfM357Sdw



> Or is they are already in ..
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNDHodUISw



That's more like it.


----------



## Argus

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem.
> 
> When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your
> 
> - kick,
> - punch,
> - lock,
> - throw,
> - ground work,
> - ...



Where is the "dislike" button?

I could not disagree more. Either you do not understand the purpose of forms, or you do not believe that training has any value, and that we should only spar. I do not understand.

Conscious habit forming is essential. That is where you learn to make your techniques and principles viable habits. Proper form training is to allow for the instinctual application of correct technique without having to stop and think about what you're doing. If you don't believe in forming good habits and applying good technique, there's no sense in practicing a martial art.


----------



## Argus

TSD Bean said:


> I agree with the rest of your post but I do want to comment on this statement. Yes, MMA has distinct limitations due to it being sport. No option to retreat, restrictions on striking, etc, do differ from TMA to an extent. However, the reason for the disparity between grapplers and TMA practitioners itself lies in the idea that grappling isn't a necessary to those TMAs. Jackie Chan once criticized MMA for it's promotion of the "barbaric" tendency to ground and pound. To him, "honorable" TMAs wouldn't follow up a fall with such a thing, especially in sport. Earnest fighting would itself have to consider the what if. What do you do if someone throws you to the ground and starts beating on you? It happens all the time in real world scenarios.
> 
> This is not to disagree with your point. The rules instated do handicap the efficiency of TMAs in the ring, just as it can infuriate me to watch some competitive TKD fighters walk around with their hands and their sides, because blocking with the elbow could break someone's foot. However, the attitude of 'earnest' fighting can itself be an intricate debate when you start to break down the philosophies behind a certain style.
> 
> Working within the rules of the game, it's easy to see why grappling could have such a big advantage.



I wouldn't say it is necessary in all cases, though I recognize your point.

Generally, in many TMA's, it's considered a mistake to follow an opponent to the ground, and a bigger one to be knocked to the ground yourself. The thinking goes that you should learn to stay on your feet, and if you knock someone else down, the fight is over as far as you're concerned anyway -- you're free to leave.

Now, I absolutely agree that it's good to learn what to do if you get taken to the ground. And, some TMA's do even cover what to do if you're taken down or fall -- to a limited degree. But ground fighting isn't their focus, because it's generally considered something to be avoided.

I would consider the example you gave in regards to TKD to be a result of sportive training methods, and not an example of TMA approaches, though. Not to say that TKD can't be practiced as a TMA, but many schools tend to be very sport focused, and TKD competitions have rulesets that only really allow for (or reward) kicking.

Heck, even Muay Thai's low round house shin-kicks can result in some nasty injuries in the ring. It's one thing to train with shin protectors all day, and an entirely different one to swing your shin into someone else's, regardless of how much conditioning you've done. Someone recently posted footage of a UFC fighter completely snapping his lower leg this way. The same could be said for practicing your punches with gloves all of the time, or any other training equipment or convention you become overly accustomed to. These things can be a real disadvantage, whether in the real world, or just switching to a different competitive setting.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Well no. I was merely pointing out that martial athletes are good fighters outside the cage as well as in. If you're a good fighter, you're a good fighter period. If the goal of a TMA is to develop a good fighter, why would a couple of rules hinder their abilities?
> 
> Again, extreme rule sets like Boxing, TKD, Judo are understandable, but we don't even see strong TMA representation in MMA/NHB where the rule sets aren't all that prohibitive for martial arts.



I'm not trying to split hairs here, nor am I trying to be a jerk (my wife says it comes naturally to me, though) but Rickson is as much a Traditional Martial Artist as I know. As is his brother Relson. (the only Gracies I know personally) They train in one and only one style of Martial Arts. I'm sure they have experience with artists of other arts, as I'm pretty sure all TMA guys do, but they train in their art, and only their art. I think of BJJ as a traditional Martial Art. Probably the best one I know, but that's just me. And my opinion.

I'm not sure the goal of a TMA is to develop good fighters, there's more to it than that. However, I do believe the goal of an MMA is strictly regulated to develop good fighters in MMA. But, again, I believe it's all sport specific. If I were planning on competing in MMA - and believe it or not Jorge Rivera offered me a fight in Puerto Rico when I was 54 - I would ONLY go train in an MMA gym. Heck, I wouldn't even train in my own gym. Not because my gym is bad, but it's not geared towards MMA competition. I'd go to my buddy Shawn's gym, who's a better trainer than I am and he has a _really_ nice cage.

As for any martial art being a complete system, I have never believed that to be true. I'd even be willing to bet your life on it. Before the first UFC came along most martial artists didn't know squat about real grappling. Myself not only included, I'm probably the front runner in naiveté in that regard. It's one of the things I will always love about the UFC, it opened a lot of eyes, it helped the Martial Arts in general more than any single thing in my lifetime. And that's saying a lot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Argus said:


> Either you do not understand the purpose of forms, or you do not believe that training has any value,...


I learned my 1st from when I was 7 years old. That was 60 years ago. I have learned more than 50 forms in my life. I understand the purpose of forms, but I still do not believe that form training has any "combat" value (it has health value and no argument on that).

The following training program is much more effective. 

One can use

- partner training to "develop" skill,
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill,
- equipment training to "enhance" skill,
- solo drill training to "polish" skill.

I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.


----------



## Blindside

Argus said:


> Where is the "dislike" button?
> 
> I could not disagree more. Either you do not understand the purpose of forms, or you do not believe that training has any value, and that we should only spar. I do not understand.
> 
> Conscious habit forming is essential. That is where you learn to make your techniques and principles viable habits. Proper form training is to allow for the instinctual application of correct technique without having to stop and think about what you're doing. If you don't believe in forming good habits and applying good technique, there's no sense in practicing a martial art.



I do see the need for forms work, but I think it is often overdone.  I also think that if the practitioner does not know the actual application of the movement, much of the repetition is wasted.  You give me a technique so that I can practice it in the air to get the mechanics down, practice it on a target so I can get the power generation in, practice on an opponent so I can see application, and then practice it against increasingly less cooperative partners, and finally against completely uncooperative partners, and I will be happy with the training method.  Most TMAs never get to that last part, those that do will generally produce respectable fighters.


----------



## Hanzou

Buka said:


> I'm not trying to split hairs here, nor am I trying to be a jerk (my wife says it comes naturally to me, though) but Rickson is as much a Traditional Martial Artist as I know. As is his brother Relson. (the only Gracies I know personally) They train in one and only one style of Martial Arts. I'm sure they have experience with artists of other arts, as I'm pretty sure all TMA guys do, but they train in their art, and only their art. I think of BJJ as a traditional Martial Art. Probably the best one I know, but that's just me. And my opinion.



I used to train at a Relson Gjj school, and I agree that Relson and  Rickson are moving more towards a TMA slant than other Bjj schools. I  was actually going to make a thread about that in the Bjj forum, but  decided to start this one first. I love what both of them are doing, and their philosophy about Bjj being more than guard jumping and butt scooting.

That said, there's a pretty big difference with how a Relson/Rickson Gracie school does MA and a TMA school does MA. Rickson and Relson want to move Bjj towards its roots, which is simpler, more brutal, and a lot less pretty. They're not advocating the practice of using 16th century farm equipment, and dozens of pre-arranged forms.



> As for any martial art being a complete system, I have never believed that to be true. I'd even be willing to bet your life on it.



Well that's fairly morbid.  I believe the goal of most TMA systems is to offer an answer for as many situations as possible. I find it hard to believe that a system as old as Wing Chun for example doesn't offer an answer against a grappling opponent.


----------



## Argus

Blindside said:


> I do see the need for forms work, but I think it is often overdone.  I also think that if the practitioner does not know the actual application of the movement, much of the repetition is wasted.  You give me a technique so that I can practice it in the air to get the mechanics down, practice it on a target so I can get the power generation in, practice on an opponent so I can see application, and then practice it against increasingly less cooperative partners, and finally against completely uncooperative partners, and I will be happy with the training method.  Most TMAs never get to that last part, those that do will generally produce respectable fighters.



Absolutely. But that experience should then transfer directly into your solo form practice, where it will stay fresh in your mind and body.

I spend a lot of time training at home, and I find that practicing and refining my forms make a huge difference when I go back to school and practice with live partners, both resisting and not. Forms are where you refine and correct your habit. Whenever I find that something isn't quite working right for me, I go back to my form and refine or correct it, and see real results the next time I apply it.

I just think that many practitioners just go the motions of their forms, without really utilizing them as a training method.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.
> 
> Am I wrong?


You are only wrong because of the way you are classifying TMAs.  This is my arguement all along. Most forms of karate practised in Japan, as distinct from Okinawa are modified. They may be 'traditional' in that they have been around for a reasonable time but they are totally different to their traditional Okinawan roots. These styles of karate have developed into competitive styles such as Shotokan, Goju Kai and Kyokushin. They have developed to a specific rule set just the same as most TKD or any other sport and hey have developed into systems that rely almost exclusively on striking and kicking. The original styles of karate are complete systems of fighting, including grappling, just not so much of the ground work.

if you were to exempt some of the older styles of martial arts, like Okinawan karate, from your definition then I would agree with a lot of your arguement. 



Hanzou said:


> I think the sprawl is a wee bit more reliable than those counters.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmfM357Sdw
> 
> That's more like it.


Interesting, this one. Herein lies my arguement. This sprawl defence against the shoot is fine for competition and it is part of what I teach. But in this instance the attacker has his head and neck exposed for a downward elbow strike, a technique that is banned in MMA. In my training, especially against weapons, the point of the elbow is my 'go to' preference. Given that target, bearing in mind that it is unlikely your street thug is a highly trained martial artist, anyone training in my style of martial art should have no trouble dealing with a shoot.

And of course my comment on this stems from Angus' mention of allowing grapplers to get under your defence to enable them to achieve the takedown.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> Well that's fairly morbid.  I believe the goal of most TMA systems is to offer an answer for as many situations as possible. I find it hard to believe that a system as old as Wing Chun for example doesn't offer an answer against a grappling opponent.




When it comes to most TCMA they have basic answers to grappling or take downs but never concentrated on advancing it since rolling around on a battle field isn't the smartest thing to do. 

The main answer to takedowns and grappling is their weapon training.

Don't get me wrong I love grappling arts and consider it part of my foundation along side with my TMA.


----------



## Steve

Kung fu works if it's trained against resistance and with a mind toward the ring.   Cung le is a badass and I wish he'd made the transition to Mma as a younger man.    But Kung fu alone won't work.   You have to supplement the tma with a another tma, either cacc or freestyle wrestling, Bjj or judo.  

Same with Karate, tkd, boxing or any other striking art.  

The converse is also true.   

Personally, the biggest impediment is mindset.  My opinion is that it is common for people who train in some styles to seek out their holes.   And uncommon in others.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> You are only wrong because of the way you are classifying TMAs.  This is my arguement all along. Most forms of karate practised in Japan, as distinct from Okinawa are modified. They may be 'traditional' in that they have been around for a reasonable time but they are totally different to their traditional Okinawan roots. These styles of karate have developed into competitive styles such as Shotokan, Goju Kai and Kyokushin. They have developed to a specific rule set just the same as most TKD or any other sport and hey have developed into systems that rely almost exclusively on striking and kicking. The original styles of karate are complete systems of fighting, including grappling, just not so much of the ground work.
> 
> if you were to exempt some of the older styles of martial arts, like Okinawan karate, from your definition then I would agree with a lot of your arguement.



My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.




> Interesting, this one. Herein lies my arguement. This sprawl defence against the shoot is fine for competition and it is part of what I teach. But in this instance the attacker has his head and neck exposed for a downward elbow strike, a technique that is banned in MMA. In my training, especially against weapons, the point of the elbow is my 'go to' preference. Given that target, bearing in mind that it is unlikely your street thug is a highly trained martial artist, anyone training in my style of martial art should have no trouble dealing with a shoot.
> 
> And of course my comment on this stems from Angus' mention of allowing grapplers to get under your defence to enable them to achieve the takedown.



I have no problem with a takedown defense like that. My issue is the idea of defending a shoot with a kick to the face. I think that's a pretty laughable TD defense. I didnt get a detailed look at the second one, but that looked iffy as well.

I would also point out that (here in the states at least) wrestling and American football are very common and popular sports taken up by the male population in secondary school and college. Football is the most popular sport in the US by a country mile. Thus, there's a higher than normal chance of running into someone who is highly trained in tackles and takedowns here in the US.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.



I wouldn't say thats 100% true since in my opinion forms are the encyclopedia of techniques that give you the tools to use in your sparring or real life self defense scenario. (In particular with weapon forms) 

As you already said they are great health benefits etc but they do also teach you the proper structure of how your techniques should be done as well. 

Now of course if you don't apply the techniques from form training while sparring or with some live resistance training they almost become pointless from a combative point of view. 

They are also overdone in many TMA schools putting combative training and technique application on the side burner unfortunately.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

ST1Doppelganger said:


> but they do also teach you the proper structure of how your techniques should be done as well.


You won't need form if you just train drills. Your drills may come from your forms but it doesn't have to be. After you have leaned a form, you take it apart, understand it, and then put it back together any way you want as long as it makes sense to you. The best lesson that I have learned in my life is one day my teacher told me that, "Form was designed for teaching and leaning only. It was not designed for training."

You use "partner drill" to develop your skill. You will learn your 

- body alignment,
- power generation, 
- footwork,
- ...

at this stage.






you then train "solo drill" at home when partner is not available. Since you have already developed your skill, you just use your solo drill to "polish" some minor detail that you may not pay enough attention when you train with partner. 

Since your "solo drill" is just your "partner drill without partner", when you have learned the "partner drills", you will get "solo drills" by default. If you link your "solo drills" in a sequence, you will have your form. This form that you have created will truly belong to you.






I had created the following form many years ago. Do I train it? No. Do I ask my students to train it, No. It just serves as a text book, no more and no less. The first 13 moves are the 13 postures. Since the order of those postures are not important, there exist no value to train those 13 moves in sequence. The rest of 24 moves has many combos in it. It makes sense to train

- combo A as move 1, move 2,
- combo B as move 3, move 4, and move 5.

Since combo A and combo B has no logic connection, to train combo A and combo B together as move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5 is not necessary.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.
> 
> I have no problem with a takedown defense like that. My issue is the idea of defending a shoot with a kick to the face. I think that's a pretty laughable TD defense. I didnt get a detailed look at the second one, but that looked iffy as well.
> 
> I would also point out that (here in the states at least) wrestling and American football are very common and popular sports taken up by the male population in secondary school and college. Football is the most popular sport in the US by a country mile. Thus, there's a higher than normal chance of running into someone who is highly trained in tackles and takedowns here in the US.


I think we have more in common than I initially thought. If you are basing your ideas on what you have seen in the styles above, I would have to agree. I don't mind calling them 'traditional' but like in George Orwell's '_Animal Farm_' some animals are more equal than others. 

I wouldn't be relying on kicking some one in the face to prevent a shoot but a quick thrusting front kick is standard fare in Krav against someone rushing in. Same to some extent in our karate. As I have said, you train all sorts of techniques then rely on an instinctive response when the brown stuff makes contact with the rotating blades.

The second one, the neck crank, is iffy if the attack is already taking you back but in that instance it is also impossible to sprawl. Either way, you need to get at least one foot back to brace.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem.
> 
> When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your
> 
> - kick,
> - punch,
> - lock,
> - throw,
> - ground work,
> - ...


And I'll say that this is proof that you have never been shown how to use your forms in the way they were designed.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I learned my 1st from when I was 7 years old. That was 60 years ago. I have learned more than 50 forms in my life. I understand the purpose of forms, but I still do not believe that form training has any "combat" value (it has health value and no argument on that).
> 
> The following training program is much more effective.
> 
> One can use
> 
> - partner training to "develop" skill,
> - sparring/wrestling to "test" skill,
> - equipment training to "enhance" skill,
> - solo drill training to "polish" skill.
> 
> I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.


Learning 50 forms is like having 50 Zip folders on your computer desktop. You have bought the packages but never opened them. Twenty five years ago I knew about 25 kata and reckoned I was doing well. Twenty five years later I know about three and am working on another couple. Knowing how to perform a kata without knowing how to unpack it and use it as a fighting system is practising a series of techniques. Even using small segments of a kata to make a drill is barely scratching the surface. That is why many masters only learned two or three kata in their entire lifetime. I trained for decades without understanding the value of kata. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You won't need form if you just train drills. Your drills may come from your forms but it doesn't have to be. After you have leaned a form, you take it apart, understand it, and then put it back together any way you want as long as it makes sense to you. The best lesson that I have learned in my life is one day my teacher told me that, "Form was designed for teaching and leaning only. It was not designed for training."
> 
> You use "partner drill" to develop your skill. You will learn your
> 
> - body alignment,
> - power generation,
> - footwork,
> - ...
> 
> at this stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you then train "solo drill" at home when partner is not available. Since you have already developed your skill, you just use your solo drill to "polish" some minor detail that you may not pay enough attention when you train with partner.
> 
> Since your "solo drill" is just your "partner drill without partner", when you have learned the "partner drills", you will get "solo drills" by default. If you link your "solo drills" in a sequence, you will have your form. This form that you have created will truly belong to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had created the following form many years ago. Do I train it? No. Do I ask my students to train it, No. It just serves as a text book, no more and no less. The first 13 moves are the 13 postures. Since the order of those postures are not important, there exist no value to train those 13 moves in sequence. The rest of 24 moves has many combos in it. It makes sense to train
> 
> - combo A as move 1, move 2,
> - combo B as move 3, move 4, and move 5.
> 
> Since combo A and combo B has no logic connection, to train combo A and combo B together as move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5 is not necessary.


No one 'needs' forms. Boxers don't have forms, wrestlers don't have forms, MMA fighters don't have forms. They don't need forms for what they do. Some whales have teeth, some whales don't. That doesn't invalidate either species. Baleen whales don't need teeth, orcas would die without them. Why do you think we are having this discussion about TMAs. If people knew what was in their kata then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only discussion would be how the Gracies and others improved the systems by adding the ground component.

So I would say that your teacher was mistaken with what he told you, although what he told you was pretty much the same as my teachers told me many years ago. They were mistaken too.

As to the form that you created. It does what you wanted it to do, but it is nothing like the forms that have been passed down through generations. You said it yourself, it is nothing more than a text book. My forms might look like a text book, if you just look at the cover, but once you open the book it is a total fighting system. That is why our training is now highly focused on kata and although I can perform many, I only know a few.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> And I'll say that this is proof that you have never been shown how to use your forms in the way they were designed.
> 
> Learning 50 forms is like having 50 Zip folders on your computer desktop. You have bought the packages but never opened them. Twenty five years ago I knew about 25 kata and reckoned I was doing well. Twenty five years later I know about three and am working on another couple. Knowing how to perform a kata without knowing how to unpack it and use it as a fighting system is practising a series of techniques. Even using small segments of a kata to make a drill is barely scratching the surface. That is why many masters only learned two or three kata in their entire lifetime. I trained for decades without understanding the value of kata.
> 
> No one 'needs' forms. Boxers don't have forms, wrestlers don't have forms, MMA fighters don't have forms. They don't need forms for what they do. Some whales have teeth, some whales don't. That doesn't invalidate either species. Baleen whales don't need teeth, orcas would die without them. Why do you think we are having this discussion about TMAs. If people knew what was in their kata then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only discussion would be how the Gracies and others improved the systems by adding the ground component.
> 
> So I would say that your teacher was mistaken with what he told you, although what he told you was pretty much the same as my teachers told me many years ago. They were mistaken too.
> 
> As to the form that you created. It does what you wanted it to do, but it is nothing like the forms that have been passed down through generations. You said it yourself, it is nothing more than a text book. My forms might look like a text book, if you just look at the cover, but once you open the book it is a total fighting system. That is why our training is now highly focused on kata and although I can perform many, I only know a few.
> :asian:



What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken?  Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## drop bear

TSD Bean said:


> If I had to give a definitive answer, it would be because when you throw punches and kicks, you open yourself up to grabs, clinches, and throws. If someone's intent is to get you to the ground, out-maneuvering them is far easier said than done. A skilled grappler just needs to wait for you to throw something they can work with. For example, for a period of time in my classes I had a habit of catching the person's leg when they kicked. In fact, I wasn't always doing it on purpose, I'd just reflexively hook their leg before then could put it down. If my instructor allowed throws, takedowns would have been a no-brainer. Instead, because it was a TMA class, when I did it the match was stopped and we reset after I got chastised.
> 
> To truly have the upper hand against a grappler is very hard for someone who just knows standing martial arts. It isn't a simple thing to avoid, and every time you go for a strike you open yourself up to a counter offensive.



But grappling is not exactly a new idea either. I wonder why they left it out?

Look at the re created medievil sword fighting. It is not like that don't have the opportunity to grapple to their advantage.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I didn't realize we were talking about street fighting. But, okay, I agree that Mayweather could knock someone out in a street fight. But I think he'd get smoked in MMA. I know Rickson could choke out someone outside the cage, but he'd lose in a boxing match. I think Ronda could snap anyone's arm, anywhere.... and look damn good doing it, too.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?" I don't think sport arts translate to other sport fighting arts at all, which was my point in my last post. I get the feeling you are headed to the conclusion that a TMA person can't win in a street fight. Yes? No? Not applicable to this conversation?



Can MMA translate to other competitions? My coach won a no GI bjj comp. Wrestled them to death. His coach some some sort of open submission thing.

Gsp sparring Wayne parr.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LvowMXlPn4o

One of the reasons I still believe is that mmaers still do tma.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Depends if you train against being taken down.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKxEdCdBog
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvgw1qIqE0
> 
> Or is they are already in ..
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNDHodUISw
> :asian:



Why are you trying to re invent the wheel there?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> No one 'needs' forms. Boxers don't have forms, wrestlers don't have forms, MMA fighters don't have forms. They don't need forms for what they do.


Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.

I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.
> 
> I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").




Judo kata.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7vdLP71BAI


----------



## Hanzou

ST1Doppelganger said:


> When it comes to most TCMA they have basic answers to grappling or take downs but never concentrated on advancing it since rolling around on a battle field isn't the smartest thing to do.
> 
> The main answer to takedowns and grappling is their weapon training.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I love grappling arts and consider it part of my foundation along side with my TMA.



Well not all martial arts were created for the battlefield. I can name several Kung Fu and Karate styles that were not created for the battlefield, but were created for personal protection. It amazes me that they wouldn't have an answer for grapplers. It also seems weird that not being allowed to do certain "dirty attacks" would render their art useless.

When you see Rickson Gracie in Vale Tudo, its truly amazing how much larger his opponents were than he was. These guys were allowed to strike him, gouge his eyes, or grab his balls, yet he still prevailed.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



Context and emphasis. They're not designed for it, they don't care about it, it is nothing to do with the way they're set up.

You're still wanting to apply a single context and meaning to all systems, and it just doesn't work that way. You might as well as why doesn't everyone learn French because you had a great holiday in Paris&#8230; ignoring that other people don't want to go to France, but want to go to South Aftrica&#8230; or Japan&#8230; or Bali&#8230; or not go anywhere at all.



Blindside said:


> The short answer is training method.  The early UFCs certainly highlighted the ground grappling range, and that wasn't just with regard to TMA, you had legit kickboxers and boxers (combat sports specialists) who just hadn't studied the range losing as well.
> 
> Groups that train their techniques against resisting opponents are generally going to do better than those groups that don't.



Yep, but you have to look at why that training method is chosen&#8230; realistically, the training method of MMA is geared towards success and application in MMA&#8230; non-MMA training isn't&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?



Why do you think they can't?

Here's the thing&#8230; there's a big difference between applying such a tactic in a ring, which is designed for a competition with a focus or emphasis on ground work, and is therefore softer, and slower than other surfaces, against an opponent who knows you're going to be actively fighting them, and applying it in the outside world&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Well why doesn't TMA work in the ring by default? Why do I need to do extra work to make a fighting art work in an environment with light restrictions? If a TMA training method is to stop an adversary with a punch or a kk, what exactly is preventing this same fighter from doing it in the ring as opposed to the street? Does the inability to strike the neck or the groin render some TMA styles completely useless?
> 
> If we took this in reverse, would anyone here doubt that Floyd Mayweather could knock someone out in a streetfight, just like he can in the ring? Does anyone doubt that Rickson Gracie could choke out someone outside the cage as well as inside? Anyone think that Ronda Rousey couldn't throw some drunk a-hole to the ground and snap his arm? So why can the "sport arts" translate to various applications, but a TMA cannot?



Because fighting ain't fighting. There are huge discrepancies between different types/forms of conflict and fighting, and no single form addresses, or even attempts to address, all of them&#8230; or even many of them&#8230; let alone addresses them equally.



K-man said:


> Depends if you train against being taken down.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKxEdCdBog
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TRvgw1qIqE0
> 
> Or is they are already in ..
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNDHodUISw
> :asian:



Yeah&#8230; gotta say, mate, I'm not fond of any of those&#8230; but more importantly, are we classing those as "TMA's"?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll say the "solo form training" is the major problem.
> 
> When you learn a form, it will become your burden for the rest of your life. The day that you throw away your forms, the day that you will be free. You can then concentrate on your
> 
> - kick,
> - punch,
> - lock,
> - throw,
> - ground work,
> - ...



"Burden"? "Free"? I recognise the words, but this makes no sense&#8230; 

In other words, this is completely wrong, and misses every single reason for forms existing. They aren't to teach technique&#8230; they're to teach tactical application of technique. Your approach is missing a lot&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Well yes, because Mayweather would have to deal with grappling, and Rickson wouldn't be allowed to grapple. However, NHB rules don't limit something like Kung Fu the way boxing rules would limit Rickson Gracie. Also, we all know that Boxing is heavily limited to hand techniques. TMAs are supposed to be complete systems of fighting, so they should cover all the bases, including grappling defense.
> 
> Am I wrong?



Yes. In almost every way possible. 

TMA's are not "supposed to be complete systems of fighting"&#8230; I have no idea where you got that leap of illogic from&#8230; there's no rule or idea that they should "cover all the bases"&#8230; that, realistically, is a fallacy of modern systems&#8230; including MMA&#8230; which, itself, is missing huge areas. 



Hanzou said:


> Well no. I was merely pointing out that martial athletes are good fighters outside the cage as well as in. If you're a good fighter, you're a good fighter period. If the goal of a TMA is to develop a good fighter, why would a couple of rules hinder their abilities?
> 
> Again, extreme rule sets like Boxing, TKD, Judo are understandable, but we don't even see strong TMA representation in MMA/NHB where the rule sets aren't all that prohibitive for martial arts.



I train very traditional systems&#8230; how do you think I'd go in a true no-holds-barred situation, a real "no rules" contest&#8230;?

Realistically, though, you're still missing 99% of the reality of anything outside of your experience&#8230; which is fine&#8230; but you might want to start listening to those who do know this area a bit better than you do&#8230; the reality is that you simply can't use a single broad brush for all "TMA's"&#8230; they have far more differences than similarities, and far, far more than you seem to realise.



Hanzou said:


> I think the sprawl is a wee bit more reliable than those counters.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmfM357Sdw
> 
> That's more like it.



I was actually explaining this defence to my guys a month or so back&#8230; and pointing out why we'd never consider such an action. In fact, we'd do something that you'd be told to never do in a competitive form&#8230; because it makes more sense, and is far safer (in our context) than a "sprawl" in this form&#8230; 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I learned my 1st from when I was 7 years old. That was 60 years ago. I have learned more than 50 forms in my life. I understand the purpose of forms, but I still do not believe that form training has any "combat" value (it has health value and no argument on that).
> 
> The following training program is much more effective.
> 
> One can use
> 
> - partner training to "develop" skill,
> - sparring/wrestling to "test" skill,
> - equipment training to "enhance" skill,
> - solo drill training to "polish" skill.
> 
> I can write a book about "why form training is a big waste of time from the combat point of view". But that will have nothing to do with this thread discussion.



Please don't. You'd be wrong before you started the first word&#8230; and we already have Antony Cummins doing that enough&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I used to train at a Relson Gjj school, and I agree that Relson and  Rickson are moving more towards a TMA slant than other Bjj schools. I  was actually going to make a thread about that in the Bjj forum, but  decided to start this one first. I love what both of them are doing, and their philosophy about Bjj being more than guard jumping and butt scooting.
> 
> That said, there's a pretty big difference with how a Relson/Rickson Gracie school does MA and a TMA school does MA. Rickson and Relson want to move Bjj towards its roots, which is simpler, more brutal, and a lot less pretty. They're not advocating the practice of using 16th century farm equipment, and dozens of pre-arranged forms.



What do you think a TMA actually is? Cause, honestly&#8230; this is just a list of poorly understood stereotypes, with little basis or insight, let alone reality.



Hanzou said:


> Well that's fairly morbid.  I believe the goal of most TMA systems is to offer an answer for as many situations as possible. I find it hard to believe that a system as old as Wing Chun for example doesn't offer an answer against a grappling opponent.



You're missing the context (oh, and I'm assuming you're also using the deeply flawed definition of grappling = ground fighting, yeah?). Still.



Steve said:


> Kung fu works if it's trained against resistance and with a mind toward the ring.   Cung le is a badass and I wish he'd made the transition to Mma as a younger man.    But Kung fu alone won't work.   You have to supplement the tma with a another tma, either cacc or freestyle wrestling, Bjj or judo.
> 
> Same with Karate, tkd, boxing or any other striking art.
> 
> The converse is also true.
> 
> Personally, the biggest impediment is mindset.  My opinion is that it is common for people who train in some styles to seek out their holes.   And uncommon in others.



"Impediment", Steve? No&#8230; not an impediment at all&#8230; anymore than the mindset of focusing on ground work is an impediment for BJJ practitioners&#8230; I mean, it really doesn't help them be good swordsmen&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.



Why aren't they traditional stylists?



Hanzou said:


> I have no problem with a takedown defense like that. My issue is the idea of defending a shoot with a kick to the face. I think that's a pretty laughable TD defense. I didnt get a detailed look at the second one, but that looked iffy as well.



To be honest, I agree with this&#8230; for a range of reasons&#8230; including that it only really works if the attacker keeps his head/upper body pretty upright, and is hesitant as he comes in&#8230; the second one would be quite a handful if the attacker didn't stop as soon as the defence started as well, for the record&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I would also point out that (here in the states at least) wrestling and American football are very common and popular sports taken up by the male population in secondary school and college. Football is the most popular sport in the US by a country mile. Thus, there's a higher than normal chance of running into someone who is highly trained in tackles and takedowns here in the US.



True&#8230; which is part of the culture there&#8230; and then influences the forms of violence found (the idea of one guy grabbing around the waist of the other, lifting them, and either slamming them, or running them backwards, is far more common in the US than here&#8230, which is starting to get into the idea of differing contexts&#8230; 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You won't need form if you just train drills. Your drills may come from your forms but it doesn't have to be. After you have leaned a form, you take it apart, understand it, and then put it back together any way you want as long as it makes sense to you. The best lesson that I have learned in my life is one day my teacher told me that, "Form was designed for teaching and leaning only. It was not designed for training."
> 
> You use "partner drill" to develop your skill. You will learn your
> 
> - body alignment,
> - power generation,
> - footwork,
> - ...
> 
> at this stage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you then train "solo drill" at home when partner is not available. Since you have already developed your skill, you just use your solo drill to "polish" some minor detail that you may not pay enough attention when you train with partner.
> 
> Since your "solo drill" is just your "partner drill without partner", when you have learned the "partner drills", you will get "solo drills" by default. If you link your "solo drills" in a sequence, you will have your form. This form that you have created will truly belong to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had created the following form many years ago. Do I train it? No. Do I ask my students to train it, No. It just serves as a text book, no more and no less. The first 13 moves are the 13 postures. Since the order of those postures are not important, there exist no value to train those 13 moves in sequence. The rest of 24 moves has many combos in it. It makes sense to train
> 
> - combo A as move 1, move 2,
> - combo B as move 3, move 4, and move 5.
> 
> Since combo A and combo B has no logic connection, to train combo A and combo B together as move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5 is not necessary.



Uh&#8230; okay&#8230; that's not a form. It's a string of movements. If you think that's what a "form" is, then you really never learnt any&#8230; you only learnt mechanical sequences.



Steve said:


> What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken?  Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?



He's not&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> But grappling is not exactly a new idea either. I wonder why they left it out?
> 
> Look at the re created medievil sword fighting. It is not like that don't have the opportunity to grapple to their advantage.



What makes you think it's not there? (Again, I'm using grappling to actually mean "grappling"&#8230; not "ground fighting"&#8230; but even so, the question stands. Of course, if you're thinking of that joke of an MMA undercard with the armour and weapons that you posted a little while back&#8230; I'm not touching that mess&#8230



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.



Judo has lots of "forms".

Itsutsu no Kata - 5 forms.

Koshiki no Kata - 21 forms in two sections.

Kime no Kata - 20 forms in 2 categories, four sections.

Ju no Kata - 15 forms in three sections.

Nage no Kata - 16 forms in five sections (shown by drop bear in the previous post).

Katame no Kata - 4 forms.

Goshin no Kata - 21 forms in five sections.

Go no Sen no Kata - 12 forms in three sections.

Go no Kata - 10 forms.

In addition to the above, there are many more forms found in various sections, such as Nage Ura no Kata, developed by Mifune, Joshi Goshinho (Women's Defence), Renhoko (arresting techniques), and more.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> "Impediment", Steve? No not an impediment at all anymore than the mindset of focusing on ground work is an impediment for BJJ practitioners I mean, it really doesn't help them be good swordsmen


Yes, Chris.  Impediment... Chris.  Ellipses... Much?

Some styles encourage exploration and testing outside of the style.  Others don't.   A Bjj practitioner would say, "man, if I want to be a good swordsman, I should seek out some instruction in a style that specializes in swordplay."  

Many who self identify as TMA'ist would say, "what I'm learning is fine.  Just ask me and I'll tell you."

Cung le was a sanda guy but I would say he's less like a TMA'ist than a boxer who is so invested in his skills and ego that he's afraid to acknowledge his skill gaps.  Tma is a mindset that discourages exploration, innovation and independent validation of skill development.  



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker

What I meant was that it's only an impediment if you're looking for the training to be designed for something it's not&#8230; similar to the idea that studying French in an impediment to learning Japanese.

In other words, if a system is in no way concerned with being involved in MMA, not gearing themselves to MMA in their training isn't an impediment. It's simply a different approach to a different situation and context.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'd vehemently disagree with the idea that traditional martial arts discourage exploration, independent validation of skill development, and so on&#8230; it just might not be in a form that you recognise.


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou said:


> My only issue with that is Korean and Japanese karate practitioners also consider themselves traditional stylists.



Indeed, how can I call myself a traditional stylist when I train Wado Ryu, an art that is a fairly recent invention? 

Simple, we haven`t thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Wado`s roots in okinawa, china and japanese ju jitsu have not been forgotten and those are reflected in our training every day.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> What if your instructors and his instructors aren't mistaken?  Isn't it possible that you're mistaken?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


With what I saw first hand, and trained, in Okinawa, no.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Yes, Chris.  Impediment... Chris.  Ellipses... Much?
> 
> Some styles encourage exploration and testing outside of the style.  Others don't.   A Bjj practitioner would say, "man, if I want to be a good swordsman, I should seek out some instruction in a style that specializes in swordplay."
> 
> Many who self identify as TMA'ist would say, "what I'm learning is fine.  Just ask me and I'll tell you."
> 
> Cung le was a sanda guy but I would say he's less like a TMA'ist than a boxer who is so invested in his skills and ego that he's afraid to acknowledge his skill gaps.  Tma is a mindset that discourages exploration, innovation and independent validation of skill development.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Cross training in line with x principles. I have read this as a theory before. So if I did karate but wanted to grapple the grappling has to fit in the Tennant's of karate. Rather than just work on its own merits.

Like your bjj guy who learns sword fighting but demands it includes butt flopping.

This is why anti grapple is generally so universally awful.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> What I meant was that it's only an impediment if you're looking for the training to be designed for something it's not&#8230; similar to the idea that studying French in an impediment to learning Japanese.
> 
> In other words, if a system is in no way concerned with being involved in MMA, not gearing themselves to MMA in their training isn't an impediment. It's simply a different approach to a different situation and context.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'd vehemently disagree with the idea that traditional martial arts discourage exploration, independent validation of skill development, and so on&#8230; it just might not be in a form that you recognise.



You don't think that is just opting out?

I am happy to acknowledge that I am not as good as a relevant specialist in a certain area. So if I am out boxed wrestled or bjjed. It is not because my training is not geared for those things. It is because they are better at them.

These are basic skills that should transfer over. Or the basic skills are suspect.

So I should be able to spar with a chunner under chun rules and hold my own. There would be no style reason why I couldn't.


----------



## Chris Parker

No. In fact, that completely misses the point.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> No. In fact, that completely misses the point.



But a mmaer who does not train for boxing can still box.

So can a kick boxer, so can plenty of striking styles. Tma or otherwise. So even though they may not specifically train for a rule set does not equal an inability to handle competition.

There is definatley an overlap there where one set of skills apply to more than one situation.


----------



## Argus

drop bear said:


> So I should be able to spar with a chunner under chun rules and hold my own. There would be no style reason why I couldn't.



Sure, I'll chisau you! Hold out your arms now. Let's see how far you get


----------



## drop bear

Argus said:


> Sure, I'll chisau you! Hold out your arms now. Let's see how far you get




You guys do normal striking as well though.

But yeah I will certainly give it a crack.


----------



## Argus

drop bear said:


> You guys do normal striking as well though.
> 
> But yeah I will certainly give it a crack.



Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.

In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.

On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.


----------



## Blindside

Argus said:


> Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.
> 
> In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.



How about a 2010's challenge match?  What changed in the past 60 years?


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Context and emphasis. They're not designed for it, they don't care about it, it is nothing to do with the way they're set up.



Please explain how a fighting art isn't designed for fighting. That's what you're doing in a ringed competiton; Fighting. Certainly not every martial art is suited to compete in a NHB style battle, however if you're practicing any form of unarmed combat, there's no reason your style shouldn't be fully capable of fighting in an arena.

What also makes this argument dubious is the fact that several traditional MA styles revolve around the supposed fighting prowess of their founders in similar types of events. 



> Why do you think they can't?



Because they don't. Imagine if a TMA practioner dominated an MMA tournament. That praciticioner would be set for life. I find it hard to believe that every TMA pracitioner in the entire world has no desire for fortune or fame, or to enhance the health of their style of choice if they had the ability to do so.

Anyone remember this dubious video showing two kung fu masters fighting in a ring?






Too much form work?


----------



## Argus

Blindside said:


> How about a 2010's challenge match?  What changed in the past 60 years?



Well, people don't like fighting bareknuckle on concrete these days -- and for good reason. You'd also be facing a different plethora of styles, though western boxers were common participants.

You can read Wong Shun Leung's comments on Beimo, if you like. He was boxer himself before taking up Wing Chun, and fought in the ring as well as in challenge matches, so he would sometimes compare the two.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?


 

  First off in the first UFC the participants were Selected specifically for their lack of ground skills but one exception, Ken Shamrock. Ken was the only Not Certain due to his high school wrestling and American & Japanese professional wrestling experiences as well as 3 Pancrase events. Ken was the only real possible threat based upon the rules of UFC 1. He probably underestimated Gracie as well as fought after coming off a fight in Japan 4 days prior.

As to TMA being absent from the curriculum of most MMA practitioners, I feel the number one reason is because those who train and practice for MMA actually practice fighting against another who is also practicing the same within the rules of that event. They actually fight during much of their practicing and most all of their practicing is specific to the event.


Most, (note: I didnt say all) most TMA schools, instructors, and practitioners Do Not practice for real fighting against an opponent who is punching, kicking, or attempting to put you on the ground with full intent. PERIOD!!!.

  Some do and those that do have people who can truly use their skills. Those that dont do it are only learning to play at fighting. If TMA practitioners wrestled, rolled, practiced, sparred using their skills against someone like they were preparing for a mma event their skill, abilities, and success in mma events would be much higher.


----------



## K-man

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.
> 
> I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").


Cross training is essential, in my mind, not only to understand where others are coming from, but to understand your own art. 



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah&#8230; gotta say, mate, I'm not fond of any of those&#8230; but more importantly, are we classing those as "TMA's"?


First one, a bit hard unless you are absolutely sure of what's happening, second and third ones are ok as long as you react soon enough with the third one being perhaps the best option if you have to go to the ground.

TMA? Sure. Krav is a TMA in the context of this thread, isn't it?


----------



## Marnetmar

I think the mindset has a lot to do with it. The type of person that trains TMAs is often passive and laid back, training more for fulfillment and basic self defense than an actual brawl, while the MMA/boxing mindset is all-out ground-and-pound. As a result, TMA-ists are generally afraid to train against a resisting opponent that's genuinely trying to brawl with them rather than someone on the street that tries to incapacitate them quickly with one or two things that they specifically train against, and if they do begin to train in a boxing/MMA gym and get their *** kicked, it's much more convenient and much, much, _much _less time consuming to switch to something that's been tried and proven than to step back and analyze what did and didn't work. 

With regards to grappling specifically, TMA people tend to be pretty naive about it, usually with a "well, if he grabs my legs I'll just chop him in the back of the neck" idea when:

1 - With the forward momentum of that particular takedown, your hand is more likely to bounce or miss completely than actually strike his neck

2 - *That's not the only way to get taken down.*


----------



## Hanzou

Danny T said:


> First off in the first UFC the participants were Selected specifically for their lack of ground skills but one exception, Ken Shamrock. Ken was the only Not Certain due to his high school wrestling and American & Japanese professional wrestling experiences as well as 3 Pancrase events. Ken was the only real possible threat based upon the rules of UFC 1. He probably underestimated Gracie as well as fought after coming off a fight in Japan 4 days prior.




I'm not seeing how the Gracies choosing predominantly strikers to fight against proves anything, since TMAs are primarily striking arts with little to no ground skills. Prior to the first UFC most people believed that going to the ground was a dumb thing to do, and that you could stop a takedown with a fast strike to the head. The Gracies were out to prove a point with the UFC.

That said, let's not forget that the Gracies fought plenty of grapplers in Vale Tudo and Pride.



> As to TMA being absent from the curriculum of most MMA practitioners, I feel the number one reason is because those who train and practice for MMA actually practice fighting against another who is also practicing the same within the rules of that event. They actually fight during much of their practicing and most all of their practicing is specific to the event.
> 
> 
> Most, (note: I didnt say all) most TMA schools, instructors, and practitioners Do Not practice for real fighting against an opponent who is punching, kicking, or attempting to put you on the ground with full intent. PERIOD!!!.
> 
> Some do and those that do have people who can truly use their skills. Those that dont do it are only learning to play at fighting. If TMA practitioners wrestled, rolled, practiced, sparred using their skills against someone like they were preparing for a mma event their skill, abilities, and success in mma events would be much higher.



I can largely agree with that.


----------



## jezr74

Just curious, from the original post. Is there a reference of historical data of UFC fighters and their backgrounds? Just wondering where the premise in the first place comes from. And if it's just anecdotal.


----------



## drop bear

Argus said:


> Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.
> 
> In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.




But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.


----------



## drop bear

Argus said:


> Well, people don't like fighting bareknuckle on concrete these days -- and for good reason. You'd also be facing a different plethora of styles, though western boxers were common participants.
> 
> You can read Wong Shun Leung's comments on Beimo, if you like. He was boxer himself before taking up Wing Chun, and fought in the ring as well as in challenge matches, so he would sometimes compare the two.




Do you want to spar bare knuckle on concrete? How would that give you the advantage?


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Just curious, from the original post. Is there a reference of historical data of UFC fighters and their backgrounds? Just wondering where the premise in the first place comes from. And if it's just anecdotal.



Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports. 

I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.

1.) Lack of conditioning
2.) Lack of ground work
3.) Lack of sparring
4.) Lack of cross-training

Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA

And gives pretty decent arguments for each.

what do you think?


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> Well not all martial arts were created for the battlefield. I can name several Kung Fu and Karate styles that were not created for the battlefield, but were created for personal protection. It amazes me that they wouldn't have an answer for grapplers. It also seems weird that not being allowed to do certain "dirty attacks" would render their art useless.
> 
> When you see Rickson Gracie in Vale Tudo, its truly amazing how much larger his opponents were than he was. These guys were allowed to strike him, gouge his eyes, or grab his balls, yet he still prevailed.



If its a traditional Kung Fu then it most likely has weapon training in it which most likely means they spent time training with weapons instead of trying to develop a ground game. 

It really dosent matter if it was for personal protection or the battlefield because the ground is the last place they wanted to be hence why they didn't develop a ground game since weapons trump the ground game. 

I feel that allot of the modern TMA schools ideals of how to defend against a grappler are just as bad as most of the Women's Self Defense crash course techniques you see out there. Meaning their ideals of how to defend against a grappler are usually worthless because they have never been mauled by a proficient grappler before and thats why they come up with these ridiculous ideals of how to defend against a grappler. 

The early UFC proved that an average grappler could beat the best strikers (no ground game) if that striker  got taken to the ground so its pretty much the same for a TMA person that has no ground game if they get taken down. (Rendering them useless)

Ok now about Rickson Gracie what can I say other then he's one of the best Gracie Fighters and is a trained fighter that breathes BJJ. He has that fighting spirit along with skill that most people dont have allowing him to take some eye gouges and groin strikes. 

I can speak for myself I've been hit in the groin, eye poked and have had my hair pulled before and will say yes it sucks big time but you still can fight threw it. I'm not big on the mentality of depending on those types of techniques as the main solution but would use them as an aid or set up for an escape, submission or strike. 

The main thing is if you want to compete in MMA tournaments then you better have a fighting spirit, train hard, have good striking skills and one hell of a ground game IMHO.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.
> 
> 1.) Lack of conditioning
> 2.) Lack of ground work
> 3.) Lack of sparring
> 4.) Lack of cross-training
> 
> Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA
> 
> And gives pretty decent arguments for each.
> 
> what do you think?



That pretty much sums it up along with the fact that most people that want to become a competitive fighter can learn allot quicker from a MMA school since thats what they do. 

The other thing is most TMA schools have a low percentage of students and instructors that actually enjoy the pain of hard sparring unlike MMA schools.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.
> 
> I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.
> 
> 1.) Lack of conditioning
> 2.) Lack of ground work
> 3.) Lack of sparring
> 4.) Lack of cross-training
> 
> Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA
> 
> And gives pretty decent arguments for each.
> 
> what do you think?


Before we start, the article is not about NHB. It refers to MMA. 

I think there are numerous false assumptions either stated or inferred. First is as to whether TMAs are effective 'in the real world' which is assuming that they aren't and the second is that TMAs actually want to fight in MMA bouts.

Most people training in martial arts are not dedicated athletes striving for a level where they must win at all cost. If you want to compete then that is the aim of your training. If you want an activity that gives you a cardio workout, helps keep you supple, improves coordination and has the added benefit of giving you some self defence skills then that probably describes your average martial artist. I have no desire to fight in the ring, or anywhere else for that matter. But, I love my martial art training. I have no illusions that I could compete with Muhammad Ali, Bas Rutten, Royce Gracie or any other champion fighters at their peak of form and fitness. Nor could 99.9% of other martial artists out there, MMA fighters included. 

But to look at the four points.

1.) Lack of conditioning
If you are training to compete in the ring I don't believe this is true. A top Kyokushin athlete should be as well conditioned as any other fighter preparing for a bout.

2.) Lack of ground work
This has a lot of truth to it. However, once again there is a flaw to the statement. If I was to be fighting a ground fighter or someone with a strong ground game I would prepare accordingly. Fighting this way is a specialist sport. You could with just as much truth say a footballer wouldn't do well in a cage fight. In Australia we have had several footballers who have gone on to be professional fighters but they didn't use their footballing skill for that. So if as a TMA fighter you haven't trained for the ground then of course you will be disadvantaged, so you need to develop at least enough skill to handle what you are likely to encounter in the cage.

3.) Lack of sparring
How stupid is this statement? Who in this world would be stupid enough to go into a cage fight with a trained MMA fighter without having trained those skills? I would state ot the outset, absolutely none. Some TMAs have sparring in the conventional sense and some don't. If you are going to fight in a cage with an MMA fighter you have to train to compete with cage rules. So to refer back to Kyokushin. One of their guys would not be training so many head shots because that is not part of their competition rules, but that is easy to train and I don't think anyone would suggest a trained Kyokushin fighter would be lacking sparring.

4.) Lack of cross-training
How do you define this. It is a generic statement that looks profound but in reality means nothing. Many of us cross train at any opportunity. Once again going back to our Kyokushin guy. Traditionally he is going to be a kicking punching guy but in his training he also has a number of other effective techniques that are against MMA rules. So again, if he is going to compete against MMA fighters on their terms he has to adjust his skill set. Making sure he can compete on the ground is just one of those things. Whether he needs to cross train in, for example, BJJ is his choice.

I feel the article is written from the perspective of an MMA practitioner.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be.  We aren't.  I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions.  I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them.  But that's just me.

On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons.  Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.

So that's one perspective on this whole debate.

now regarding this:



K-man said:


> I have no illusions that I could compete with Muhammad Ali, Bas Rutten, Royce Gracie or any other champion fighters at their peak of form and fitness. Nor could 99.9% of other martial artists out there, MMA fighters included.
> 
> :asian:



I'll say that I could.  The issue was raised a few posts back: weapons.  I train a traditional Chinese/Tibetan method, and that training included weapons.  If I were to utilize "my style", or "my training methods", well that includes weapons.  So I've got a choice of sword, saber, spear, staff, double butterfly swords...those are weapons for which I have received solid instruction and training.  If I were to face...Royce Gracie for example, and he utilized his "style" (i.e. BJJ) against me in an attempt to grapple my sorry ***, and I was allowed to utilize my traditional Chinese/Tibetan method against him, well I can choose to use the weapons aspect of my traditional training.  And I am more than confident that I could hack, slash, chop, puncture, cut, slice, and bludgeon him to death quite readily.

This is a silly discussion, and I hope my insight here has helped to point that out to everyone.  We can all make whatever comparison we want to, and find a way to put ourselves on top.  Is there a point to it all?  Do the MMA proponents here want to convince all the TMA people to admit their foolish errors, give up their training, and head on down to the nearest MMA gym?  Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be.  We aren't.  I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions.  I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them.  But that's just me.



Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?



> On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons.  Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.



Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.
> 
> I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.
> 
> 1.) Lack of conditioning
> 2.) Lack of ground work
> 3.) Lack of sparring
> 4.) Lack of cross-training
> 
> Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA
> 
> And gives pretty decent arguments for each.
> 
> what do you think?



Sorry, that was a terrible article to read on this subject. Was just full of personal conjecture with obvious bias and lack of knowledge of other arts beyond what he wanted to use as "evidence".

I did a quick search and could find plenty of examples of UFC contenders with "TMA" backgrounds. 973,000 hits on articles etc. 

I couldn't find a list of backgrounds though. that would be interesting, you could maybe cross-reference backgrounds to submissions, KO's etc... maybe draw some correlation data at best.

Strange, I would have actually thought this information was readily available since it sparks so much interest.

As far as the 1-4 list goes, I practice Hapkido and has all those elements. A number of guys at work practice MMA, they seem to love it, but they don't think it gives too much of an edge between any style. And comes down to the instructor and individual. Which I tend to agree and is applicable to any martial art.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I find it interesting listening (reading) to the talk. I'm incline to ask them now what drew them to MMA over other martial arts.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Sorry, that was a terrible article to read on this subject. Was just full of personal conjecture with obvious bias and lack of knowledge of other arts beyond what he wanted to use as "evidence".
> 
> I did a quick search and could find plenty of examples of UFC contenders with "TMA" backgrounds. 973,000 hits on articles etc.



Many current UFC fighters began in TMAs, but then converted to the 4-5 MMA styles. For example, Loyoto Machida has a background in Shotokan Karate, but also a background in Bjj and several other styles.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.


Agree with you on this.

If you can spar, why don't you? The sparring can be a lot of fun. Even if you may not train the grappling art, to wrestling or to play ground game is fun. If you take that fun away, MA training can be boring. Why should you allow your style to take that fun away from you?


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Many current UFC fighters began in TMAs, but then converted to the 4-5 MMA styles. For example, Loyoto Machida has a background in Shotokan Karate, but also a background in Bjj and several other styles.



Yeah, maybe I don't understand the premise of this thread. 

Sounds like there is clearly TMA being used in fights. Just maybe not classically taught in MMA studios?


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



And back to the original questions that have been answered already. 

The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS! 

The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling. 

With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily. 



What it comes down to is if you want to compete in MMA matches go to a MMA school. This is what one of my friends did and he is owning allot of his amateur matches with his CLF & Tai Chi background that he mixed with the MMA gym instruction. 

If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA. 

In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing) 

MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches. 

Is one better then the other style? 

 Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?
> 
> Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.


What sets them apart is that they are all arts that have been modified for competition. 

As for the bit about learning the sets that makes them competitive. I would have thought that that was because when you do that you are fulfilling the definition of mixed martial arts. MMA is purely a combination of different arts. If I was a baseballer and want to compete in a golfing tournament I have to learn to play golf. They are both games that hit a ball with a stick. I might have a great swing with a baseball bat but that isn't going to win me a golfing crown, that is assuming I might want to play golf. 

No different if you want to compete in any martial art tournament. If you learn one of the older traditional martial arts of course you will have to modify it for competition.

As Flying Crane said, who cares?


----------



## Hanzou

ST1Doppelganger said:


> And back to the original questions that have been answered already.
> 
> The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS!



Okay, but to use your example, there IS grappling in many Karate and Kung Fu styles. Why would a Choy Li Fut or Prayin Mantis practitioner for example need to go learn Bjj or Wrestling when their art has grappling and joint locks within the system already?



> The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling.
> 
> With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily.



Okay, but then comes the other question; Why are we not seeing anyone enter the UFC or Bellator, and break out in Kung Fu or Karate hand techniques, footwork, or stances?



> If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA.
> 
> In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing)
> 
> MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches.
> 
> Is one better then the other style?
> 
> Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.



Well to be fair, Bjj has all of those qualities you mentioned above, yet is still a major style in MMA competition. So even that explanation doesn't really work.


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou, as you are the thread starter I`d like to ask what you think is the answer?


----------



## Chris Parker

So&#8230; things have gotten a bit further&#8230; this may not be short&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> But a mmaer who does not train for boxing can still box.



Yeah&#8230; you're still thinking that all martial arts are the same, have the same ideals, the same emphasis, the same purpose, the same aims, and more&#8230; and you're wrong. This example is, to put it simply, rather pointless. Boxing, or at least Western Hands, is a large component of MMA skill sets&#8230; so of course they can box&#8230; not to the level of a pro-boxer themselves, of course, but they're hardly going out of their major comfort zone. Find me a guy trained only in MMA who can get through an Iaido competition and you'll have an argument.



drop bear said:


> So can a kick boxer, so can plenty of striking styles. Tma or otherwise. So even though they may not specifically train for a rule set does not equal an inability to handle competition.



You're still missing the point. You're picking sport approaches who incorporate Western Hands (boxing), and putting them in a situation which they are familiar with (through movies, TV, popular media, and the fact that it's something that has surrounded them for decades)&#8230; which completely invalidates it as an example.



drop bear said:


> There is definatley an overlap there where one set of skills apply to more than one situation.



In the examples you gave, sure&#8230; but that's hardly exhaustive or definitive.



Hanzou said:


> Please explain how a fighting art isn't designed for fighting.



Look, you're still missing the reality of different contexts here&#8230; as I've said, fighting ain't fighting&#8230; the scope and range of what can be meant is gigantic&#8230; and MMA is only a tiny look at a small aspect of what fighting can refer to&#8230; it's hardly the only form, or even the most realistic form&#8230; beyond that, who on earth said that all arts are designed for "fighting" in the first place? You are trying to make every system fit your small and unrealistic understanding of what martial arts are&#8230; it's a much bigger world outside your window, you know&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> That's what you're doing in a ringed competiton; Fighting.



No, actually, you're competing. Bit different.



Hanzou said:


> Certainly not every martial art is suited to compete in a NHB style battle, however if you're practicing any form of unarmed combat, there's no reason your style shouldn't be fully capable of fighting in an arena.



And again, who says that traditional martial arts are unarmed&#8230;? As far as there being no reason that a system shouldn't be fully capable, yes, there are many, many reasons&#8230; ranging from mechanical, to cultural, to tactical, to strategic preferences, to, well, everything to do with the art in question.



Hanzou said:


> What also makes this argument dubious is the fact that several traditional MA styles revolve around the supposed fighting prowess of their founders in similar types of events.



Really? Which ones? I think you'll find that the "similar types of events" aren't really that similar&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Because they don't. Imagine if a TMA practioner dominated an MMA tournament. That praciticioner would be set for life. I find it hard to believe that every TMA pracitioner in the entire world has no desire for fortune or fame, or to enhance the health of their style of choice if they had the ability to do so.



Set for life? Really? Top level MMA/UFC athletes have enough money and other issues, so I don't really see that as being a major drawcard (or, bluntly, in any way realistic or accurate)&#8230; "enhance the health of their style"&#8230;? How? By doing something it's not designed for, or interested in, just because people who don't know any better think it proves something it really doesn't? Can't see that as being any major draw either&#8230; 

Look, the simple fact is that if you want to train and compete in MMA, you train in MMA&#8230; if you choose to train in something other than MMA, odds are that you're not interested in competing in MMA&#8230; so, if the practitioners aren't interested, what makes you think that they should be looking to do it anyway? All it means when TMA practitioners don't seek out MMA competition is that they don't seek it out&#8230; it doesn't mean that they can't, it means that they don't. I don't ride a bike these days&#8230; it doesn't mean I can't, it means I don't&#8230; I drive a car instead.



Hanzou said:


> Anyone remember this dubious video showing two kung fu masters fighting in a ring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much form work?



What in that clip has you thinking that there is "too much form work"? I see the demonstrations done at the beginning, but all that says is that part of the exhibition is a demonstration of their forms&#8230; I'd be interested to know a lot more before I made any assumptions on exactly what that clip shows.



K-man said:


> Cross training is essential, in my mind, not only to understand where others are coming from, but to understand your own art.


 
I wouldn't say essential, but it can certainly be highly positive in that sense, yeah.



K-man said:


> First one, a bit hard unless you are absolutely sure of what's happening, second and third ones are ok as long as you react soon enough with the third one being perhaps the best option if you have to go to the ground.
> 
> TMA? Sure. Krav is a TMA in the context of this thread, isn't it?



Leaving off the critique&#8230; are we then just defining TMA as "non-sporting"? I don't know that I'd agree with that classification&#8230; there are sporting "traditional" systems&#8230; and non-sporting non-traditional ones (which is how I'd define Krav Maga, really)&#8230; 



Marnetmar said:


> I think the mindset has a lot to do with it. The type of person that trains TMAs is often passive and laid back, training more for fulfillment and basic self defense than an actual brawl, while the MMA/boxing mindset is all-out ground-and-pound. As a result, TMA-ists are generally afraid to train against a resisting opponent that's genuinely trying to brawl with them rather than someone on the street that tries to incapacitate them quickly with one or two things that they specifically train against, and if they do begin to train in a boxing/MMA gym and get their *** kicked, it's much more convenient and much, much, _much _less time consuming to switch to something that's been tried and proven than to step back and analyze what did and didn't work.
> 
> With regards to grappling specifically, TMA people tend to be pretty naive about it, usually with a "well, if he grabs my legs I'll just chop him in the back of the neck" idea when:
> 
> 1 - With the forward momentum of that particular takedown, your hand is more likely to bounce or miss completely than actually strike his neck
> 
> 2 - *That's not the only way to get taken down.*



There's a lot of assumption here as well&#8230; and a lot of generalising (not really accurately, either) as to what "TMA's" claim, or do&#8230; the only part of this that I'd agree with is that different people train each&#8230; people who are interested in MMA tend to train MMA (or the subset of systems that are commonly thought to be in the make-up of what MMA consists of), people who aren't interested in it don't. I would really be very hesitant to say that there's any "fear" involved&#8230; on a number of levels.



Hanzou said:


> I'm not seeing how the Gracies choosing predominantly strikers to fight against proves anything, since TMAs are primarily striking arts with little to no ground skills.



Really? They wanted to showcase their art, they helped set the whole thing up, they helped design the surface (too slow and soft for the strikers to really get the purchase, speed, and power they were used to), and picked the guys they were going up against&#8230; but you can't see how that proves anything? And TMAs are "primarily striking arts"? Not any of my TMAs, mate&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Prior to the first UFC most people believed that going to the ground was a dumb thing to do, and that you could stop a takedown with a fast strike to the head. The Gracies were out to prove a point with the UFC.



Going to the ground is a dumb thing to do&#8230; in the majority of contexts. In an environment such as the UFC/MMA competitions, it's not. Once again, this is not the definitive form of "fighting" you seem to think it is&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> That said, let's not forget that the Gracies fought plenty of grapplers in Vale Tudo and Pride.



Yeah, and that helped them to become even stronger specialists&#8230; they are incredibly good ground fighters (ground fighting is not grappling&#8230; really, it's not), and that was honed through, among other things, challenge matches and competitions such as Vale Tudo&#8230; which again makes it hardly surprising that, when they designed their own competition as basically a publicity stunt (there was only meant to be the one, it was set up so that the Gracies would have the advantage, and named so that they could refer to their system as "The Ultimate Fighting Art") they would be successful.



drop bear said:


> But you could spar. There shouldn't be a reason your system would not hold up.



There are lots of reasons that a system might not spar, though. In my case, it's because it's highly unrealistic&#8230; among other reasons&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Sherdog or even Wikipedia should give you a background of NHB fighters from a variety of events. TMAs stylists are pretty nonexistent in almost all combat sports.
> 
> I found an article that attempts to explain why TMAs are at a disadvantage in NHB bouts. This article lays the blame on training.
> 
> 1.) Lack of conditioning
> 2.) Lack of ground work
> 3.) Lack of sparring
> 4.) Lack of cross-training
> 
> Why traditional Martial Arts don't work in MMA
> 
> And gives pretty decent arguments for each.
> 
> what do you think?



Ha! That was funny!

Oh, wait&#8230; were you serious?



ST1Doppelganger said:


> That pretty much sums it up along with the fact that most people that want to become a competitive fighter can learn allot quicker from a MMA school since thats what they do.
> 
> The other thing is most TMA schools have a low percentage of students and instructors that actually enjoy the pain of hard sparring unlike MMA schools.



Hmm&#8230; do you think that "hard sparring" is pain&#8230;? No&#8230; 



Flying Crane said:


> This whole discussion is based on the premise that everyone is an octagon champion wanna-be.  We aren't.  I personally don't care one way or the other about MMA competitions.  I don't watch them, I don't know the dominant personalities in them, I don't want to be in them nor associated with them.  But that's just me.



Abso-damn-lutely!



Flying Crane said:


> On the heels of this, I can also say that I train for my own reasons.  Whatever anyone else may think of my system, method, or training integrity, is something about which again, I don't care.
> 
> So that's one perspective on this whole debate.



Make that two. Seconded.



Flying Crane said:


> I'll say that I could.  The issue was raised a few posts back: weapons.  I train a traditional Chinese/Tibetan method, and that training included weapons.  If I were to utilize "my style", or "my training methods", well that includes weapons.  So I've got a choice of sword, saber, spear, staff, double butterfly swords...those are weapons for which I have received solid instruction and training.  If I were to face...Royce Gracie for example, and he utilized his "style" (i.e. BJJ) against me in an attempt to grapple my sorry ***, and I was allowed to utilize my traditional Chinese/Tibetan method against him, well I can choose to use the weapons aspect of my traditional training.  And I am more than confident that I could hack, slash, chop, puncture, cut, slice, and bludgeon him to death quite readily.



I've been asked how I'd go in MMA on occasion&#8230; I usually answer "Pretty good, I think&#8230; I mean I have a sword&#8230; or a naginata&#8230; not sure how good their weapon defence is&#8230; evasion's not going to be easy trapped in a cage for them&#8230;"



Flying Crane said:


> This is a silly discussion, and I hope my insight here has helped to point that out to everyone.  We can all make whatever comparison we want to, and find a way to put ourselves on top.  Is there a point to it all?  Do the MMA proponents here want to convince all the TMA people to admit their foolish errors, give up their training, and head on down to the nearest MMA gym?  Ain't gonna happen.



Damn straight.



Hanzou said:


> Actually no. This whole discussion is based on the premise of all unarmed martial arts being equal, and if that is the case, then someone who practices a 400 year old Asian martial art should be able to use that art in ringed competition if they so desire. However, that isn't the case. Only a set group of 4-5 martial arts are used for these competitions. So what sets that group of 4-5 martial arts apart from the other systems of unarmed combat?



If that's what you based the discussion on, then it's based on a lot of ignorance&#8230; and a lack of ability to see outside your own limited impressions, honestly.



Hanzou said:


> Indeed, but we're not talking about you. We're talking about guys who may want to compete in MMA/NHB tournaments using traditional arts, but are slowly forced to learn the usual set of 4-5 styles that will make them competitive.



If they want to compete in MMA, they should train in MMA. To think anything different is fantasy.



ST1Doppelganger said:


> And back to the original questions that have been answered already.
> 
> The easy answer is GRAPPLING ARTS!



Having my tendency to want to use words properly, I'm assuming you mean the false connotation of "grappling = ground work"&#8230; as many very traditional systems are very grappling heavy&#8230; but don't have much in the way of ground fighting&#8230; they're really not the same thing&#8230; 

And, really, when it comes down to it, ground work is a dominant successful tactic in this form of competition&#8230; that's it. If it's a system not designed for this form of competition, it's hardly any wonder that it's not designed the same. 



ST1Doppelganger said:


> The follow up question that was asked after it was why do TMA lack grappling.
> 
> With my response of most TMA have weapons training which made them not concentrate on grappling arts or grappling defense heavily.



Possible, depending on the art itself&#8230; but there are a large range of other factors.



ST1Doppelganger said:


> What it comes down to is if you want to compete in MMA matches go to a MMA school. This is what one of my friends did and he is owning allot of his amateur matches with his CLF & Tai Chi background that he mixed with the MMA gym instruction.



Yep. 



ST1Doppelganger said:


> If your looking for a self defense system that you can do in your spare time and not worried about going to work with black eyes and bruises from MMA matches then stick with a TMA.



You can still quite easily get such injuries without MMA competition, of course&#8230; I've had a black eye from training, as well as a range of other similar-scale injuries&#8230; and have seen far worse (broken bones etc, for example)&#8230; and that's all TMA systems&#8230;  



ST1Doppelganger said:


> In my opinion TMA are for the people that want to enjoy learning an martial art and maybe even continue it in to their senior years as a life style. (This is what I plan on doing)



Sometimes&#8230; it really depends on the person, and the art. 



ST1Doppelganger said:


> MMA gyms are for people that want to learn an art that can quickly prepare them to compete in MMA matches.



Sure. 



ST1Doppelganger said:


> Is one better then the other style?
> 
> Not really they are just different paths that take you to same goal of being a martial artist.



And agreed&#8230; other than with the ideas that there is even such commonality to the goals.


----------



## Hanzou

Cirdan said:


> Hanzou, as you are the thread starter I`d like to ask what you think is the answer?



I personally believe that those styles are absent from NHB competitions because they're no longer truly designed for actual fighting, but for cultural preservation. Much like dance, and other performing arts. I'd like to be shown otherwise, but the reasoning I'm getting out of this thread isn't really swaying that belief. I mean the evidence is pretty overwhelming. There's no one in NHB competitions coming into the ring looking like this;













Which leads me to believe that those stances and hand techniques are impractical for actual fighting applications. I would be thrilled to see someone break out in something like that in UFC, but somehow I think that's never going to happen.

For example, there's a fantastic style in Brazil called Capoeira. Very lovely movements, cool looking kicks and body movements, great evasion techniques, etc. However, even the masters of the style will tell you that its not for fighting, they'll happily admit that its more about dance, music, exercise, and learning about Afro-Brazilian culture. This admission occurred because Capoeira stylists got their butts kicked in Vale Tudo and other major competitions throughout Brazil. Despite this though, Capoeira is slowly growing in popularity because its a great exercise and dance routine.

I think some TMA styles should be as honest with their students as the Capoeira mestres are.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah&#8230; you're still thinking that all martial arts are the same, have the same ideals, the same emphasis, the same purpose, the same aims, and more&#8230; and you're wrong. This example is, to put it simply, rather pointless. Boxing, or at least Western Hands, is a large component of MMA skill sets&#8230; so of course they can box&#8230; not to the level of a pro-boxer themselves, of course, but they're hardly going out of their major comfort zone. Find me a guy trained only in MMA who can get through an Iaido competition and you'll have an argument.



The difference being that a MMA guy has never trained in the art of Japanese sword drawing. However, a Kung Fu, JJJ, or Karate practitioner should be trained in stopping kicks, punches, and grappling, which is what MMA fighting is. In other words, if a traditional martial artist can stop a wrestler in the street, why can't they stop them in a ringed arena?



> And again, who says that traditional martial arts are unarmed&#8230;? As far as there being no reason that a system shouldn't be fully capable, yes, there are many, many reasons&#8230; ranging from mechanical, to cultural, to tactical, to strategic preferences, to, well, everything to do with the art in question.



What mechanic, tactical, cultural, etc. preferences would prevent a Praying Mantis stylist from being able to prevent a wrestler from taking them down and turning their face into hamburger?

Again, its a dubious argument to say that arts that present themselves as fighting arts, and promote their self defense attributes, cannot perform those abilities against fully resisting opponents from other disciplines because of rules or cultural limitations. Bjj, MT, Boxing, etc. come from different places, yet still work perfectly fine in a MMA bout.



> Really? Which ones? I think you'll find that the "similar types of events" aren't really that similar&#8230;



Mantis kung fu came out of this;

Lei tai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's more of course.



> Really? They wanted to showcase their art, they helped set the whole thing up, they helped design the surface (too slow and soft for the strikers to really get the purchase, speed, and power they were used to), and picked the guys they were going up against&#8230; but you can't see how that proves anything? And TMAs are "primarily striking arts"? Not any of my TMAs, mate&#8230;



Even if all that's true, Bjj is still a staple of MMA competitions. So clearly there was substance behind the shameless promotion. Another way to look at it was that the Gracies were attempting to being legitimacy back to the martial arts after an era of frauds, scam artists, and shoddy practitioners. After the UFC, all MAs had a standard by which to be judged in terms of effectiveness. Some like the standard, some don't, but clearly the MAs are better because of the first UFC.



> Going to the ground is a dumb thing to do&#8230; in the majority of contexts. In an environment such as the UFC/MMA competitions, it's not. Once again, this is not the definitive form of "fighting" you seem to think it is&#8230;



Dumb in what context? I can think of several reasons why going to the ground might be the smart thing to do.

Despite that though, don't you think there's a problem when a martial artist gets taken to the ground and is essentially helpless? Just because you don't want to get taken down, doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there that can't take you down.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but to use your example, there IS grappling in many Karate and Kung Fu styles. Why would a Choy Li Fut or Prayin Mantis practitioner for example need to go learn Bjj or Wrestling when their art has grappling and joint locks within the system already?
> 
> Okay, but then comes the other question; Why are we not seeing anyone enter the UFC or Bellator, and break out in Kung Fu or Karate hand techniques, footwork, or stances?


BJJ and wrestling are predominantly ground fighting. Okinawan karate is grappling without going to the ground. If I go to the ground I will be trying to get back on my feet ASAP. I don't want to be on the ground. But if I wanted to compete in MMA I would have to improve my ground fighting ability. Fighting on the ground is predominantly for sport. In real life situations you don't want to be on the ground for any prolonged period. 

As for karate hand and foot techniques, you see them all the time in stand up grappling. You just don't recognise them. 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQd0DFPtBec


----------



## K-man

Chris Parker said:


> Leaving off the critique&#8230; are we then just defining TMA as "non-sporting"? I don't know that I'd agree with that classification&#8230; there are sporting "traditional" systems&#8230; and non-sporting non-traditional ones (which is how I'd define Krav Maga, really)&#8230;


I don't for one minute consider Krav as 'traditional' MA. However, I would argue it is no different to Kyokushin karate as to its age and origins, or Shotokan which is not the style that Funakoshi developed. How is TKD traditional in the proper sense when it was a blending of styles just 60 years ago? So yes, for me it is non traditional non sporting. But I would say in the same context that both Kyokushin and TKD are non traditional sporting MAs in today's world. This is what makes it so difficult to hold a sensible conversation. Everyone has a different idea of what makes an art 'traditional'.
:asian:


----------



## Reedone816

Why tma is hard to move to mma, simply because of the rule and pure mmartist growth.
For someone to truly adapted to their tma it took a long time, and they need to learn to adapt their techniques to comply with the rules, and due to that limitation they are at disadvantage against someone who has mma as their main art.
If only the mma rules still like the dark ages of ufc, maybe tma has more chance.
And don't forget, mma still a growing sport, many new techniques surfaced that came from their traditional roots, silva front kick, machida's shotokan footwork, pettis' kicks, and this week i saw that spinning jump kick is working in mma...
Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk


----------



## skribs

My opinion is that TMA and MMA have different philosophies. Basically everything that is banned in competition is what you want to use in self defense. You want to hit soft targets, break bones, attack the senses...none of that has a place in MMA.

I also think that popularity increases quality. Most MMA instructors teach the common core, so most MMA fighters learn that...and grow up to teach it...


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> BJJ and wrestling are predominantly ground fighting. Okinawan karate is grappling without going to the ground. If I go to the ground I will be trying to get back on my feet ASAP. I don't want to be on the ground. But if I wanted to compete in MMA I would have to improve my ground fighting ability. Fighting on the ground is predominantly for sport. In real life situations you don't want to be on the ground for any prolonged period.



I think you would agree that an Okinawan Karateka can defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down yes? So why exactly can't an Okinawan Karateka defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down in a ring or arena?

Additionally, if you can escape from a grappler on the ground in a SD situation, why couldn't you escape from a grappler in a ring or arena?


----------



## Hanzou

skribs said:


> My opinion is that TMA and MMA have different philosophies. Basically everything that is banned in competition is what you want to use in self defense. You want to hit soft targets, break bones, attack the senses...none of that has a place in MMA.



Actually all of that is in place in MMA. Bones are broken, soft spots are targeted, and people constantly get their senses jacked up from blows to the head.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> There's no one in NHB competitions coming into the ring looking like this;



TMA stances are used for different weight distribution and different purpose.

The "golden rooster" stance is used for kicks, knee lifting throw, .... The "cat stance (empty stance)" is the initial motion when you move forward or before you raise your leg for kicking. The "horse stance" is used for 

- hip throw,
- shoulder throw,
- embracing throw,
- firemen's carry,
- ...


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I think you would agree that an Okinawan Karateka can defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down yes? So why exactly can't an Okinawan Karateka defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down in a ring or arena?
> 
> Additionally, if you can escape from a grappler on the ground in a SD situation, why couldn't you escape from a grappler in a ring or arena?


In both examples you have here you are talking about people specialising in an art. A wrestler is specialising in taking an opponent down or throwing them. At the same time, in his training, he is learning how to not be taken down or thrown. The same thing with the grappler. A grappler is specialising in dominating on the ground, preventing escape to get to a submission. For example passing the guard. And once again both these guys are training to compete in a sporting situation.

Coming back to your Okinawan karateka. He may well be able to prevent the wrestler taking him down. Eiichi Myazato who succeeded Chojun Miyagi in Goju Ryu was a 7th dan Judoka and obviously passed on his knowledge of grappling to his students, in particular the man I look to for inspiration and guidance, Masaji Taira who is himself a 4th dan in judo. I'm sure they would handle themselves against a wrestler in any situation if required. 

How would they go against a grappler if they were taken to the ground? Who knows? Who cares? I know for sure I wouldn't want to be on the ground with Taira Sensei. 

But Okinawan Goju is not a sporting style of martial art and what you don't seem to understand is that none of the people I have met or train with have any desire to compete in tournaments. In MMA you are training to fight in a competition, in Okinawan Goju we are not. We are not training to fight at all if you look at the self defence aspect of it. In MMA you are training to compete against another trained athlete, normally of the same weight. In karate we are preparing mainly to defend against an attack from someone who is typically not highly trained and may well be considerably larger. Even in that statement there is a huge difference between sport and our training. In sport you are penalised for not attacking or for moving away. In a more traditional MA you are rewarded for each of those, not to mention that it is far easier to defend your position than to break through an opponent's.

_To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill _
_&#8213; Sun Tzu, The Art of War
:asian:_


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Wasn't there a shaolin monk knocking people out in K1 or something?

Whats NHB, No Holds Barred? Does such a thing exist in legal competition? Is biting allowed? John Saxon gets out of Bolo's arm bar in Enter The Dragon by biting his leg.

Is grappling/ground fighting such a big advantage outside of a cage with its nice smooth, even floor, confined space & walls to help you stay on top?


Honest questions that reading this thread has got me wondering about.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> In both examples you have here you are talking about people specialising in an art. A wrestler is specialising in taking an opponent down or throwing them. At the same time, in his training, he is learning how to not be taken down or thrown. The same thing with the grappler. A grappler is specialising in dominating on the ground, preventing escape to get to a submission. For example passing the guard. And once again both these guys are training to compete in a sporting situation.
> 
> Coming back to your Okinawan karateka. He may well be able to prevent the wrestler taking him down. Eiichi Myazato who succeeded Chojun Miyagi in Goju Ryu was a 7th dan Judoka and obviously passed on his knowledge of grappling to his students, in particular the man I look to for inspiration and guidance, Masaji Taira who is himself a 4th dan in judo. I'm sure they would handle themselves against a wrestler in any situation if required.
> 
> How would they go against a grappler if they were taken to the ground? Who knows? Who cares? I know for sure I wouldn't want to be on the ground with Taira Sensei.



You didn't answer the question.....



> But Okinawan Goju is not a sporting style of martial art and what you don't seem to understand is that none of the people I have met or train with have any desire to compete in tournaments. In MMA you are training to fight in a competition, in Okinawan Goju we are not. We are not training to fight at all if you look at the self defence aspect of it. In MMA you are training to compete against another trained athlete, normally of the same weight. In karate we are preparing mainly to defend against an attack from someone who is typically not highly trained and may well be considerably larger. Even in that statement there is a huge difference between sport and our training. In sport you are penalised for not attacking or for moving away. In a more traditional MA you are rewarded for each of those, not to mention that it is far easier to defend your position than to break through an opponent's.



Interestingly, we have the exact same philosophy in Bjj. The difference of course being that Bjj provides an outlet for those who prefer sport/competition, as well as an outlet for those who prefer the self defense aspect of the art. I'm more curious about traditional Karate clearly being developed for downing larger opponents, yet somehow the "rules" of competition nullifies that ability in some fashion. How does that happen exactly? I mean, there's certainly techniques in Bjj that you couldn't use in a competition, so we just don't use them in competition. However, those rules don't really nullify the underlining effectiveness of our art. So I'm wondering why such rules do that to traditional arts.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Wasn't there a shaolin monk knocking people out in K1 or something?
> 
> Whats NHB, No Holds Barred? Does such a thing exist in legal competition? Is biting allowed? John Saxon gets out of Bolo's arm bar in Enter The Dragon by biting his leg.



Biting during an armbar is a great way to get your arm snapped.



> Is grappling/ground fighting such a big advantage outside of a cage with its nice smooth, even floor, confined space & walls to help you stay on top?
> 
> 
> Honest questions that reading this thread has got me wondering about.



Keep in mind, when someone is grappling with you, *you're* going to be the one on the ground getting your back burned over the hot lava rocks you're fighting on. A superior grappler is not going to let you get a dominant position.

Also, its not the confined space and walls that help keep you on top, its balance and hip control. Being on the bottom of a mount is one of the worst positions to be in.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You didn't answer the question.....
> 
> Interestingly, we have the exact same philosophy in Bjj. The difference of course being that Bjj provides an outlet for those who prefer sport/competition, as well as an outlet for those who prefer the self defense aspect of the art. I'm more curious about traditional Karate clearly being developed for downing larger opponents, yet somehow the "rules" of competition nullifies that ability in some fashion. How does that happen exactly? I mean, there's certainly techniques in Bjj that you couldn't use in a competition, so we just don't use them in competition. However, those rules don't really nullify the underlining effectiveness of our art. So I'm wondering why such rules do that to traditional arts.


I did answer your question, just not in the words you tried to put in my mouth. 

For me 'traditional karate' is what I practise and rules of competition don't nullify anything. My style of karate does not compete in competition. If I wanted to compete in a competition I would train in a style that develops skills to compete in competition. My original style of Goju Kai did that, but even then it was to compete against others under a particular set of rules. Once the rules are changed, as in MMA, you have to change you training to allow for those rule changes. 

Then your last point ... traditional arts. I don't believe you can have this debate without specifically defining what art you are referring to as traditional. 'Traditional' is too broad a term to answer your question.
:asian:


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Biting during an armbar is a great way to get your arm snapped.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, when someone is grappling with you, *you're* going to be the one on the ground getting your back burned over the hot lava rocks you're fighting on. A superior grappler is not going to let you get a dominant position.
> 
> Also, its not the confined space and walls that help keep you on top, its balance and hip control. Being on the bottom of a mount is one of the worst positions to be in.




It helps to a degree, how much I don't know, but I've seen people use the walls to stay on top in MMA. Or to look at it another way, guys who may have escaped the mount if it weren't for the walls.

What if I go for the bite before you get the arm bar locked in? Or as soon as you come anywhere near me? 

The point was though that No Holds Barred means anything goes when, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't really. However I presume now the NHB you were referring to is a brand or something rather than a literal description.


----------



## Blindside

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> It helps to a degree, how much I don't know, but I've seen people use the walls to stay on top in MMA. Or to look at it another way, guys who may have escaped the mount if it weren't for the walls.
> 
> What if I go for the bite before you get the arm bar locked in? Or as soon as you come anywhere near me?
> 
> The point was though that No Holds Barred means anything goes when, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't really. However I presume now the NHB you were referring to is a brand or something rather than a literal description.



Unless you get pinned in a broad open field, there are probably just as many walls, trees, and furniture around that are at least equivalent to the distance across the cage.  My living room is about 20 feet wide, not including furniture, bookcases etc.  The octagon is 30 feet across, so I don't think using that as an objection is realistic.

As for the "what if I bite" can always be countered by "what if I pound your head flat."  Yes biting is an option, but it isn't a magical trick, and it really isn't all that useful when in bad positions.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> It helps to a degree, how much I don't know, but I've seen people use the walls to stay on top in MMA. Or to look at it another way, guys who may have escaped the mount if it weren't for the walls.



That would be two skilled grapplers who know how to escape such positions. As shown numerous times, if you don't know what you're doing when someone is on top of you, its very difficult to shake them off of you.



> What if I go for the bite before you get the arm bar locked in? Or as soon as you come anywhere near me?



I'm afraid that's a great way to lose your teeth. 

Wouldn't it just be easier to learn how to escape such positions?



> The point was though that No Holds Barred means anything goes when, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't really. However I presume now the NHB you were referring to is a brand or something rather than a literal description.



That would be Vale Tudo. The same styles that dominated that also currently dominate MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> For me 'traditional karate' is what I practise and rules of competition don't nullify anything. My style of karate does not compete in competition. If I wanted to compete in a competition I would train in a style that develops skills to compete in competition. My original style of Goju Kai did that, but even then it was to compete against others under a particular set of rules. Once the rules are changed, as in MMA, you have to change you training to allow for those rule changes.



Okay, so what if someone wants to use Goju for MMA, why can't they use it? What rules prevent Goju from being fully effective in NHB competition?


----------



## Blindside

Hanzou said:


> Interestingly, we have the exact same philosophy in Bjj. The difference of course being that Bjj provides an outlet for those who prefer sport/competition, as well as an outlet for those who prefer the self defense aspect of the art. I'm more curious about traditional Karate clearly being developed for downing larger opponents, yet somehow the "rules" of competition nullifies that ability in some fashion. How does that happen exactly? I mean, there's certainly techniques in Bjj that you couldn't use in a competition, so we just don't use them in competition. However, those rules don't really nullify the underlining effectiveness of our art. So I'm wondering why such rules do that to traditional arts.



I understand where many of these arguments are coming from.  In the kali system that I study the first defense against the grappler is to be standing there with a knife in hand, go ahead and try your single leg/double leg/whatever.....  So yes that is the "we train with weapons" argument, I get it.  The assumptions of a martial art will drive its technique, because PTK pretty much assumes the other guy has a knife, we don't spend much time on lower level shoots, almost all of our takedowns involve getting (weapon) limb control first.   The bad consequence is that we don't spend much time on perfecting lower line takedowns so we can develop a hole in the curriculum where we are basically either not practicing against it at all or when we do it is generally against a relatively unskilled attacker.  The system does have unarmed lower level takedown defenses which are pretty much the equivalent of a sprawl, crossface, and a single underhook, but they require some exploration to uncover and are often not part of the explicit curriculum.  Incidentally, all of those defenses work better when done with a knife in hand.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> I personally believe that those styles are absent from NHB competitions because they're no longer truly designed for actual fighting, but for cultural preservation. Much like dance, and other performing arts. I'd like to be shown otherwise, but the reasoning I'm getting out of this thread isn't really swaying that belief. I mean the evidence is pretty overwhelming.



well, I think you don't know much about these systems and I'll suggest you might not want to make open statements about things you don't know....



> For example, there's a fantastic style in Brazil called Capoeira. Very lovely movements, cool looking kicks and body movements, great evasion techniques, etc. However, even the masters of the style will tell you that its not for fighting, they'll happily admit that its more about dance, music, exercise, and learning about Afro-Brazilian culture.



Hmmm... I'd be curious to know with whom you've been speaking.  I was an enthusiastic capoeirista for a number of years when I was younger, reached the level of "graduated student" in my training group, roughly equivalent to what a shodan would be in another system.  The people I know, know how to fight and are very good at it.  Fighting capoeira is definitely different from playing capoeira, that much is true.  But for those who know how (and no, not everyone falls into this category), it is a very effective fighting method.

once again, you ought to be careful making comments on things about which you don't know much.



> This admission occurred because Capoeira stylists got their butts kicked in Vale Tudo and other major competitions throughout Brazil. Despite this though, Capoeira is slowly growing in popularity because its a great exercise and dance routine.



capoeira got ITS butt kicked?  How exactly does that work?  I'm guessing that maybe some guy, who is a capoeirista, didn't do well in the competition.  But that doesn't mean the WHOLE SYSTEM got its butt kicked.  and again, so what?  seriously.  You seem to have this notion that MMA competition is THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be measured.  You are wrong about that.  It isn't.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Okay, so what if someone wants to use Goju for MMA, why can't they use it? What rules prevent Goju from being fully effective in NHB competition?



You seem to be taking this as a given.  I'm not convinced that it is.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Capoeirista's certainly have not been ineffective in mma:


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Capoeirista's certainly have not been ineffective in mma:




Capoeira has a history of vale tudo though. Cos Brazil or something. The smashiest akido I have seen came out of Brazil as well.

Capo Roda of insane death.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgHTJ760GBQ&has_verified=1&client=mv-google&layout=tablet

Actual alive akido.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4mGjDjsCWGY


----------



## Blindside

Flying Crane said:


> capoeira got ITS butt kicked?  How exactly does that work?  I'm guessing that maybe some guy, who is a capoeirista, didn't do well in the competition.  But that doesn't mean the WHOLE SYSTEM got its butt kicked.  and again, so what?  seriously.  You seem to have this notion that MMA competition is THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be measured.  You are wrong about that.  It isn't.



Question: How does a system get a rep for being good at fighting?  
Answer: It fought.

Somehow, somewhere it made a name for itself, practitioners went out and kicked ***.  Systems whose instructors kept getting their asses kicked are unlikely to have down lineage students.  (Which incidentally is why we are getting a proliferation of mcdojos, a little socially accepted dojo storming and those would go away real quick.)  If your art is a historical battlefield art with little application to modern day self-defense, then fine, it is now an anachronism, enjoy your studies.  But if your art claims to make you a competent unarmed fighter, then the test is fighting.  Certainly not every practitioner has to fight, but to maintain that rep there has to be some element of interaction against other skilled fighters.  Actually, that isn't true, if your system is designed to essentially defend against unskilled attackers then pressure testing against skilled opponents is unnecessary (see kenpo....)  But that makes for bad advertising; "we totally kick *** against unskilled adversaries."   But if you claim to have a fighting art designed to defend against other skilled fighters, your system or some representatives of that system better go out and promote the brand.  Right now that arena is MMA or kickboxing or submission grappling, heck the options for weapon tournaments are opening up these days, have you seen those HEMA guys?  At some point living off the rep of some long dead founder doesn't count anymore.


----------



## drop bear

Capoeira in Rio hero's.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_VsfoEy8vU


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Capoeira in Rio hero's.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_VsfoEy8vU



That is a beautiful head butt knockout!  To bad head butt are illegal in the mma unified rules.  I have always enjoyed watching them utilized effectively!


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> That is a beautiful head butt knockout!  To bad head butt are illegal in the mma unified rules.  I have always enjoyed watching them utilized effectively!




Not to bad if you are doing it.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> You seem to be taking this as a given.  I'm not convinced that it is.



Why would you  assume that? I'm merely asking a question. The question stems from the notion from a few posters here that their art becomes decidedly less effective in an arena or a ring. If you study Kendo, I can understand that argument. However, if you're studying an unarmed form of MA, the general NHB rules shouldn't hinder your style completely.

Of course, I'm willing to accept being wrong about that, which is why I'm asking the question.


----------



## qianfeng

I think Muay Thai, kickboxing and boxing have an advantage because they have been doing these full contact competitions for a long time compared to say kung fu.
This developes an advantage as they will focus on techniques that work best in these situationes compared to many different techniques of various ones.


----------



## qianfeng

well some forms can help you develope  fajin which is useful.


----------



## qianfeng

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not all TMA have form. My Shuai-Chiao (Chinese wrestling) system is a TMA but it has no form. The Yi Chuan system also has no form. The Judo system also has no form.
> 
> I was a striker before I was a grappler. After I have trained as a grappler, my opinion about form has changed big time. My current interest is the integration of kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game. I don't have time to worry about form any more. I'm a TMA guy outside, but I'm a MMA guy inside (I'm 100% in favor of "cross training").



I was wondering which striking style did u do before shuai jiao and do you still practice it?


----------



## qianfeng

Argus said:


> Yep. My point though is that we don't really train to spar. There are some WC guys out there who can hold their own in a sparring context, but only because they've trained with that purpose in mind.
> 
> In the same way I might have some trouble in a sparring context, I think you would find a chisau context equally challenging and unfamiliar.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm confident, despite not having much sparring practice, my training would serve me if I ever needed it in a confrontation. Or, heck, if I put it to its traditional use and entered a 1950's challenge match.



i think you'll find that having not sparred what will happen is the same as some masters in 1950s who also thought that but when sparring they did this wu vs chan 1954 (taichi versus white crane) - YouTube


----------



## qianfeng

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but to use your example, there IS grappling in many Karate and Kung Fu styles. Why would a Choy Li Fut or Prayin Mantis practitioner for example need to go learn Bjj or Wrestling when their art has grappling and joint locks within the system already?
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but then comes the other question; Why are we not seeing anyone enter the UFC or Bellator, and break out in Kung Fu or Karate hand techniques, footwork, or stances?
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be fair, Bjj has all of those qualities you mentioned above, yet is still a major style in MMA competition. So even that explanation doesn't really work.



Kung fu almost all standup locks and throws and if u look and chinese wreslting thats standup too so yeah need something else if u want to join mma


----------



## qianfeng

the first one is a du li bu and the lifting foot is like a leg check....

and for preying mantis you dont need to hold out ur hand like that when fighting....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

qianfeng said:


> I was wondering which striking style did u do before shuai jiao and do you still practice it?


The long fist system (from Master Li, Mao-Ching) is my major striking art. That's where all my foundation was developed from. 

http://ymaa.com/articles/grandmaster-li-mao-ching

My minor are praying mantis, Baji, Zimen, Win Chun, white ape, Lohan, Taiji, XingYi. I still practice those styles but I only take what I need from those styles and I don't train those forms any more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

qianfeng said:


> well some forms can help you develope  fajin which is useful.


Here is my argument. After you have learned your forms, you don't need to keep training your forms to develop Fajin. You can tear that form apart, dig out your drills, and train those drills in any order that you may like to.

The Baji system uses different solo drill to develop different Fajin. Of course all the drills may come from the form. But if you are interested in Fajin, you don't have to train form and follow the order in that form. You can develop any Fajin in any order. The form has many moves but there are only 8 Fajin drills that may come out of all the Baji forms. If you just train those 8 drills, you don't need to learn the original 3 Baji forms. This is so nice about the Baji system. If you put time to train those 8 drills, you will develop your Fajin. You don't have to spend 3 years in form training to achieve that. 

IMO, there are 3 options here, I prefer the 2nd method myself. Today, even I no longer train those Baji forms, I still train those Baji drills.

1. Learn the form, train the form for the rest of your life.
 2. Learn the form, tear that form apart, dig out your drills, forget about your form, and train your drills for the rest of your life.
3. Don't learn the form, just learn the drills, and train those drills for the rest of your life.

Here is one of the 8 drills that anybody can use it to develop "cross Jin". If one just repeats this solo drill 100 times daily, he will develop a Baji body method (compress and release) without using the original Baji form.


----------



## qianfeng

i see your point and it is a lot better than my haha!

Drills in my opinion better than forms for training but i was jut saying forms do provide some help. I do quite a bit of Ma bu gong chui (horse stance to bow stance punch) for fajin.

And is that adam hsu? the taiwanese baji seems quite a bit different to my and the again every lineage looks different but the power generation is the same.


----------



## Buka

I love MMA. I've been watching for twenty years, have trained in it and was a judge In Massachusetts for five years. Some of the kids I judged years ago are in the UFC now. And I use the UFC as an example since we all know it and can watch it just by turning on our tvs. There is not one fighter in the UFC, not one, who has not trained specifically for MMA. Not one wrestler, not one BJJ guy, not one Muay Thai guy etc. You couldn't even get to the UFC level without training in a cage, and specifically train in MMA, no matter what your favorite, or original style. And it has nothing to do with how your style translates in self defense terms. All UFC fighters, all of them, train specifically for MMA. All UFC wannabes do too. _All_ of them.


----------



## Reedone816

^^ all current ufc fighter learn mma, but for those who learn other than muay thai- bjj - wrestling, has comes with uniques moves that has not been used before they used it.
From one mma podcast, duke said that mma is a copy-paste sport, once they learn it works, everyone train it.
Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Reedone816 said:


> ^^ all current ufc fighter learn mma, but for those who learn other than muay thai- bjj - wrestling, has comes with uniques moves that has not been used before they used it.
> From one mma podcast, duke said that mma is a copy-paste sport, once they learn it works, everyone train it.
> Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk



Exactly. No-gi Judo for example is now being incorporated into MMA curriculums because Rhonda Rousey is dominating with it. Before that, people figured that Judo throws were unpractical, and felt that wrestling offered better general takedowns. Now you have Rousey tossing people with Judo throws, and no one can counter them.

If someone started dominating with Wing Chun, Ninjutsu, or Aikido, the exact same thing would happen. However, its doubtful that would happen due to the training methods of those styles.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Actual alive akido.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4mGjDjsCWGY



Meh. 

Might as well do Judo instead if you're going to fight like that.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I think you would agree that an Okinawan Karateka can defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down yes? So why exactly can't an Okinawan Karateka defend themselves against a wrestler trying to take them down in a ring or arena?
> 
> Additionally, if you can escape from a grappler on the ground in a SD situation, why couldn't you escape from a grappler in a ring or arena?


Because there are some things that you may need to use that you are not allowed to use in the ring or cage.


----------



## Steve

qianfeng said:


> i think you'll find that having not sparred what will happen is the same as some masters in 1950s who also thought that but when sparring they did this wu vs chan 1954 (taichi versus white crane) - YouTube


Thank you for sharing that video. 

Here's the thing, guys, and I really believe it.  They say that you will fight how you train.  I agree with this, but only if you are training for the task.  I've gone on before about instructional theory, and how people learn.  But here is a perfect example.  The match we saw bore very little resemblance to the way these "masters" trained.  If you don't train well, using common sense instructional theory, you will not fight how you train.  You will fight like someone with virtually no training.

So, to answer Hanzou's original question.  Why do "TMAs" (in quotes, because it really is a subjective term) have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?  The answer is common sense.  The reason Muay Thai does better is because they train using solid instructional theory.  Muay Thai develops skills in a logical, progressive manner that ends with functional application.  Muay Thai starts with basic instruction in appropriate technique.  Muay Thai incorporates drills that reinforce the technique and exercises that prepare the body to execute the technique.  And then, throughout the training process, you are required to execute the technique and apply it in combination with every other technique in an unscripted environment where you receive clear and immediate feedback.  "Crap, I didn't slip that jab and it hurt my face."  

And as a result, when a Muay Thai trained martial artists gets into a fight, they fight like they train.  They have developed skills that work for them under pressure.  This common sense, instructional theory is the way we teach everyone to do everything, except martial arts.  Some styles think that common sense is too common, and they want to be uncommon.  Fine, but I challenge you to think of another area of expertise where someone doesn't do what they are training to do to application.  And further, I believe that on some level, everyone here knows whether they're walking the talk or not.  Are you training to use your techniques in a fight?  Or are you training to perform the perfect kata or form?  Are you training to perfect your chi sau, or are you training to use WC in a fight?  

I want to make it clear that this is why I get a chuckle in conversations like this.  Could WC work?  Probably.  I think it could.  Any style could work.  It's not the techniques (usually).  It's the way the techniques are trained.  It's the way skills are developed.  If it's trained to application... which, based upon the conversations I've seen over the years, is not common.  Could Shotokan Karate work?  Sure, but only if you train it to application.  

BJJ is not inherently better than any other art.  The criticisms of BJJ are well found, in general.  It is very specific.  But BJJ has an advantage over a lot of other styles.  I KNOW that I can choke you out.  I KNOW that I can take you to the ground if I want to, and I KNOW that I can maintain a dominant position and disengage (that means stand back up) if I want to.  How do I know?  Because I do these things.  I have developed these skills in the same way that I learned to play the clarinet, ride a bike, read, play chess and every thing else I've ever learned.  

What's the difference between Pee Wee football and Tiny Tigers TKD classes?  Answer:  In Pee Wee football, the kids are learning to play football.  in Tiny Tigers TKD, the kids are learning "respect."

The problem isn't the style in question.  It's how the style is trained.  And so when people talk about "traditional" the big difference is application.  

Good or bad, competitive martial arts DO fight like they train.  But, the implication on the part of the TMA mindset is that you will ALSO fight like you train, and you train deadly, for the street.  But when we see videos like the one above, and we can also see in EVERY OTHER THING WE DO OR LEARN, this is not true.  If you don't train using common sense, fundamentally sound, instructional theory, you will not fight like you train.  You will fight like someone who is virtually untrained.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Okay, so what if someone wants to use Goju for MMA, why can't they use it? What rules prevent Goju from being fully effective in NHB competition?


OK. Although it is not the way most traditional Okinawan based Goju karateka go there are a couple who have gone on to the UFC and a few others from traditional Okinawan karate. There is no reason why Goju would not be effective in that type of competition if someone wanted to go that way. Just that very few choose to.


> Neil Grove is the Ultimate Challenge UK HW Champion. He holds a shodan in Goju-ryu Karate and won all his fights by way of TKO.
> 
> Gunnar Nelson, Goju-ryu black belt, Iceland's most promising up-and-coming Karate talent of 2005, currently undefeated in 10 bouts.
> 
> Not Goju but still from traditional styles ...
> 
> Gustavo Sampaio is a 3rd Dan in Uechi-ryu Karate and a multiple-time champion in Full-contact Karate. None of his 5 MMA wins have gone the distance and the only loss came via decision.
> 
> Jesse Bongfeldt, amateur Canadian WW Champion, Amateur Western Canadian LHW Champion, 2x TKO WW Champion, RITC WW and MW Champion. A brown belt in Isshin-ryu, Jesse said in an interview: "I started training young, as all of my family was in Judo and I loved Karate!"
> 
> Brian Rogers is a brown belt in Isshin-ryu Karate who currently fights for Bellator. 8 of his 9 wins have come by a way of KO.
> 
> Mike Ciesnolevicz built his base on Karate, Judo and kickboxing, honed his wrestling skills at Lock Haven University and eventually joined Pat Miletich in MFS. Mike is a blackbelt in Shorin Ryu Karate under John Korab. After leaving the UFC Mike began training Karate again and returned to his winning ways.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Imagine if a TMA practioner dominated an MMA tournament. That praciticioner would be set for life. I find it hard to believe that every TMA pracitioner in the entire world has no desire for fortune or fame, or to enhance the health of their style of choice if they had the ability to do so.



Four things:

1) Getting a job is a much more reliable way of getting money than fighting.

2) Who wants to be famous anyway, people always bugging you and asking for autographs, no privacy, people scrutinizing your every move, no thanks. 

3) The best way to enhance the health of your style (whatever that means exactly) is to concentrate on your style and not try to turn it into something it isn't.

4) Not everyone who does martial arts wants or needs to compete, its not always about having something to prove or boosting your ego or showing how badass you are.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Four things:
> 
> 1) Getting a job is a much more reliable way of getting money than fighting.


Unless fighting is your job.  I only point this out because it's pretty subjective.  What's reliable depends upon a lot of things having nothing to do with the UFC, MMA or competition at large.





> 2) Who wants to be famous anyway, people always bugging you and asking for autographs, no privacy, people scrutinizing your every move, no thanks.


Again, this is very subjective, and frankly, it's a deflection.  It's like someone saying, "I love my job, and even if I won the mega millions lottery, I'd still work every day."  BS, but we tell ourselves what we need to in order to be happy.  "I wouldn't want to be rich.  PDiddy said it right.  More money, more problems."  LOL.   Frankly, I'd give fame a shot and so would most people, particularly if it was through the application of expertise, such as with an MA.  What I mean is, there is a difference between the fame and noteriety of being acknowledged as a pioneer in a field of expertise, and being famous because you started an internet meme on YouTube or Instagram.  



> 3) The best way to enhance the health of your style (whatever that means exactly) is to concentrate on your style and not try to turn it into something it isn't.


This is also a great way to stagnate and foster a learning environment that is more concerned with dogma and tradition than practicality and efficacy of skill.





> 4) Not everyone who does martial arts wants or needs to compete, its not always about having something to prove or boosting your ego or showing how badass you are.


True, and most people who train in BJJ, MMA or other styles enjoy the benefits of the learning style and never compete.  Even if you don't compete, you benefit from those who do.


----------



## Flying Crane

Blindside said:


> Question: How does a system get a rep for being good at fighting?
> Answer: It fought.
> 
> Somehow, somewhere it made a name for itself, practitioners went out and kicked ***.
> 
> ...
> 
> But if you claim to have a fighting art designed to defend against other skilled fighters, your system or some representatives of that system better go out and promote the brand.  Right now that arena is MMA or kickboxing or submission grappling, heck the options for weapon tournaments are opening up these days, have you seen those HEMA guys?  At some point living off the rep of some long dead founder doesn't count anymore.



I want to make sure I am clear on your position here.  Are you saying that a reputation in mma competition is the only way you would accept that a method is useful and effective?

Are you saying that if one, or a small number, of proponents of a particular method enter mma competition and perform poorly, then the entire system that they practice is deemed ineffective?  

my own answer to both of these questions is "no".  But I am interested in your answers because I would like to make sure I understand your position.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Exactly. No-gi Judo for example is now being incorporated into MMA curriculums because Rhonda Rousey is dominating with it. Before that, people figured that Judo throws were unpractical, and felt that wrestling offered better general takedowns. Now you have Rousey tossing people with Judo throws, and no one can counter them.
> 
> If someone started dominating with Wing Chun, Ninjutsu, or Aikido, the exact same thing would happen. However, its doubtful that would happen due to the training methods of those styles.


Is judo considered traditional? 

So from your statement here, the style is irrelevant? If someone is skilled enough to make a move work consistently, than everyone will train it. Just needs someone to apply it in the first instance, is that what your meaning?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> OK. Although it is not the way most traditional Okinawan based Goju karateka go there are a couple who have gone on to the UFC and a few others from traditional Okinawan karate. There is no reason why Goju would not be effective in that type of competition if someone wanted to go that way. Just that very few choose to.



Neil Grove also trained in submission wrestling. 
Gunnar Nelson gave up Goju at 17 to train full time in Bjj. He has a Bjj black belt under Renzo Gracie.

My question is this; Why did both of these Goju stylists need to train in Bjj or submission wrestling before entering MMA?


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Is judo considered traditional?
> 
> So from your statement here, the style is irrelevant? If someone is skilled enough to make a move work consistently, than everyone will train it. Just needs someone to apply it in the first instance, is that what your meaning?



I do believe that style is irrelevant. I personally think it comes down to training method. The problem is that often times the style is heavily tied to a training method.

And yeah, if someone pops up and shakes up the MMA world with an underused style, the entire landscape changes and that style rises in popularity because of it. Judo is getting a resurgence because Rhonda Rousey is dominating her opponents with it. However, that only happened because Rhonda Rousey showed what you can do with no-gi Judo, and because Judo already had the training methodology in place to allow something like that to happen.


----------



## Blindside

Flying Crane said:


> I want to make sure I am clear on your position here.  Are you saying that a reputation in mma competition is the only way you would accept that a method is useful and effective?



No, not the only way, but certainly the most practical and immediately visible.  For me "useful and effective" has to be shown by regular use against a resisting opponent, combat sports are the simplest way to do that.  As an alternate example, a system could train a large contingent of LEOs and generate its reputation on the experiences of those officers over time.  



> Are you saying that if one, or a small number, of proponents of a particular method enter mma competition and perform poorly, then the entire system that they practice is deemed ineffective?



No, no more than having just one, or a small number of proponents of a particular method that do well prove that it is effective.  There are lots of BJJers, wrestlers, and muay thaiers who don't make the transition to MMA, but the vast majority of skillsets used in the championship levels are from those systems.  Lyoto Machida by himself doesn't prove that shotokan is effective at a championship level, it is certainly pointed to as evidence, but one individual isn't proof.  But if in a couple of years if the top 10 of each weight division is scattered with Shotokan strikers, then most people would take it as evidence.  If every member of Whipping Willow kung fu has gotten his butt handed to him in amateur level MMA it should rightfully raise questions about the effectiveness of that system.  I don't even think that you have to be a champion, if the fighters from the system can go 50/50 against other systems, 

So I study PTK, the unarmed portion of the system by itself will not make a successful transition to MMA or kickboxing, and I wouldn't expect it to, it is hamstrung by the assumption of weapons being involved.  So how do I "prove" effectiveness?  I spar full contact both within the system and against other systems, it just isn't a MMA venue.  And I am not the only guy from my system doing so, we tend to alot of fighters to these events, and it keeps the system informed about what is working and what doesn't.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Thank you for sharing that video.
> 
> Here's the thing, guys, and I really believe it.  They say that you will fight how you train.  I agree with this, but only if you are training for the task.  I've gone on before about instructional theory, and how people learn.  But here is a perfect example.  The match we saw bore very little resemblance to the way these "masters" trained.  If you don't train well, using common sense instructional theory, you will not fight how you train.  You will fight like someone with virtually no training.
> 
> So, to answer Hanzou's original question.  Why do "TMAs" (in quotes, because it really is a subjective term) have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?  The answer is common sense.  The reason Muay Thai does better is because they train using solid instructional theory.  Muay Thai develops skills in a logical, progressive manner that ends with functional application.  Muay Thai starts with basic instruction in appropriate technique.  Muay Thai incorporates drills that reinforce the technique and exercises that prepare the body to execute the technique.  And then, throughout the training process, you are required to execute the technique and apply it in combination with every other technique in an unscripted environment where you receive clear and immediate feedback.  "Crap, I didn't slip that jab and it hurt my face."
> 
> And as a result, when a Muay Thai trained martial artists gets into a fight, they fight like they train.  They have developed skills that work for them under pressure.  This common sense, instructional theory is the way we teach everyone to do everything, except martial arts.  Some styles think that common sense is too common, and they want to be uncommon.  Fine, but I challenge you to think of another area of expertise where someone doesn't do what they are training to do to application.  And further, I believe that on some level, everyone here knows whether they're walking the talk or not.  Are you training to use your techniques in a fight?  Or are you training to perform the perfect kata or form?  Are you training to perfect your chi sau, or are you training to use WC in a fight?
> 
> I want to make it clear that this is why I get a chuckle in conversations like this.  Could WC work?  Probably.  I think it could.  Any style could work.  It's not the techniques (usually).  It's the way the techniques are trained.  It's the way skills are developed.  If it's trained to application... which, based upon the conversations I've seen over the years, is not common.  Could Shotokan Karate work?  Sure, but only if you train it to application.
> 
> BJJ is not inherently better than any other art.  The criticisms of BJJ are well found, in general.  It is very specific.  But BJJ has an advantage over a lot of other styles.  I KNOW that I can choke you out.  I KNOW that I can take you to the ground if I want to, and I KNOW that I can maintain a dominant position and disengage (that means stand back up) if I want to.  How do I know?  Because I do these things.  I have developed these skills in the same way that I learned to play the clarinet, ride a bike, read, play chess and every thing else I've ever learned.
> 
> What's the difference between Pee Wee football and Tiny Tigers TKD classes?  Answer:  In Pee Wee football, the kids are learning to play football.  in Tiny Tigers TKD, the kids are learning "respect."
> 
> The problem isn't the style in question.  It's how the style is trained.  And so when people talk about "traditional" the big difference is application.
> 
> Good or bad, competitive martial arts DO fight like they train.  But, the implication on the part of the TMA mindset is that you will ALSO fight like you train, and you train deadly, for the street.  But when we see videos like the one above, and we can also see in EVERY OTHER THING WE DO OR LEARN, this is not true.  If you don't train using common sense, fundamentally sound, instructional theory, you will not fight like you train.  You will fight like someone who is virtually untrained.



The thing with that also is you could theoretically fight exactly how you train. In that you can drop a guy with a pair of 16 ounce gloves.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgOsM80W-UQ


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Is judo considered traditional?



I wouldn't. Judo was developed for the modern world, and it's been evolving ever since its birth. Kano created it to evolve over time, which is why you have Olympic Judo, Bjj and Sambo all emerging from it. Unfortunately, I think Kano's dislike of ground fighting, and the Olympics really hampered Judo's development during the middle of the 20th century. Fortunately, the Brazilians pushed Bjj into exciting directions in the same time frame. So while. Judo was ebbing in Japan and the west, Bjj was ready to burst out of South America. While Sambo never achieved the worldwide fame of Bjj, it was still nurtured and developed in its native  Russia.

Bjj showed Judo that Newaza was a powerful tool that shouldn't be neglected. Sambo showed the benefits and potency of wrestling takedowns, and leg locks. The wonderful thing happening now is the cross-training of Judo, Sambo, and Bjj, as all three look to one another to fill in perceived gaps in their styles. There's judo guys at Bjj schools, there's Bj guys at Judo clubs, and there's grapplers from both styles seeking Sambo guys to come in and share what they know. It's going to be interesting to see what develops from the "three sisters" comparing notes with one another. 

We may see a new martial art emerge because of it.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Neil Grove also trained in submission wrestling.
> Gunnar Nelson gave up Goju at 17 to train full time in Bjj. He has a Bjj black belt under Renzo Gracie.
> 
> My question is this; Why did both of these Goju stylists need to train in Bjj or submission wrestling before entering MMA?


Exactly! Which is the point I have been making all along. If someone wants to compete in MMA of course they train to compete in MMA. The other point is that very few guys from traditional styles even want to make the transition. I don't really see the point you are trying to make. MMA fighters train to compete in the MMA. Most other martial artists don't. I am sure there would be literally thousands of people training MMA who would get their arses whipped if they went into the professional ring. Does that mean that MMA sucks or is it just that their training doesn't prepare them for that level of competition? I'm sure that your training has provided you with the knowledge and expertise to fight at the very highest levels of MMA. I'll bet you're a real animal in the ring. I'll confess, my training hasn't prepared me for anything like that. But at 66 I don't give a rat's. I'm still training, I'm still learning and I'm still enjoying my training. Let's see if the same can be said for you when you're 66.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Exactly! Which is the point I have been making all along. If someone wants to compete in MMA of course they train to compete in MMA. The other point is that very few guys from traditional styles even want to make the transition. I don't really see the point you are trying to make. MMA fighters train to compete in the MMA. Most other martial artists don't.



My point would be, why would a Goju need to train in Bjj or another form of submission wrestling? Goju and other TMAs view themselves as "complete" systems. Wouldn't Goju alone provide the tools necessary to compete in MMA?



> I am sure there would be literally thousands of people training MMA who would get their arses whipped if they went into the professional ring. Does that mean that MMA sucks or is it just that their training doesn't prepare them for that level of competition? I'm sure that your training has provided you with the knowledge and expertise to fight at the very highest levels of MMA. I'll bet you're a real animal in the ring. I'll confess, my training hasn't prepared me for anything like that. But at 66 I don't give a rat's. I'm still training, I'm still learning and I'm still enjoying my training. Let's see if the same can be said for you when you're 66.



Well Helio Gracie was doing Bjj well into his 90s, so I'm sure I'll be just fine.


----------



## Steve

A question I have is why some martial artists are so helpless.  

Let's get real here.  It's more than training for Mma.  Some martial artists aren't training for conflict of any kind.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> A question I have is why some martial artists are so helpless.
> 
> Let's get real here.  It's more than training for Mma.  Some martial artists aren't training for conflict of any kind.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Just to clarify, Some martial artists aren't training for conflict of any kind but think they are.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> My point would be, why would a Goju need to train in Bjj or another form of submission wrestling? Goju and other TMAs view themselves as "complete" systems. Wouldn't Goju alone provide the tools necessary to compete in MMA?


I'm sure that Goju alone has the tools to compete. The question is more, does it have the tools required to compete successfully  in a competition that has rules that favour grappling, without specialist training in ground work? I think you are so blinkered in your approach to other martial arts and so fixated on competition where ground fighting is actually encouraged, that you cannot see that most reality based martial arts would go to the ground only as a last resort and if you are on the ground you would be getting back on your feet as soon as possible. In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which virtually nothing has anything to do with submission.

But that is beside the point. Why can't you accept the fact that most people learning martial arts don't want to compete? Even using the generic term Goju shows your ignorance of the different styles of Goju. When I was learning Goju Kai, which does have a sport background, we did zero grappling. Why? Because right up to the World Championships there was no grappling allowed. Same with the 'All Styles' competitions that are around. They weren't training for MMA style tournaments. I am the first to say that the absence of grappling is, in my opinion a huge omission, but only if you want a more complete style. Kyokushin which is in my opinion pretty strong karate, is also very sport oriented and if you look to the UFC there are dozens of Kyokushin guys that have transitioned into MMA. Now I am training Okinawan Goju there is lots of grappling but not much ground fighting. In this area no one seems at all interested in competition. I still consider it a complete system because it is a system that fulfils the requirements of self defence.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I'm sure that Goju alone has the tools to compete. The question is more, does it have the tools required to compete successfully  in a competition that has rules that favour grappling, without specialist training in ground work? I think you are so blinkered in your approach to other martial arts and so fixated on competition where ground fighting is actually encouraged, that you cannot see that most reality based martial arts would go to the ground only as a last resort and if you are on the ground you would be getting back on your feet as soon as possible. In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which virtually nothing has anything to do with submission.
> 
> But that is beside the point. Why can't you accept the fact that most people learning martial arts don't want to compete? Even using the generic term Goju shows your ignorance of the different styles of Goju. When I was learning Goju Kai, which does have a sport background, we did zero grappling. Why? Because right up to the World Championships there was no grappling allowed. Same with the 'All Styles' competitions that are around. They weren't training for MMA style tournaments. I am the first to say that the absence of grappling is, in my opinion a huge omission, but only if you want a more complete style. Kyokushin which is in my opinion pretty strong karate, is also very sport oriented and if you look to the UFC there are dozens of Kyokushin guys that have transitioned into MMA. Now I am training Okinawan Goju there is lots of grappling but not much ground fighting. In this area no one seems at all interested in competition. I still consider it a complete system because it is a system that fulfils the requirements of self defence.


what exactly is your point?  I don't get it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Flying Crane

Blindside said:


> No, not the only way, but certainly the most practical and immediately visible.  For me "useful and effective" has to be shown by regular use against a resisting opponent, combat sports are the simplest way to do that.  As an alternate example, a system could train a large contingent of LEOs and generate its reputation on the experiences of those officers over time.
> 
> 
> 
> No, no more than having just one, or a small number of proponents of a particular method that do well prove that it is effective.  There are lots of BJJers, wrestlers, and muay thaiers who don't make the transition to MMA, but the vast majority of skillsets used in the championship levels are from those systems.  Lyoto Machida by himself doesn't prove that shotokan is effective at a championship level, it is certainly pointed to as evidence, but one individual isn't proof.  But if in a couple of years if the top 10 of each weight division is scattered with Shotokan strikers, then most people would take it as evidence.  If every member of Whipping Willow kung fu has gotten his butt handed to him in amateur level MMA it should rightfully raise questions about the effectiveness of that system.  I don't even think that you have to be a champion, if the fighters from the system can go 50/50 against other systems,
> 
> So I study PTK, the unarmed portion of the system by itself will not make a successful transition to MMA or kickboxing, and I wouldn't expect it to, it is hamstrung by the assumption of weapons being involved.  So how do I "prove" effectiveness?  I spar full contact both within the system and against other systems, it just isn't a MMA venue.  And I am not the only guy from my system doing so, we tend to alot of fighters to these events, and it keeps the system informed about what is working and what doesn't.



I guess I just don't see it that way.  If someone is a successful competitor, then I see it as that person is successful.  The style they've trained is less important and that person's success is no guarantee that the style is the magic ticket.  People start to assume that, well So-and-So trained in BJJ, so they MUST be good, just look at all the BJJ in MMA.  I don't make that assumption.  There's plenty of lousy people in every style, including BJJ.  It still comes down to the person, whether he's successful or not.  What tools he chooses to use doesn't automatically guarantee anything.

I think some people who are proponents of certain styles have embraced MMA type competition.  That's fine if that's what they are interested in.  But their example encourages others to follow in their footsteps and pursue the same, or similar styles if they too are interested in MMA competition.  So it creates a pattern that people notice: MMA has a lot of influence from things like BJJ, Muay Thai, and boxing.  And people mistake this to mean that those are the only methods that work for MMA.  I guess in some ways they may be correct because I'm guessing the training methods that many people follow in these systems probably has become highly tailored to be successful specifically in MMA bouts.  

there's a whole butt-load of different systems of martial arts out there.  I'm gonna suspect that many of them never had anyone "represent" that system in modern MMA of any kind.  Their lack of a presence in MMA tells me exactly nothing about whether or not the method itself is effective, or makes good sense as a training methodology or as an approach to combat.  It certainly doesn't encourage me to assume it's a poor system.  The desire to compete in MMA is something that only a tiny minority of martial artists have.  To think that a system must have been represented in MMA competition in order to prove its effectiveness is, in my opinion, pretty short-sighted.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> what exactly is your point?  I don't get it.


Simply that people who want to fight against all comers in MMA need to train appropriately to take full advantage of the rules. Mixed Martial Arts are just that, a mixture of styles. Those of us who don't have any desire to fight in the ring don't train that way. To me that doesn't make any styles that don't train for competition any more or less effective than those that do, except in a competitive sense.  My first response to Hanzou was to give him a couple of guys who had trained Goju and gone on to compete in the UFC. He then pointed out that they had cross trained to compete. That would seem a no brainer to me but seemed to be a great revelation to Hanzou where he questions the need to train in BJJ or submission wrestling if you are going to compete in a competition heavily into submission wrestling. You don't get it? I don't get it either! 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I just don't see it that way.  If someone is a successful competitor, then I see it as that person is successful.  The style they've trained is less important and that person's success is no guarantee that the style is the magic ticket.  People start to assume that, well So-and-So trained in BJJ, so they MUST be good, just look at all the BJJ in MMA.  I don't make that assumption.  There's plenty of lousy people in every style, including BJJ.  It still comes down to the person, whether he's successful or not.  What tools he chooses to use doesn't automatically guarantee anything.
> 
> I think some people who are proponents of certain styles have embraced MMA type competition.  That's fine if that's what they are interested in.  But their example encourages others to follow in their footsteps and pursue the same, or similar styles if they too are interested in MMA competition.  So it creates a pattern that people notice: MMA has a lot of influence from things like BJJ, Muay Thai, and boxing.  And people mistake this to mean that those are the only methods that work for MMA.  I guess in some ways they may be correct because I'm guessing the training methods that many people follow in these systems probably has become highly tailored to be successful specifically in MMA bouts.
> 
> there's a whole butt-load of different systems of martial arts out there.  I'm gonna suspect that many of them never had anyone "represent" that system in modern MMA of any kind.  Their lack of a presence in MMA tells me exactly nothing about whether or not the method itself is effective, or makes good sense as a training methodology or as an approach to combat.  It certainly doesn't encourage me to assume it's a poor system.  The desire to compete in MMA is something that only a tiny minority of martial artists have.  To think that a system must have been represented in MMA competition in order to prove its effectiveness is, in my opinion, pretty short-sighted.



The issue that you have is we do not have a very good system of testing a martial arts any other way. So yes you are on the money with the idea that MMA testing is flawed. But you can't use that to suggest that any martial art that does not test in any way is as good.

 People say they train for the street. But they either don't get into street fights or can't prove they get into street fights. Which is fine that is the sensible option. But we are stuck with testing by competition.

We could just go by as many news articles we can find relating to martial artists foiling robberies and defending themselves but tmas dont over represent well there either?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I'm sure that Goju alone has the tools to compete. The question is more, does it have the tools required to compete successfully  in a competition that has rules that favour grappling, without specialist training in ground work?




What rules specifically favor grappling in MMA competition? All of those takedown defenses you showed earlier are perfectly legal in MMA.




> I think you are so blinkered in your approach to other martial arts and so fixated on competition where ground fighting is actually encouraged, that you cannot see that most reality based martial arts would go to the ground only as a last resort and if you are on the ground you would be getting back on your feet as soon as possible. In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which virtually nothing has anything to do with submission.



I don't believe that ground fighting is encouraged at all. Ground fighting is a natural development of fighting itself, where both parties will attempt to knock, or take the opponent to the ground in order to gain a dominant position. Royce Gracie dominated with it in the first UFC, so everyone had to learn it in order to be competitive.

BTW, I'm frankly surprised that you don't teach submission holds to your students. If you're already teaching them how to gain a dominant position on the ground, why aren't you teaching them how to finish their opponent while in that position? Getting back to your feet asap is fine and dandy, but why risk prolonging the encounter if you can end it right then and there with a choke or a limb snap?



> But that is beside the point. Why can't you accept the fact that most people learning martial arts don't want to compete?



I accept it just fine. I'm merely asking about those who wish to compete; Why do they need to cross train in totally different style? Why isn't Goju-Ryu grappling enough for the situation?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I just don't see it that way.  If someone is a successful competitor, then I see it as that person is successful.  The style they've trained is less important and that person's success is no guarantee that the style is the magic ticket.  People start to assume that, well So-and-So trained in BJJ, so they MUST be good, just look at all the BJJ in MMA.  I don't make that assumption.  There's plenty of lousy people in every style, including BJJ.  It still comes down to the person, whether he's successful or not.  What tools he chooses to use doesn't automatically guarantee anything.



I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot less lousy people in Bjj compared to many other styles. 

Mainly because of the training methodology involved.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> This is also a great way to stagnate and foster a learning environment that is more concerned with dogma and tradition than practicality and efficacy of skill.



That depends on how its done The RTKD in my area just opened 3 new schools recently so it certainly has not stagnated. Practicality and efficacy is foremost on the minds of all our instructors and is impressed upon every student.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Simply that people who want to fight against all comers in MMA need to train appropriately to take full advantage of the rules. Mixed Martial Arts are just that, a mixture of styles. Those of us who don't have any desire to fight in the ring don't train that way. To me that doesn't make any styles that don't train for competition any more or less effective than those that do, except in a competitive sense.  My first response to Hanzou was to give him a couple of guys who had trained Goju and gone on to compete in the UFC. He then pointed out that they had cross trained to compete. That would seem a no brainer to me but seemed to be a great revelation to Hanzou where he questions the need to train in BJJ or submission wrestling if you are going to compete in a competition heavily into submission wrestling. You don't get it? I don't get it either!
> :asian:



Whether one wants to train for the ring or anything else, if you never transition to application, your training is flawed.  

If I understand Hanzou correctly, the question is why some martial artists are so helpless at the stages of combat in which they do train, using technique that should be familiar to them.   That's the elephant in the room.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> What rules specifically favor grappling in MMA competition? All of those takedown defenses you showed earlier are perfectly legal in MMA.


So we are again back to where we started. Are you just trolling? We have discussed the rules and the effective techniques that are banned in MMA competition ad nauseam. I'm not wasting time going through that again.



Hanzou said:


> I don't believe that ground fighting is encouraged at all. Ground fighting is a natural development of fighting itself, where both parties will attempt to knock, or take the opponent to the ground in order to gain a dominant position. Royce Gracie dominated with it in the first UFC, so *everyone had to learn it in order to be competitive*.


What would you consider the main art in MMA? Who was pretty much the instigator of UFC? Whose style of fighting changed the way all competitors train for MMA. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't boxing. Oh! Hang about. You actually put it in your post. Actually ground fighting is not a natural progression in a real fight. In a real fight you don't want to be on the ground ... But that had been stated over and over as well. Maybe it was something I said in an earlier post ... "if you want to be competitive in MMA you have to develop your ground skills". Great to see that you at least took on board something I wrote.



Hanzou said:


> BTW, I'm frankly surprised that you don't teach submission holds to your students. If you're already teaching them how to gain a dominant position on the ground, why aren't you teaching them how to finish their opponent while in that position? Getting back to your feet asap is fine and dandy, but why risk prolonging the encounter if you can end it right then and there with a choke or a limb snap?


Now where did I say I don't teach submission holds to my students? Either you are deliberately twisting my words or you have difficulty comprehending. Where did I say I was teaching to achieve a dominant position on the ground? And where did I say that I wasn't teaching them finishing techniques on the ground? I didn't elaborate on what I consider ground fighting but it is minimalist. I want my guys to preferably keep their feet. If they are pulled to the ground or fall to the ground I want them to get up as quickly as possible. Whatever damage they can inflict in that time I would expect them to inflict quickly. That is not prolonging the encounter.

This is prolonging the encounter.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKN-3pxIeVU



Hanzou said:


> I accept it just fine. I'm merely asking about those who wish to compete; Why do they need to cross train in totally different style? Why isn't Goju-Ryu grappling enough for the situation?


I spent a lot of time looking and could only find two examples. It would seem patently obvious that most Goju practitioners aren't interested in MMA. Perhaps you could go looking seeing it is you that needs to know. One of those guys was Shodan in an Okinawan school, which did surprise me, but the other was just a brown belt and I couldn't find the branch of Goju that he actually trained in. But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> That depends on how its done The RTKD in my area just opened 3 new schools recently so it certainly has not stagnated. Practicality and efficacy is foremost on the minds of all our instructors and is impressed upon every student.


The stagnation I was referring to was regarding quality of training, not fiscal success or marketing.  Also, good intentions alone don't make good training. Thinking about efficacy is a great start, but thinking about it doesn't make it practical.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?


rugby players play rugby.  MMAists compete in mma.  Chefs cook.  Musicians play instruments.   Teachers teach.  Boxers box.  Tennis players eventually play tennis.   There's a point where the rubber must meet the road.

It is dangerous I think for an mma-ist to think he has skills he does not.   MMA does not train for many things critical to self defense.   But it does train punching, kicking and grappling very well.  A smart MMAist will know what he knows and also be very aware of what he does not, because the training leads  to application.

Also, fwiw, the unified rule set favors strikers in many ways.  It's a sidebar, so I won't go into detail, but this "mma favors grapplers" is a misconception that seems to be surfacing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So we are again back to where we started. Are you just trolling? We have discussed the rules and the effective techniques that are banned in MMA competition ad nauseam. I'm not wasting time going through that again.



Could you at least link us back to that post? I don't recall you mentioning those rules.



> What would you consider the main art in MMA? Who was pretty much the instigator of UFC? Whose style of fighting changed the way all competitors train for MMA. I'll give you a clue, it wasn't boxing. Oh! Hang about. You actually put it in your post.



???



> Actually ground fighting is not a natural progression in a real fight. In a real fight you don't want to be on the ground ... But that had been stated over and over as well. Maybe it was something I said in an earlier post ... "if you want to be competitive in MMA you have to develop your ground skills". Great to see that you at least took on board something I wrote.



Again, in a real fight, you don't want to be on the ground, but that doesn't mean that you won't end up there. Especially if you're up against someone a lot bigger than you, someone who sucker punches you or tackles you from behind, being taken advantage of by a significant other, or some other crap happening that you don't expect. Just because you don't want to go there, doesn't mean that you won't end up there. 

Like that US soldier who was almost raped in a middle eastern country by a taxi driver. She had no room to kick, her punches probably couldn't do much damage from a seated position in the back of a taxi, but she was perfectly capable of performing a triangle choke to send her attacker to dreamland.



> Now where did I say I don't teach submission holds to my students? Either you are deliberately twisting my words or you have difficulty comprehending. Where did I say I was teaching to achieve a dominant position on the ground? And where did I say that I wasn't teaching them finishing techniques on the ground? I didn't elaborate on what I consider ground fighting but it is minimalist. I want my guys to preferably keep their feet. If they are pulled to the ground or fall to the ground I want them to get up as quickly as possible. Whatever damage they can inflict in that time I would expect them to inflict quickly. That is not prolonging the encounter.



You said the following;



> _In Krav I teach a small amount of ground fighting of which *virtually nothing has anything to do with submission*._


Feel free to clarify.




> This is prolonging the encounter.  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKN-3pxIeVU



Not surprising considering that they're both athletic, expert-level grapplers who knew how to defend against leg locks, holds, and chokes. The average person would have gotten their ankle snapped off with that initial takedown and leg lock, ending the encounter in a matter of seconds.



> I spent a lot of time looking and could only find two examples. It would seem patently obvious that most Goju practitioners aren't interested in MMA. Perhaps you could go looking seeing it is you that needs to know. One of those guys was Shodan in an Okinawan school, which did surprise me, but the other was just a brown belt and I couldn't find the branch of Goju that he actually trained in. But as I said over and over, if you want to compete in MMA you have to train for MMA. If you want to play rugby you don't train soccer. If you want to play tennis you don't train badminton. What part of that can't you follow?



Well since you've now ignored the direct question for a third time, I guess we're done here.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Whether one wants to train for the ring or anything else, if you never transition to application, your training is flawed.
> 
> If I understand Hanzou correctly, the question is why some martial artists are so helpless at the stages of combat in which they do train, using technique that should be familiar to them.   That's the elephant in the room.


So what you are saying is that if you train to fight in the ring but never fight in the ring your training is flawed? I would say that if you train to fight in the ring and you don't fight in the ring your training has possibly been wasted but it is not necessarily flawed.  If you are called up for military service, complete the training but are never deployed, how is that training flawed? 

Closer to home, if I wish to learn a martial art I would assume that training should include quite rigorous testing, but if I don't take that training into the ring to test it against an unrelated martial art, why is the training flawed? None of my training is for the ring so I am not looking to test it in the ring. In reality, very little of my training is even really preparing for a fight. It is more training so I don't have to fight. So why does that make the training flawed? 

So let's search for the elephant. There are people in any system that are below par. They might train for years and never have the ability to defend themselves. I have had students like that. Most kids classes are just that. Again, what makes that training flawed?

Looking at "helpless at the stages of combat they do train", which is not making a lot of sense to me, surpasses all styles. It is not just a problem in TMAs. It obviously can be a problem in MMA also. But watching these clowns doesn't cause me to bag MMA. Obviously their training hasn't prepared them to compete at the level they are aiming for. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz0hijS2Pu4

I would suggest that, in these cases, these guys' training is flawed.
:asian:


----------



## Steve

Not everyone who trains in mma competes in mma.   But to be qualified to open a gym and teach others mma, that person should certainly have a lot of experience applying the techniques in context.  For MMA, that means competition.

I don't know about Hanzou, but you're retreating to the student.  That's a red herring.   I think, back in the times when styles were being formalized, the old masters were experts, specifically because they had practical experience.  Since then, I'd say we have generations of students who have lacked the experience to instruct.  And yet, they do.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Not everyone who trains in mma competes in mma.   But to be qualified to open a gym and teach others mma, that person should certainly have a lot of experience applying the techniques in context.  For MMA, that means competition.
> 
> I don't know about Hanzou, but you're retreating to the student.  That's a red herring.   I think, back in the times when styles were being formalized, the old masters were experts, specifically because they had practical experience.  Since then, I'd say we have generations of students who have lacked the experience to instruct.  And yet, they do.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree totally with your first para. The second is a little more complex. Any style is portrayed through its students. BJJ would never have gotten of the ground if it wasn't for the skill of the Gracies in particular. Once a style gets a popular champion everyone jumps on the bandwagon. If the style has substance, as BJJ has, then it takes off.  Krav Maga had a similar burst of popularity recently as did Karate from the occupation of Japan post WWII. Hanzou is bashing every style in sight because they haven't put up their students to compete in MMA when their training is not for MMA. It is a ridiculous arguement. 

Now you are claiming that the old masters were experts. I can agree with that but where is the evidence of practical experience? Did Morihei Ueshiba go round picking fights? What about Chojun Miyagi or Gichin Funakoshi? Certainly Imi Lichtenfeld had experience but Krav training is flawed by your definition because it is not tested in competition.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> I agree totally with your first para. The second is a little more complex. Any style is portrayed through its students. BJJ would never have gotten of the ground if it wasn't for the skill of the Gracies in particular. Once a style gets a popular champion everyone jumps on the bandwagon. If the style has substance, as BJJ has, then it takes off.  Krav Maga had a similar burst of popularity recently as did Karate from the occupation of Japan post WWII. Hanzou is bashing every style in sight because they haven't put up their students to compete in MMA when their training is not for MMA. It is a ridiculous arguement.
> 
> Now you are claiming that the old masters were experts. I can agree with that but where is the evidence of practical experience? Did Morihei Ueshiba go round picking fights? What about Chojun Miyagi or Gichin Funakoshi? Certainly Imi Lichtenfeld had experience but Krav training is flawed by your definition because it is not tested in competition.



Couple of things.  First, I don't think Hanzou is bashing any styles, and if you think he is, I recommend you use the rtm function.  I think he's specifically said its not styles but rather training methods he is debating.  

Second, I am not claiming anything about the founders of other styles.   I think it's much more accurate to say that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.   

Third, the acquisition of expertise is a dilemma. The soldiers coming out of jump school are trained, but when they report to the 101st, they would not be called experts.   And further, they would not stay on as an instructor without experience.   This is common in martial arts.  

Which leads to martial arts "experts" who are unable to execute techniques which they train. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Couple of things.  First, I don't think Hanzou is bashing any styles, and if you think he is, I recommend you use the rtm function.  I think he's specifically said its not styles but rather training methods he is debating.
> 
> Second, I am not claiming anything about the founders of other styles.   I think it's much more accurate to say that I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Third, the acquisition of expertise is a dilemma. The soldiers coming out of jump school are trained, but when they report to the 101st, they would not be called experts.   And further, they would not stay on as an instructor without experience.   This is common in martial arts.
> 
> Which leads to martial arts "experts" who are unable to execute techniques which they train.


Again, we are mostly in agreement.

There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.

As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Again, we are mostly in agreement.
> 
> There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.
> 
> As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?



Actually if you read my posts, it completely revolves around training methods, and it only got to that point because no one was willing to give an answer that made sense.

The gist of what I'm getting from traditional stylists is that they're forced to crosstrain into a submission grappling style because submission grappling has an advantage over everything else in a ringed environment. However no one is really willing to explain what that advantage is exactly. 

Saying that the canvas is level, or that there's walls in a cage, or that you can't hit someone in the balls really doesn't hold much weight. All of those factors could also exist "in the streets".


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Again, we are mostly in agreement.
> 
> There is no practical difference in saying a particular style is crap or that the way a particular style is trained is crap. In Hanzou's case it started out that the style was crap and has now morphed into the training is crap. Same dog, different leg action.
> 
> As to jump school I am sure the instructors are highly trained and experienced with hundreds of jumps in their logs. But are you suggesting that if they haven't jumped into a combat zone they are not qualified to instruct?



I think we are close, too.  Except that I also think I'm basically saying the same thing as Hanzou.  I don't think he's style bashing, but if you do, again, instead of casually accusing him in the thread, I recommend you use the RTM function.   Personally, I think you guys are talking past each other a little.   

Regarding jump school, the army has a great article that sums it up perfectly.  

http://www.army.mil/article/109646/




> Capt. Michael Baliles, B Company commander, said Black Hats are subject matter experts with flawless memorization skills and can answer any question that could be asked about parachuting.
> 
> "The Black Hats here are definitely the cream of the crop of the non-commissioned officers we have; parachuting is a zero fail business," Baliles said. "They have the ability to hone in on the minute details that makes performances successful, whether it's parachute landing falls or activating a reserve parachute."



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> The stagnation I was referring to was regarding quality of training, not fiscal success or marketing.  Also, good intentions alone don't make good training. Thinking about efficacy is a great start, but thinking about it doesn't make it practical.



That is why good intentions are never alone and training to be practical involves having quality training with the high standards we do.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

First off I think if someone is in a TMA and they want to enter the cage then go for it.  If you do not want to them that is absolutely fine as well.  TMA's have entered the cage and will in the future.  Yet, some systems are probably not going to enter the cage based on their skill sets.  Particularly if they are a system that is more countering oriented or receiving and then countering an attack.  That is fine.  A system like that is probably going to be pretty good for self defense because quite often self defense starts with you having to counter some kind of attack.  Not squaring up and going on the attack. (like what you would find in the cage)*

Hey Steve, do not get me started with all the mma schools* out there that have been opened up by individuals with little to no experience.  Some of those schools are like the blind leading the blind.  I have witnessed this personally in a few different areas as I am sure you have as well.

I have also witnessed BJJ slowly watering down at the school level..  BJJ when I first started had no kid's classes going on.  No stripes on the white belt.  Plus it was not the cash cow for a martial school that it is now and unfortunately that does change everything.  Back in the day it was more common to get your blue belt in two and a half to three or more years rather than a year or so now.  Not to mention that the BJJ schools who focus on the self-defense sides of BJJ are few compared to what they were back in the day by all accounts.  it appears that only the Gracie family or the son's of Helio continue this. (though I am sure some others do)  Pure BJJ while so dominant early on in the UFC has actually taken a step back as you will rarely if ever find a pure BJJ practitioner dominating now.  No instead they are BJJ practitioners who do Muay Thai or Boxing, etc. to complement their jiujitsu training.   Having said the above I still love BJJ and think it is one of the world's greatest martial systems!  We all owe the Gracies a lot!

Muay Thai is a great martial system as well.  There are a lot of people though out there in MMA gyms claiming to teach Muay Thai that really are not that qualified in Muay Thai as well. (but they hold the thai pads well)  Still Muay Thai is a great striking system and has proven it over and over and over and over again.  No wonder it is or should be a staple of any mma competitor.  I am envious of all the young martial practitioner's out there who have easy access to Muay Thai now.  When I was younger it was only to be found far away.  We had full-contact kickboxing which is good but was not at the level of Muay Thai.  My first exposure to Muay Thai was at a Chai Sirisute seminar and it was like wow!!!  This is great stuff!!!  Still to enter the cage with just Muay Thai would be stupid.  Mauy Thai has been around a long time and could be called a TMA.  

Wrestling, what can be said it finally has got it's due as a dominant system.  To many people for to long just thought they would stuff a wrestler trying to take them down.  Knee them or strike them on the back of the head, etc.  Wrestling and wrestlers are so good at takedowns and what people really miss I the little details they utilize to cover the distance, get their opponent on their heels for a successful takedown.  It is a superb system to take people down and keep them there on their back!  Heck, I learned some thing new the other day while training with a student who is also a wrestling coach.  He showed me the Penn State method utilizing a double leg takedown and I have to say it has made my double leg significantly better! 

Now before you put me in the TMA camp I personally believe in training with resistance, submission grappling, full contact sparring with and without weapons, etc.  That is what we do in IRT.  Even though I would say the emphasis on what I teach is for self-defense and personal protection.  So a good portion of training is on the self-defense side and we train with weapons to the nth degree.  Still my guy's step into the cage when they want to and they can grapple, kick, strike with their hands, clinch, etc. with their competition just fine.  One guy just wanted to step in to see what he could do.  With only IRT training he won two fights easily.  Then he was done.  He just wanted to test himself.  His training and emphasis is personal protection so getting back into the cage is not important to him.  One of my students goes for his second amature championship belt in September and another who started with me and move on just turned pro.  Even though our emphasis is on personal protection the transition to the cage can be made.

We actually have seen other stylists come into the cage as well and do fine. (look at the capoeira videos I just linked and I can find more for other systems)  Machida was more Shotokan when he started and actually his Shotokan training is what made him special for a long time.  Literally, nobody new how to deal with his Karate.  So other stylists will come into the cage and sure if they wanted to stay around they cross trained.  Cross training is in my opinion very important.  That is what I like about MMA.  Athletes who can kick, punch, clinch, throw, grapple.  People who highly condition themselves.  Personally, that is what I find wrong about many martial practitioners is that they do not maintain their conditioning.  Whether you want to step into the cage or you are training for personal protection conditioning is a key.  It is one thing we can all do to our highest individual level and increase our chances whether in competition or for personal protection.  Train like a pro in my opinion and condition yourself to the best of your ability!  I do think that the UFC and MMA in general should be thanked for this as I believe they show on average what highly conditioned athletes can do.  Whether you train in MMA or TMA or whatever you want to call it.  *Condition your body for your chosen aim to the highest level you can*!

*Personally if you train in MMA or TMA as long as you are a good person, work hard at what you do I am interested in training with you!*


----------



## jks9199

Hanzou said:


> Actually if you read my posts, it completely revolves around training methods, and it only got to that point because no one was willing to give an answer that made sense.
> 
> The gist of what I'm getting from traditional stylists is that they're forced to crosstrain into a submission grappling style because submission grappling has an advantage over everything else in a ringed environment. However no one is really willing to explain what that advantage is exactly.
> 
> Saying that the canvas is level, or that there's walls in a cage, or that you can't hit someone in the balls really doesn't hold much weight. All of those factors could also exist "in the streets".



No.  

If you want to do well in MMA, whatever your style, you have to train for it.  That will mean practicing rounds, practicing dealing with people who want to wrestle, people who want to kick box, people who can smoothly transition from both.  It means learning the rules, and how to use the rules to do well.  It means doing the conditioning work for several 3 or 5 minute rounds, and learning to use that time to score points as well as seek a knockout or a submission.   So some of the *training* will look the same -- but that doesn't mean you have to do it in a MMA gym, or by learning BJJ, Muay Thai, or whatever.  There are different ways to do that, but you'll have to do some actual application work, do the rounds, etc., and not rely on line drills, Japanese style 2 person kata, or solo kata alone.  (FYI... those aren't enough for self defense training, either, generally.)

But that training will not necessarily prepare you for real violence.  Nobody gets ambushed in an MMA match.  Rory Miller summarized real violence the best I've seen:  Violence happens closer, faster, harder, and more surprisingly than people expect.  (The exact quote is in my signature.)  You don't fight someone two or three times your size, with vastly superior experience.  Your adversary doesn't stop when you tap, and there's no ref to step in and rescue either fighter.  There is one aspect of real violence that MMA training will prepare you for, though -- and that's actually being hit, and dealing with that.  Of course, physical conditioning never hurts.  

Then there are different categories of violence...  Broadly -- social and asocial.  MMA is really social violence, only a little different from a Monkey Dance bar fight.  Asocial violence is a predator/prey relationship; it's about acquiring stuff you want/need, or meeting a goal or objective.  When I use force at work -- it's asocial.  My job is to make the arrest -- using only and all the force reasonably necessary to do that.

So... why don't TMAs do well in MMA?  Maybe it's not what they're training for.  Maybe you just don't recognize them when they're there.  Some arts don't contain much for a ground fight; they might well have to look for something else to complement it if they want to do MA.  Just like a guy from a grappling or wrestling background might need to find a source for learning effective striking.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> That is why good intentions are never alone and training to be practical involves having quality training with the high standards we do.


its not the intentions.  It's the quality training and high standards that are relevant to this conversation.   I'm glad you have them and I'm sure your schools are great.   My points remain the same.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Brian, I agree that there are good and bad mma and bjj schools.  

Jks, I agree with everything you are saying.  I assert that the challenges non sporting styles face are largely twofold.   One is application of the skills.  Most people just don't get mugged, get into fights or whatever else.   The other is that often, because there is little or no opportunity for application, the instructors are not real experts, but may believe they are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Regarding what difference the rules make, maybe you could ask Emin Boztepe why he wouldn't accept the Gracies' challenge to fight in the ring/cage, and ask the Gracies' why they wouldn't accept his counter challenge to fight him outside the ring/cage with no rules:


----------



## Steve

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Regarding what difference the rules make, maybe you could ask Emin Boztepe why he wouldn't accept the Gracies' challenge to fight in the ring/cage, and ask the Gracies' why they wouldn't accept his counter challenge to fight him outside the ring/cage with no rules:



Come on.   I couldn't get more than a minute into that video.  That first segment was ridiculous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Blindside

jks9199 said:


> But that training will not necessarily prepare you for real violence.  Nobody gets ambushed in an MMA match.  Rory Miller summarized real violence the best I've seen:  Violence happens closer, faster, harder, and more surprisingly than people expect.  (The exact quote is in my signature.)  You don't fight someone two or three times your size, with vastly superior experience.  Your adversary doesn't stop when you tap, and there's no ref to step in and rescue either fighter.  There is one aspect of real violence that MMA training will prepare you for, though -- and that's actually being hit, and dealing with that.  Of course, physical conditioning never hurts.



How well do you think that most TMAs are addressing fighting someone bigger, stronger, and with vastly superior experience?  If the answer is "really well" then entering a ring with someone your same size, about equal strength, and of equivalent experience should be a piece of cake.  Also, I don't think you would find someone who comes from a MMA background telling you that that size and skill doesn't matter.

I agree with the Rory Miller comments, but I don't think many TMAs are doing a great job addressing those aspects either.
The flip side of that is that many, maybe most TMAs aren't really addressing all of Rory Miller's issues either, AND they often don't deal with actually being hit.  The MMA ring isn't a perfect analogy to the real world, no training is.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Regarding what difference the rules make, maybe you could ask Emin Boztepe why he wouldn't accept the Gracies' challenge to fight in the ring/cage, and ask the Gracies' why they wouldn't accept his counter challenge to fight him outside the ring/cage with no rules:




No offense to Sifu Boztpe, but I've seen him fight. 






If I fought like that, I'd duck the Gracies too.


----------



## Blindside

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Regarding what difference the rules make, maybe you could ask Emin Boztepe why he wouldn't accept the Gracies' challenge to fight in the ring/cage, and ask the Gracies' why they wouldn't accept his counter challenge to fight him outside the ring/cage with no rules:



See, WC has counter-grappling, it should do great in the ring. 

And if we are going to cite Emin Boztepe, maybe we should figure out why in a fight against another WC master he chose to take the fight to the ground....


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Come on.   I couldn't get more than a minute into that video.  That first segment was ridiculous.



Its even more ridiculous that he claims that no one can armbar or choke him. I'm sure he passes these crazy beliefs onto his  students.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Steve said:


> Come on.   I couldn't get more than a minute into that video.  That first segment was ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Apologies, he starts telling the story about 2 minutes in. But of course, it's only his version of events.


----------



## Buka

The term MMA, mixed martial arts, came into being shortly after the UFC  became known. The original UFC contest, was first and foremost a  business venture, but it used an age old question as it's foundation,  "Who would win, a boxer or a wrestler?" This question has been bandied  about in America since the early 1900's. There weren't any martial arts  in our country back then, boxing was well established and pretty much  the only game in town other than wrestling, but boxing was the only one  being done professionally.

That first UFC was - which style is best? Not the best to train in or the  best to meet someone's needs, but what was best if they "fought each  other?" The only "mix" was mixing them together in some sort of  competition. But, man, has that all changed. Mixed martial arts, today,  is just that. It's an entity that incorporates a whole lot of things  that were not too long ago completely separate. The days of any  successful UFC fighter having trained in only one art are dead and gone.

If I were advising a young man that said he wanted to eventually go into  MMA I'd tell him to make his base art BJJ or wrestling. I'd try to  steer him more towards BJJ, but that would be on my personal preference  rather than any tactical thinking on my part. Judo and Sambo might be a  good base as well, but I've only had a cup of coffee in Judo and I've  never actually been around Sambo. After using one of those arts as a  base, these days, an MMA school would be the way to go next, IMO.

To me, the thing about grappling arts is this - they are based on  close proximity fight training. That fight training offers immediate  tactile feedback. More so than any of the standup arts I've worked  with....except boxing, but boxing doesn't translate well to MMA at all.  Boxing, wrestling and BJJ have sparring/rolling as a main component. You  can't train any of those three without it. There are no boxing gyms,  wrestling clubs or BJJ schools that do not spar on a regular/daily  basis. 
To me, that's what sets them apart as far as MMA  skill sets are concerned. On a personal opinion, I think they make for  better self defense skills, too. Again, as a personal opinion, BJJ is  far more fun than the other two. It's not even close, either.

But, again, a good BJJ guy or a good wrestler, needs more training  geared towards MMA that involves ground and pound, striking, transitions and  cage work. You can not train for MMA without a cage. Some might think they can, but they are wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Apologies, he starts telling the story about 2 minutes in. But of course, it's only his version of events.



The problem I have with guys like Boztpe is that they've never fought competitively, like ever. So while he may dislike the Gracie's business tactics, the Gracies DID put their style on the line for the entire world to see. All of the guys that Royce fought at UFC 1 and UFC 2 could have beaten the crap out of him on national television. You gotta respect that.

You can also find the letters between the two camps online and draw your own conclusions. However, given how Boztpe fought against William Cheung, and how I've seen all the Gracies fight (including Rorion), I find it hard to believe that the Gracies wouldn't accept the challenge from Boztpe, and try to avoid fighting him. It seems FAR more likely that Boztpe was the one looking to avoid a fight with press present.

This also goes back to Blindside's point about how competition validates fighting methods. I tend to believe the guys that don't shy away from a confrontation, versus a guy I've never seen step up to the plate except to ambush another Wing Chung exponent during a seminar.


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> Brian, I agree that there are good and bad mma and bjj schools.
> 
> Jks, I agree with everything you are saying.  I assert that the challenges non sporting styles face are largely twofold.   One is application of the skills.  Most people just don't get mugged, get into fights or whatever else.   The other is that often, because there is little or no opportunity for application, the instructors are not real experts, but may believe they are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Very often, martial arts instructors are not experts in violence.  They may not be experts in ring competition...  Many are simply pretty much coaches feeding a curriculum that they absorbed.  I don't have a problem with them -- until they paint themselves as "experts in violent self defense."  I have the same issue with MMA programs that claim to be experts in self defense.  I give the Gracies credit; when they put together a DT program to market to the police, they at least listened and changed a few things along the way when cops told them their ideas wouldn't work for someone a uniform with a gun belt & body armor.  But a lot of these places, whether they be the latest street front day care martial arts or the baddest home of the ultimate MMA warriors -- they don't have a clue about the real world of violence.  And they don't want to step out of their fantasy land to accept that.

Look, I"m not an "expert" in violence.  I've seen a bit, inflicted some, done a few things, and studied a lot more.  Yeah, I can stay calm and rational through a use of force situation, though I'm sure there are some that would dump me into full on panic as fast as anyone else.  But recognizing that, knowing where I stand -- that puts me well into the land of "conscious incompetence", maybe even "conscious competence."  

I"m fortunate; my art actually has a fully developed ground fighting subsystem.  If I wanted to do MMA, and were about 20 or so years younger, I could do it within the system.  (We've got a few guys doing that...)  But, like I said, I'd have to train for it.  Just like when I kickboxed, I did use the same principles of fighting that I practice regularly -- paired with appropriate conditioning, etc.  The only difference between point fighting/middle style and full contact -- the way I was taught, teach, and practice -- is how hard you hit.  All an MMA event does is add some weapons and ground fighting.  Again -- I'd have to work to bring those skills up a bit, but they're there.  If they weren't present -- I'd have to go out and find it somewhere else.

(Of course, there's another question that doesn't get asked...  Why doesn't people sparring look like their training?  What happened in the last 20 or 30  years ago or so that led to everyone thinking that there's training, sparring, middle-style, and full-contact, and they all look different... with no resemblance to the principles of their art?)


----------



## jks9199

Blindside said:


> How well do you think that most TMAs are addressing fighting someone bigger, stronger, and with vastly superior experience?  If the answer is "really well" then entering a ring with someone your same size, about equal strength, and of equivalent experience should be a piece of cake.  Also, I don't think you would find someone who comes from a MMA background telling you that that size and skill doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree with the Rory Miller comments, but I don't think many TMAs are doing a great job addressing those aspects either.
> The flip side of that is that many, maybe most TMAs aren't really addressing all of Rory Miller's issues either, AND they often don't deal with actually being hit.  The MMA ring isn't a perfect analogy to the real world, no training is.



Interestingly enough, I didn't say that they were.  Most aren't, and most don't prepare a student for real violence.  

But -- to me, often, the bottom line is simple:  is the student getting what they want out of the program?  Is the program lying to them?  If the answer to the first is yes, and the second no -- then all is good.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> Interestingly enough, I didn't say that they were.  Most aren't, and most don't prepare a student for real violence.
> 
> But -- to me, often, the bottom line is simple:  is the student getting what they want out of the program?  Is the program lying to them?  If the answer to the first is yes, and the second no -- then all is good.



There's the rub.  I drink pretty cheap wine because I lack the skills to discern quality above a certain point. If you gave me $30 wine and told me it's $300 wine, I'd really have no choice but to take your word for it.  But you could be a charlatan.  Or not...   You could also be a sincere and convincing incompetent.  Until there's some external feedback, you may never know.

The time to learn that your practical self defense instructor is an affable incompetent is likely to be after you need the skills.  The stakes in a parks and rec wine tasting class are a little lower than for self defense, if that's what you're looking for.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here is a TMA guy Yao Honggang fight in MMA - *Jul 28, 2014*


----------



## Hanzou

jks9199 said:


> (Of course, there's another question that doesn't get asked...  Why doesn't people sparring look like their training?  What happened in the last 20 or 30  years ago or so that led to everyone thinking that there's training, sparring, middle-style, and full-contact, and they all look different... with no resemblance to the principles of their art?)



One of the reasons I switched to Bjj from Karate was because the Bjj fought like they sparred.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Actually if you read my posts, it completely revolves around training methods, and it only got to that point because no one was willing to give an answer that made sense.
> 
> The gist of what I'm getting from traditional stylists is that they're forced to crosstrain into a submission grappling style because submission grappling has an advantage over everything else in a ringed environment. However no one is really willing to explain what that advantage is exactly.
> 
> Saying that the canvas is level, or that there's walls in a cage, or that you can't hit someone in the balls really doesn't hold much weight. All of those factors could also exist "in the streets".



Is that right? I would have thought it is more that you will not accept the answers that you have been given. As a result the answers don't make sense to you because either they are not the answers you want to hear or you are unable to comprehend plain English.

You have not been able to define 'traditional' so 'traditional stylist' is just as vague, but it makes sense that anyone who wants to compete in MMA needs to be competent in all areas of that competition and that includes advanced grappling skills.  If you can't understand that there are rules in an MMA match that make competition different to a NHB confrontation on the street, then I can't help you. Perhaps you should read *JKS*' post on the previous page.



Hanzou said:


> No offense to Sifu Boztpe, but I've seen him fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I fought like that, I'd duck the Gracies too.


Ignorance of the facts. William Cheung had issued a challenge and Emin Boztepe took him up on it in William Cheung's own school. It was a messy scrap and Boztepe learned from it. He changed his training to address the inadequacies of his skill set. To use that tape as evidence of Boztepe's fighting ability is ridiculous. I have issues with a lot of WC but Boztepe's is the best I have seen. I would have thought you might have been a fan of his philosophy
...



> Though he has trained in many different Martial Art disciplines, Master Emin Boztepe currently bases his self defense solely on Wing Tzun Kung Fu and Latosa Escrima. He feels this helps him fulfill his philosophy of ending conflicts quickly by using effective and simple techniques. These sort of techniques are the hallmark of Wing Tzun. Master Emin states, "I only believe in using techniques that work as fast as possible and minimize injury to myself."
> 
> 
> The Wing Tzun philosophy also advocates realistic training. Master Emin feels that this is one of the most important factors in developing effective self defenc techniques. Although Master Emin believes in other forms of training such as bag-training, aerobics etc. he feels that nothing can take the place of sparring and Wing Tzun Chi Sau practice with a live partner, as well as Anti-Grappling which he officially created according to the scientific beliefs  of the Wing Tzun System.
> Master Emin emphasizes that training should become a regular routine for any serious Martial Artist. "You can have the best techniques and the best Instructors, but if you don't practice regularly and realistically it will not be useful."
> Master Emin Boztepe



I don't believe "he ducked the Gracies". I believe the Gracies tried to use him the way they used other well known people in the early days of the UFC.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Ignorance of the facts. William Cheung had issued a challenge and Emin Boztepe took him up on it in William Cheung's own school. It was a messy scrap and Boztepe learned from it. He changed his training to address the inadequacies of his skill set. To use that tape as evidence of Boztepe's fighting ability is ridiculous. I have issues with a lot of WC but Boztepe's is the best I have seen. I would have thought you might have been a fan of his philosophy



To be fair, I used that fight with Cheung, as well as that laughable demonstration of ground techniques in the beginning of the linked video as evidence of his fighting ability.



> I don't believe "he ducked the Gracies". I believe the Gracies tried to use him the way they used other well known people in the early days of the UFC.



Interesting perspective. How do you think they "used him"? Ken Shamrock, Mark Coleman, and others who did well in the early UFCs went on to have very lucrative MA careers. If Boztepe had competed and did well, he would have done even better, since he was using a Kung Fu style.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Interesting perspective. How do you think they "used him"? Ken Shamrock, Mark Coleman, and others who did well in the early UFCs went on to have very lucrative MA careers. If Boztepe had competed and did well, he would have done even better, since he was using a Kung Fu style.


Again you didn't read what I wrote. They didn't use him, they attempted to use him in the same way they used other well known fighters in the early stages to promote their style and their competition. Sure some guys did well out of it but most didn't. They took the money and the Gracies built their brand. I've not suggesting they did anything wrong. It was brilliant marketing.  But to bag Boztepe because he didn't want to be part of it is wrong. He knew what they were doing and recognised that there was little if any upside in it for him.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Who else did the Gracie's issue challenges to early on?  We know Boztepe, Tyson, Benny "The Jet" Urquidez, who else?  It was brilliant marketing!


----------



## K-man

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Who else did the Gracie's issue challenges to early on?  We know Boztepe, Tyson, Benny "The Jet" Urquidez, who else?  It was brilliant marketing!


A little bit here ..
Gracie Challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i think it was probably a two way thing with others also challenging the Gracies, but it seems there were often rules attached.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Again you didn't read what I wrote. They didn't use him, they attempted to use him in the same way they used other well known fighters in the early stages to promote their style and their competition. Sure some guys did well out of it but most didn't. They took the money and the Gracies built their brand. I've not suggesting they did anything wrong. It was brilliant marketing.  But to bag Boztepe because he didn't want to be part of it is wrong. He knew what they were doing and recognised that there was little if any upside in it for him.



I'm not "bagging" Boztepe. I'm merely disturbed by his crazy claims. It borders on ki master levels of martial silliness.

Actually there would have been a huge upside- If he had won. Clearly he didn't think he was going to win, which is why he backed out of it, and the challenge itself.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?





Hanzou said:


> I definitely see your point, but all things being equal, why can't a karate practitioner simply out maneuver a  grappler and punch and kick them into submission? I mean, there's a difference between rules that completely eliminate your ability to fight (like a grappler not being allowed to grapple), but what rules limit a Karate or Kung Fu practitioner from beating the crap out of an opponent with footwork, kicks, and punches?



As others have said, it's a specific goal.  Of course, IMO, as I've said before, some arts just aren't used to dealing with a quality grappler.  It's easy to out maneuver, punch and kick someone, when they really don't have a clue as to what the hell they're doing.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm not "bagging" Boztepe. I'm merely disturbed by his crazy claims. It borders on ki master levels of martial silliness.
> 
> Actually there would have been a huge upside- If he had won. Clearly he didn't think he was going to win, which is why he backed out of it, and the challenge itself.


So what are his crazy claims? I have a number of his videos which I find really helpful. I also think he is among the best WC, or in his case WT, guys around. And you need to check the fine details. He didn't back out of any challenge at all. He declined the conditions imposed on him and in return offered to fight with no rules. That also was knocked back. In fact he had much to lose and nothing to gain by competing. He explained some of that in the video that was posted, if you had bothered to listen.


----------



## Reedone816

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Who else did the Gracie's issue challenges to early on?  We know Boztepe, Tyson, Benny "The Jet" Urquidez, who else?  It was brilliant marketing!




Le bell against their current best, of course he refuse. he rechallenge them to fight helio as to him comparable age wise.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> So what are his crazy claims? I have a number of his videos which I find really helpful. I also think he is among the best WC, or in his case WT, guys around. And you need to check the fine details. He didn't back out of any challenge at all. He declined the conditions imposed on him and in return offered to fight with no rules. That also was knocked back. In fact he had much to lose and nothing to gain by competing. He explained some of that in the video that was posted, if you had bothered to listen.


We have evidence that he actually fights nothing like he trains.  It looks really impressive in an artificial environment, but when in an actual altercation, he looks completely untrained.

And even, as we saw in the video just posted, some of the artificial stuff is really unrealistic.  So, yeah.  Crazy claims.  I'm sure his theory is top notch.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> We have evidence that he actually fights nothing like he trains.  It looks really impressive in an artificial environment, but when in an actual altercation, he looks completely untrained.
> 
> And even, as we saw in the video just posted, some of the artificial stuff is really unrealistic.  So, yeah.  Crazy claims.  I'm sure his theory is top notch.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Sorry, I must have missed something. Where was the video of him fighting, except for the years old video of the William Cheung fight which was before he developed the system he teaches now? Or are you talking about the introduction to the interview video? Sure it is nothing like what you would find in a BJJ or GJJ school but it is very similar to what you would find in a Systema school. I don't think he claims anywhere to be a specialist grappler. 

I don't have a dog in this fight but in the pursuit of fairness here is a pretty comprehensive account of what actually happened between Emin Boztepe and the Gracies.   How the superfight got started - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums
:asian:


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Sorry, I must have missed something. Where was the video of him fighting, except for the years old video of the William Cheung fight which was before he developed the system he teaches now? Or are you talking about the introduction to the interview video? Sure it is nothing like what you would find in a BJJ or GJJ school but it is very similar to what you would find in a Systema school. I don't think he claims anywhere to be a specialist grappler.
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight but in the pursuit of fairness here is a pretty comprehensive account of what actually happened between Emin Boztepe and the Gracies.   How the superfight got started - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums
> :asian:



Kman, you really don't see the red flags and intellectual claxon alarms that should be going off?   You asked about crazy claims.  

Here's a guy who looks like a total badass in his demos (except for his truly ridiculous ground techniques).   We have video of him in an unscripted altercation, taken to the ground by someone with no functional grappling experience, and looking like he had zero training of any kind.  And so... What?   He had an epiphany?  He invented a new system, and is suddenly credible?  Have his training methods changed?

You're seriously asserting that, yeah, he looked like junk in the video, and his training was functionally inert.  but it's cool because he fixed it and now it's really effective.

Yes.  Crazy claims.  At least, claims that should be approached with healthy skepticism.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> I do believe that style is irrelevant. I personally think it comes down to training method. The problem is that often times the style is heavily tied to a training method.
> 
> And yeah, if someone pops up and shakes up the MMA world with an underused style, the entire landscape changes and that style rises in popularity because of it. Judo is getting a resurgence because Rhonda Rousey is dominating her opponents with it. However, that only happened because Rhonda Rousey showed what you can do with no-gi Judo, and because Judo already had the training methodology in place to allow something like that to happen.



Well I agree with you, but I think it's the opening thread and title causing confusion. (Well for me at least)




Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?



I guess personally I don't see MMA as a style in the traditional sense of the term, to me it's just cherry picked moves from other systems (or developed moves from experience) to use that work within the rules of the sport they are playing. And I think that's fine, if that's what your after, why not.

I wouldn't expect any single modern or "traditional" style to be able to compete long term in that environment in it's pure form without updating your skill set. You might get a few wins up your sleeve but since it's something that is a monitored state, others will adapt and develop counters, changing with the game as well. Which is what learning MMA is, a mixture of martial moves to get the desired result in the context of the sport.

Think you all actually agree, just talking different languages.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Kman, you really don't see the red flags and intellectual claxon alarms that should be going off?   You asked about crazy claims.
> 
> Here's a guy who looks like a total badass in his demos (except for his truly ridiculous ground techniques).   We have video of him in an unscripted altercation, taken to the ground by someone with no functional grappling experience, and looking like he had zero training of any kind.  And so... What?   He had an epiphany?  He invented a new system, and is suddenly credible?  Have his training methods changed?
> 
> You're seriously asserting that, yeah, he looked like junk in the video, and his training was functionally inert.  but it's cool because he fixed it and now it's really effective.
> 
> Yes.  Crazy claims.  At least, claims that should be approached with healthy skepticism.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Not at all.  The fight you are referring to was in 1986. Boztepe would have been about 24 at the time. If you read about it Boztepe had about the same judgement of his fight as you do. Nearly 30 years ago my training was totally different to what I train now. My knowledge has hopefully been extended and I have trained in four other styles of Martial art. So yes, I would dismiss totally what he did 30 years ago and look at what he is doing now. Obviously if I wanted to improve my grappling skills I wouldn't look to Boztepe. Obviously I would go for BJJ. But if I was looking to improve my sticky hands skills then he has some very good material out there.

Now could he change? Of course he could. It was a ballsy effort to challenge Cheung in his own environment as Cheung was putting himself up as the best WC fighter in the world at the time. The fact that it was so scrappy and that neither man 'won' possibly demonstrates that they were about equal in ability at that time. Did he create a new system as a result? No he didn't. He took what he had and modified his training to make his system more effective. 

Now I have no doubt that Boztepe's knowledge and ability outweigh mine by miles. I certainly wouldn't be putting my hand up to take him on in a NHB fight. But nor am I saying that he is the best either. We will never know, and in actual fact it is of no consequence. Nor have I the first idea as to what he is like as a person. But either way I believe he is a very talented martial artist and deserves a bit of respect for what he had achieved in his MA career.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Who else did the Gracie's issue challenges to early on?  We know Boztepe, Tyson, Benny "The Jet" Urquidez, who else?  It was brilliant marketing!



I actually saw Royce Gracie's article in Blackbelt Magazine back in about...1996 or so, where he "challenged" Tyson.  It was actually really really stupid, even embarrassing to read.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> The issue that you have is we do not have a very good system of testing a martial arts any other way. So yes you are on the money with the idea that MMA testing is flawed. But you can't use that to suggest that any martial art that does not test in any way is as good.



It is my position that NOT using MMA competitions to test is in no way an indictment against any particular system.  As I've said before, MMA competition is not THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be tested.



> People say they train for the street. But they either don't get into street fights or can't prove they get into street fights. Which is fine that is the sensible option. But we are stuck with testing by competition.



no, we are not "stuck" with that.  People can do that if they wish, but they can also NOT do that if they wish.



> We could just go by as many news articles we can find relating to martial artists foiling robberies and defending themselves but tmas dont over represent well there either?



a collection of such news articles would tell us nothing.


----------



## K-man

Flying Crane said:


> I actually saw Royce Gracie's article in Blackbelt Magazine back in about...1996 or so, where he "challenged" Tyson.  It was actually really really stupid, even embarrassing to read.


Another article by Bill Wallace in which he says that Tyson had everything to lose and nothing to gain from fighting Gracie.
Black Belt - Google Books


----------



## Blindside

Flying Crane said:


> It is my position that NOT using MMA competitions to test is in no way an indictment against any particular system.  As I've said before, MMA competition is not THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be tested.



Is there a different yardstick?  

How do systems test themselves these days if it isn't in the ring?  

Do traditional systems keep up with changing methods of attacks?  Are they taking into account that with the popularization of MMA that maybe more attackers are going to take the situation to the ground because it is now viewed as a successful strategy as opposed to a more punching oriented attacker from the media of boxers in the past?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Blindside said:


> How do systems test themselves these days if it isn't in the ring?



Agree!

Assume you can use "single leg" to take people down on the wrestling mat. If you don't test your skill where kicking and punching are allowed, how will you be able to know that your "single leg" is good enough to be used against a good striker?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It is my position that NOT using MMA competitions to test is in no way an indictment against any particular system.  As I've said before, MMA competition is not THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be tested.
> 
> 
> 
> no, we are not "stuck" with that.  People can do that if they wish, but they can also NOT do that if they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> a collection of such news articles would tell us nothing.



I have no issue with not testing by competition. Just then the martial art is untested. I am not a MMA superstar I don't try and pretend to be. The guys who compete and win do so because they are technically better than me.  I am also fine with people being better than I am.

I probably have the most street experience in my club but I have no illusions that I could overcome some of the quality ring only fighters I train with. They are hard fit guys who are really quite competent at hurting people.

I mean that is the concept of the thread that some tmas don't fair as well as MMAs. That some concepts are better buy the methods we can judge them.

It does seem that martial arts (and martial artists) that do fair well in competition also tend to fair well in self defence and it seems from my experience fairs well in training.

And that even a person with little training but has won a ton of street fights or even a ton of go in them tend to fair well in training and competition. Over the same person who has little training but has not fought.

So we are looking at all of these similar results but with different measures to come to an idea about what traits may make up an effective martial art.

I am basically going by what I can quantify rather than trusting too much to anecdotal information.

And I have a ton of anecdotal information. And so realise how suspect it can be.

But you don't have to do martial arts to become a combat monster. Self defence is a very small part of most peoples lives. And enough to get by is enough if you are enjoying yourself.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Another article by Bill Wallace in which he says that Tyson had everything to lose and nothing to gain from fighting Gracie.
> Black Belt - Google Books




Wayne parr kind of went through the same dilemma. Top of his game in a sport that is kind of out of vogue at the moment. But is it worth it?

He wound up not doing  it and fair enough. I am doubtful I would get one over on him in a street fight either.


----------



## Flying Crane

Blindside said:


> Is there a different yardstick?
> 
> How do systems test themselves these days if it isn't in the ring?
> 
> Do traditional systems keep up with changing methods of attacks?  Are they taking into account that with the popularization of MMA that maybe more attackers are going to take the situation to the ground because it is now viewed as a successful strategy as opposed to a more punching oriented attacker from the media of boxers in the past?



why does anybody "need" to test?  If you are satisfied with the quality of your training, there is no need to "test" in competition.  Again, if competition is your personal interest then go for it.  But if not, there is no genuine need for it.  There is no need to prove anything to anybody, certainly no to the world at large.  why would anybody care what the rest of the world, who are probably mostly ignorant of what goes on in your training sessions, thinks of what you do?


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> I have no issue with not testing by competition. Just then the martial art is untested. I am not a MMA superstar I don't try and pretend to be. The guys who compete and win do so because they are technically better than me.  I am also fine with people being better than I am.
> 
> I probably have the most street experience in my club but I have no illusions that I could overcome some of the quality ring only fighters I train with. They are hard fit guys who are really quite competent at hurting people.
> 
> I mean that is the concept of the thread that some tmas don't fair as well as MMAs. That some concepts are better buy the methods we can judge them.
> 
> It does seem that martial arts (and martial artists) that do fair well in competition also tend to fair well in self defence and it seems from my experience fairs well in training.
> 
> And that even a person with little training but has won a ton of street fights or even a ton of go in them tend to fair well in training and competition. Over the same person who has little training but has not fought.
> 
> So we are looking at all of these similar results but with different measures to come to an idea about what traits may make up an effective martial art.
> 
> I am basically going by what I can quantify rather than trusting too much to anecdotal information.
> 
> And I have a ton of anecdotal information. And so realise how suspect it can be.
> 
> But you don't have to do martial arts to become a combat monster. Self defence is a very small part of most peoples lives. And enough to get by is enough if you are enjoying yourself.



i pretty much agree with all of this


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Another article by Bill Wallace in which he says that Tyson had everything to lose and nothing to gain from fighting Gracie.
> Black Belt - Google Books



Emin Boztepe is not Mike Tyson though. Outside of Wing Chun circles, most people have no idea who 
Boztepe is. Which is probably why he supposedly keeps challenging major MMA fighters like Bas Rutten and Brock Lesnar. 

Here's a video dissection of one of Boztepe's seminars:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NS65UiYqJ1o

Notice how far back his student flies from the impact of his punches. Again, it borders on Ki-power levels of martial silliness.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Emin Boztepe is not Mike Tyson though. Outside of Wing Chun circles, most people have no idea who
> Boztepe is. Which is probably why he supposedly keeps challenging major MMA fighters like Bas Rutten and Brock Lesnar.
> 
> Here's a video dissection of one of Boztepe's seminars:
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NS65UiYqJ1o
> 
> Notice how far back his student flies from the impact of his punches. Again, it borders on Ki-power levels of martial silliness.



The smart **** doing the stupid subtitles over the video knows about as much about Wing Chun as what you do , which is bloody zero.

Go into a genuine Wing Chun school , hold a telephone book over your chest and ask them to hit it from close range.
Then come back and tell us what you think.
But you won't do that because it is just easier to jump on the band wagon and talk **** about stuff you don't understand isn't it.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> The smart **** doing the stupid subtitles over the video knows about as much about Wing Chun as what you do , which is bloody zero.



I guess you missed the parts where Boztepe is moving body parts while saying that he's not moving said body parts. I guess you also missed the part where he says that boxers and Karatekas are only using 20% of their body power, but his Kung Fu fists are using 100% power. These punches send hapless people flying backwards several feet, yet some how no professional fighters ever got the memo.



> Go into a genuine Wing Chun school , hold a telephone book over your chest and ask them to hit it from close range.
> Then come back and tell us what you think.
> But you won't do that because it is just easier to jump on the band wagon and talk **** about stuff you don't understand isn't it.



I won't do it because I'm not going to waste time looking for a "genuine" Wing Chun school. Anytime someone does something like that and the magical abilities don't seem to work, someone comes back with the excuse that you didn't go to a "real" (insert style) school.

Meanwhile, I would recommend you taking Boztepe's anti-grappling stuff to your nearest Bjj school (doesn't really matter which one), and videotape the results. It would go a long way towards legitimizing his claims.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> I guess you missed the parts where Boztepe is moving body parts while saying that he's not moving said body parts. I guess you also missed the part where he says that boxers and Karatekas are only using 20% of their body power, but his Kung Fu fists are using 100% power. These punches send hapless people flying backwards several feet, yet some how no professional fighters ever got the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> *I won't do it because I'm not going to waste time looking for a "genuine" Wing Chun school. Anytime someone does something like that and the magical abilities don't seem to work, someone comes back with the excuse that you didn't go to a "real" (insert style) school.*
> 
> Meanwhile, I would recommend you taking Boztepe's anti-grappling stuff to your nearest Bjj school (doesn't really matter which one), and videotape the results. It would go a long way towards legitimizing his claims.



Well you are wasting your time now heaping crap on something that you have personally never even felt before.
They are not magical abilities , anymore than choking someone out is a magical ability.

Oh look , he was awake , and then by blocking his carotid arteries now he is asleep , there is black magic afoot I tell you.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Well you are wasting your time now heaping crap on something that you have personally never even felt before.
> They are not magical abilities , anymore than choking someone out is a magical ability.
> 
> Oh look , he was awake , and then by blocking his carotid arteries now he is asleep , there is black magic afoot I tell you.



Mook, tell me something; if Wing Chun punches are stronger than Karate or Boxing punches, why aren't professional fighters using it in competition? Further  why aren't we seeing Wing Chun guys in competitions or tournaments knocking people around with these incredibly powerful punches? Why  aren't we seeing Wing Chun stylists performing these devestating punches in street fights?

I know choking someone out isn't magic, because people outside of martial arts have done it, and it's been used to devastating effects in a competitive environment. I've also seen trained people use chokes in street fights and brawls. The only place I've seen anyone perform these magic Kung fu punches is in demonstrations.

Where's all the fighters using these devastating Wing Chun punches?


----------



## Steve

jezr74 said:


> Well I agree with you, but I think it's the opening thread and title causing confusion. (Well for me at least)
> 
> I guess personally I don't see MMA as a style in the traditional sense of the term, to me it's just cherry picked moves from other systems (or developed moves from experience) to use that work within the rules of the sport they are playing. And I think that's fine, if that's what your after, why not.
> 
> I wouldn't expect any single modern or "traditional" style to be able to compete long term in that environment in it's pure form without updating your skill set. You might get a few wins up your sleeve but since it's something that is a monitored state, others will adapt and develop counters, changing with the game as well. Which is what learning MMA is, a mixture of martial moves to get the desired result in the context of the sport.
> 
> Think you all actually agree, just talking different languages.


Great post.  I just want to point out that the guys who compete in MMA are almost all accomplished martial artists in their own styles.  They are skilled no-gi submission wrestlers, skilled strikers and skilled in a gi as well.  They often have black belts or equivalent in more than one style of MA.  I only bring this up because, while it's true that the techniques useful in MMA may not represent the entire gamut of techniques the individual knows, they don't just train these cherry picked techniques.  And, as a fan, it's pretty damned exciting when they pull something off that isn't common.  I'll never forget when Nick Diaz submitted Gomi with a gogoplata.  Or when Cung Le executed a spinning back kick that just deflated several opponents.  The tools are there.  The depth of instruction is there.



K-man said:


> Not at all.  The fight you are referring to was in 1986. Boztepe would have been about 24 at the time. If you read about it Boztepe had about the same judgement of his fight as you do. Nearly 30 years ago my training was totally different to what I train now. My knowledge has hopefully been extended and I have trained in four other styles of Martial art. So yes, I would dismiss totally what he did 30 years ago and look at what he is doing now. Obviously if I wanted to improve my grappling skills I wouldn't look to Boztepe. Obviously I would go for BJJ. But if I was looking to improve my sticky hands skills then he has some very good material out there.
> 
> Now could he change? Of course he could. It was a ballsy effort to challenge Cheung in his own environment as Cheung was putting himself up as the best WC fighter in the world at the time. The fact that it was so scrappy and that neither man 'won' possibly demonstrates that they were about equal in ability at that time. Did he create a new system as a result? No he didn't. He took what he had and modified his training to make his system more effective.
> 
> Now I have no doubt that Boztepe's knowledge and ability outweigh mine by miles. I certainly wouldn't be putting my hand up to take him on in a NHB fight. But nor am I saying that he is the best either. We will never know, and in actual fact it is of no consequence. Nor have I the first idea as to what he is like as a person. But either way I believe he is a very talented martial artist and deserves a bit of respect for what he had achieved in his MA career.
> :asian:


I have no doubt that this gentlemen KNOWS a lot and puts together a great seminar.   It's possible that he is now enlightened and that in that moment when he was an "expert" who found that his entire training model was broken, he truly had an epiphany.  Possible.  But there is no evidence of that.  What we have is seminar footage and videos of techniques against enthusiastically compliant partners which continue to be suspect at best.   If this were anything else, he would approached with healthy skepticism.  

This is exactly like the movie, Music Man.  Here we have an effective, charming and convincing salesperson.  He's selling a product, instruments, but he has no idea how to play them.  He's faking it.  He's not competent in that regard, but everyone is convinced.  In Boztepe's case, you're saying that it's like at the moment of exposure he goes, 'Okay.  Yeah...  I need to learn to play these instruments."  And so, over 30 years he learns to play the instruments and now we're all good because he learned his lesson.  

Possible?  Sure.  Anything is possible.  Likely?  Well, I guess that depends on him and on you.  Him if you believe he has integrity.  And you if you want or have an interest in believing him.

That said, wouldn't most people find something more credible?  Wouldn't it be more sensible to find an ACTUAL music teacher in the first place?  And how would you find that person?  You'd probably want to see that potential teacher playing an instrument and making music.  Many people don't do that in martial arts.  For many people, the moment of epiphany is like Boztepe or the guys in the video posted earlier of a Tai Chi and a Kung Fu expert: "****.  I'm in a fight and everything I thought I knew is wrong."



K-man said:


> Another article by Bill Wallace in which he says that Tyson had everything to lose and nothing to gain from fighting Gracie.
> Black Belt - Google Books


I think that we're getting side tracked by the Gracie Challenge.  



Blindside said:


> Is there a different yardstick?
> 
> How do systems test themselves these days if it isn't in the ring?
> 
> Do traditional systems keep up with changing methods of attacks?  Are they taking into account that with the popularization of MMA that maybe more attackers are going to take the situation to the ground because it is now viewed as a successful strategy as opposed to a more punching oriented attacker from the media of boxers in the past?


Blindside, I think these are great questions.  I just want to point out that there are MANY other ways to test techniques and ensure that training is as good as possible.  I'm sure that many schools do a great job of keeping instruction practical and effective.  It starts, IMO, with a qualified instructor, which is my largest concern. 



Flying Crane said:


> why does anybody "need" to test?  If you are satisfied with the quality of your training, there is no need to "test" in competition.  Again, if competition is your personal interest then go for it.  But if not, there is no genuine need for it.  There is no need to prove anything to anybody, certainly no to the world at large.  why would anybody care what the rest of the world, who are probably mostly ignorant of what goes on in your training sessions, thinks of what you do?


If you are being sold "effective self defense" and don't "test" in some manner, you have two issues.  First, as a student, you are learning on faith, lacking the experience to judge your instructor in any way.  Your instructor says this will work.  You're evaluation of your instructor is superficial.  He/she looks the part and sounds convincing.  And two, you will never know if you're learning something that really works until it's too late.  If you are ever in a situation where you need these skills, they will either work or not.  And then you will know.  Testing is critical.  Testing in some kind of competition is only one way to do it.  



mook jong man said:


> The smart **** doing the stupid subtitles over the video knows about as much about Wing Chun as what you do , which is bloody zero.
> 
> Go into a genuine Wing Chun school , hold a telephone book over your chest and ask them to hit it from close range.
> Then come back and tell us what you think.
> But you won't do that because it is just easier to jump on the band wagon and talk **** about stuff you don't understand isn't it.


That's the rub, isn't it?  What's a "genuine WC school" look like?  There is nothing tangible that a prospective student can evaluate.  It's a system that is being sold and independent evaluation is often discouraged.  Are there "genuine WC schools?"  I would suspect that there are and I am sure that there are some teaching solid technique in an effective manner.  Is there any way for a lay person to distinguish the good ones from the bad?  I'm not sure.  



Hanzou said:


> I guess you missed the parts where Boztepe is moving body parts while saying that he's not moving said body parts. I guess you also missed the part where he says that boxers and Karatekas are only using 20% of their body power, but his Kung Fu fists are using 100% power. These punches send hapless people flying backwards several feet, yet some how no professional fighters ever got the memo.
> 
> I won't do it because I'm not going to waste time looking for a "genuine" Wing Chun school. Anytime someone does something like that and the magical abilities don't seem to work, someone comes back with the excuse that you didn't go to a "real" (insert style) school.
> 
> Meanwhile, I would recommend you taking Boztepe's anti-grappling stuff to your nearest Bjj school (doesn't really matter which one), and videotape the results. It would go a long way towards legitimizing his claims.


It's just too bad nobody has ever put together an event or something where experts in each style could put it all out there.  Some event where everyone gets into a giant ring... but maybe bigger.  We'll need a unique shape.  How about a hexagon?

Seriously, though, crosstraining is another hot button topic.  I think a lot of people are for it.  You don't have to train in BJJ in order to establish a friendly synergy.  There's nothing keeping two schools from getting together to work out and spar.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Mook, tell me something; if Wing Chun punches are stronger than Karate or Boxing punches, why aren't professional fighters using it in competition? Further  why aren't we seeing Wing Chun guys in competitions or tournaments knocking people around with these incredibly powerful punches? Why  aren't we seeing Wing Chun stylists performing these devestating punches in street fights?
> 
> I know choking someone out isn't magic, because people outside of martial arts have done it, and it's been used to devastating effects in a competitive environment. I've also seen trained people use chokes in street fights and brawls. The only place I've seen anyone perform these magic Kung fu punches is in demonstrations.
> 
> Where's all the fighters using these devastating Wing Chun punches?


Just to add to this, it would be freaking awesome to see it.  I'd love it.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Mook, tell me something; if Wing Chun punches are stronger than Karate or Boxing punches, why aren't professional fighters using it in competition? Further  why aren't we seeing Wing Chun guys in competitions or tournaments knocking people around with these incredibly powerful punches? Why  aren't we seeing Wing Chun stylists performing these devestating punches in street fights?
> 
> I know choking someone out isn't magic, because people outside of martial arts have done it, and it's been used to devastating effects in a competitive environment. I've also seen trained people use chokes in street fights and brawls. The only place I've seen anyone perform these magic Kung fu punches is in demonstrations.
> 
> Where's all the fighters using these devastating Wing Chun punches?



No one says they are stronger , although they are quite powerful.
I would say they cause more internal damage because of the way the vertical fist is formed on impact . (ungloved of course)

As an experiment get someone to hit you on the side of your shoulder with a horizontal fist and then get the same person , using the same force to hit you with a vertical fist , last three knuckles and forming the fist on impact.

You tell me which one hurts the most and has penetrating force.

Why aren't professionals using it in competition.
Simples , they probably think it is a load of ***** like you do and can't be bothered spending years to perfect it.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Just to add to this, it would be freaking awesome to see it.  I'd love it.



Yep. That's what a lot of people don't understand. We're all fans of the martial arts, and when I see something crazy actually work, it makes us happy. For example, I loved watching Anderson Silva fight. He would dodge punches like the matrix and choke out people twice his size. It was like watching Bruce Lee fighting in the Octagon. Machida was another one, with his wild footwork, and karate moves.

Bottom line; If Bozepte's punching method actually worked, people would be using it in competition. You have guys who are living, breathing, eating, and crapping martial arts, and they are looking for any advantage in a fight. There's no way they wouldn't use a punch that could floor a person with little body movement.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> No one says they are stronger , although they are quite powerful.



Boztepe said they were stronger. He specifically stated that Karate and Boxing blows have less power than the Wing Chun punch.



> I would say they cause more internal damage because of the way the vertical fist is formed on impact . (ungloved of course)



That wasn't internal damage I saw in that video. I saw a guy hit someone with a punch, and the guy went flying backwards from the impact.



> As an experiment get someone to hit you on the side of your shoulder with a horizontal fist and then get the same person , using the same force to hit you with a vertical fist , last three knuckles and forming the fist on impact.
> 
> You tell me which one hurts the most and has penetrating force.



I could also use a Phoenix-Eye fist punch to get even more penetrating force. Doesn't mean I'd use that punch in a fight, because its a great way to break my fingers.



> Why aren't professionals using it in competition.
> Simples , they probably think it is a load of ***** like you do and can't be bothered spending years to perfect it.



Really? I know some WC instructors that are in their 20s and 30s. You telling me that even these instructors haven't mastered the secret of the magical kung fu punch?  

In all seriousness, the idea that a superior punching method exists that no professional fighter wants to use is nonsense. They will spend years learning it if its legit, because they make their living doing this stuff. The problem is that its not legit.

Mythbusters for example, recently proved that the one-inch punch had less than half the power of a full punch. In the end, these wild claims simply don't stack up to scientific scrutiny.


----------



## Danny T

Hanzou said:


> ..., if Wing Chun punches are stronger than Karate or Boxing punches, why aren't professional fighters using it in competition? Further  why aren't we seeing Wing Chun guys in competitions or tournaments knocking people around with these incredibly powerful punches? Why  aren't we seeing Wing Chun stylists performing these devestating punches in street fights?
> 
> I know choking someone out isn't magic, because people outside of martial arts have done it, and it's been used to devastating effects in a competitive environment. I've also seen trained people use chokes in street fights and brawls. The only place I've seen anyone perform these magic Kung fu punches is in demonstrations.
> 
> Where's all the fighters using these devastating Wing Chun punches?


As both a wing chunner (over 25 years), a Muay Thai boxer (over 20 years), and a western boxer (over 40 years) I believe I can get an experienced opinion covering both sides. I am now in my 60s and I have competed in competitions that were available at the time both with gloves and without gloves. I also did some wrestling from the age of 14-16 and didn't do any real serious groundfighting until the late 90's. Today I still practice and instruct: WC, Muay Thai, and CSW as well as the FMA of Pekiti-Tirsia. I also coach several MMA amateur and professional fighters (many have done well, a few are struggling and most amateurs are there for a couple fights only). 
Let's step back a few years and take a look at how what we now know call Boxing delivered their punches. Elbows down and in and with vertical or with a slightly cork screwed and angled thumb up punch. Upper body squared and with the weight back onto the rear foot. (very, very similar to the wing chun form and punch presentation) Why? And why the change to what is today's boxing structure? These two structures are so different one has to acknowledge they are completely different fighting methods, styles, and tactics. Why? 

Answer these questions and you will begin to understand why wing chun isn't seen in today's mma venues. You will also begin to understand why only a few fighting methods are used almost to the point of complete rejection of all others.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Boztepe said they were stronger. He specifically stated that Karate and Boxing blows have less power than the Wing Chun punch.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't internal damage I saw in that video. I saw a guy hit someone with a punch, and the guy went flying backwards from the impact.
> 
> 
> 
> I could also use a Phoenix-Eye fist punch to get even more penetrating force. Doesn't mean I'd use that punch in a fight, because its a great way to break my fingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I know some WC instructors that are in their 20s and 30s. You telling me that even these instructors haven't mastered the secret of the magical kung fu punch?
> 
> In all seriousness, the idea that a superior punching method exists that no professional fighter wants to use is nonsense. They will spend years learning it if its legit, because they make their living doing this stuff. The problem is that its not legit.
> 
> Mythbusters for example, recently proved that the one-inch punch had less than half the power of a full punch. In the end, these wild claims simply don't stack up to scientific scrutiny.



Ok dude you know it all , you da man.
I think the bigger issue here is why the hell you care so much about what other people are doing.
Shouldn't  you be worried more about your own training , maybe working on your "Shrimping " or something .
I mean I don't lie awake at night thinking hmm.... I wonder why we don't see any BJJ people , Muay Thai people or Boxing people trying their hand at chi sau competitions.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Emin Boztepe is not Mike Tyson though. Outside of Wing Chun circles, most people have no idea who
> Boztepe is. Which is probably why he supposedly keeps challenging major MMA fighters like Bas Rutten and Brock Lesnar.
> 
> Here's a video dissection of one of Boztepe's seminars:
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NS65UiYqJ1o
> 
> Notice how far back his student flies from the impact of his punches. Again, it borders on Ki-power levels of martial silliness.


Absolute BS! Nothing to do with Chi, just good bio-mechanics. I can get the same result as he does if my partner doesn't have a pad. Even with a pad they will go a couple of steps back. 

But why do you pick a video taken out of context by a detractor to make your point. Here is part of the rest of that seminar ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzBVs09-n4

And I think you'll find the supposed challenge that Bas Rutten took up isn't as you put it either. And for the record, having met and trained with Bas I wouldn't be challenging him either, even with his stuffed arm.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Absolute BS! Nothing to do with Chi, just good bio-mechanics. I can get the same result as he does if my partner doesn't have a pad. Even with a pad they will go a couple of steps back.
> 
> But why do you pick a video taken out of context by a detractor to make your point. Here is part of the rest of that seminar ..
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzBVs09-n4



I chose that video because it points out the flaws in the method better than I would be able to in a post on the forum.

Looking at your video above, Boztepe is again stating that the Wing Chun method is superior to the boxing method.

I ask again, if this method is so much better than what professional fighters are doing, why isn't this guy doing demonstrations showcasing his skill against professional fighters?

This is yet another example of a "crazy claim" by Boztepe.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> I mean I don't lie awake at night thinking hmm.... I wonder why we don't see any BJJ people , Muay Thai people or Boxing people trying their hand at chi sau competitions.



Well to be fair, NHB and MMA competitions aren't style specific competitions like a tournament revolving around Chi Sau would be a very specific Wing Chun competition. Clearly, a Wing Chun exponent would have an unfair advantage in a competition designed specifically for Wing Chun. However, Bjj, Muay Thai, Boxing, and Wing Chun should all be on equal footing in a mixed martial arts competition.

If you disagree, please explain how Boxing, Bjj, and MT have an unfair advantage over something like Wing Chun in NHB/MMA competitions.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I guess you missed the parts where Boztepe is moving body parts while saying that he's not moving said body parts. I guess you also missed the part where he says that boxers and Karatekas are only using 20% of their body power, but his Kung Fu fists are using 100% power. These punches send hapless people flying backwards several feet, yet some how no professional fighters ever got the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't do it because I'm not going to waste time looking for a "genuine" Wing Chun school. Anytime someone does something like that and the magical abilities don't seem to work, someone comes back with the excuse that you didn't go to a "real" (insert style) school.
> 
> Meanwhile, I would recommend you taking Boztepe's anti-grappling stuff to your nearest Bjj school (doesn't really matter which one), and videotape the results. It would go a long way towards legitimizing his claims.


In your haste to bag the man you missed what he said. I would say that the way karate punches are generally taught they use less than 20% of their 'body' power. That doesn't mean they are delivering 20% of total power. I reckon the average standing karate punch delivers about 60% of total power which is why I reckon I can significantly improve the power of most people's punches. Obviously you have not experienced what he is discussing in your training. Now why doesn't that surprise me?

And for what it's worth, seeing Bas Rutten's name was mentioned earlier, his punches are as powerful as I have seen yet I believe he could still increase the power of his punch if he wanted to. He simply doesn't need to. And that is is the nub. You don't need to develop 100% power for a strike to be effective. 

And of course you wouldn't want to visit a good WC school. You might not be able to handle it. 

Boztepe's ground stuff is not designed to fight specialist grapplers. It is designed for the street and from the little I gave seen it may well have come from Systema.  



Hanzou said:


> Mook, tell me something; if Wing Chun punches are stronger than Karate or Boxing punches, why aren't professional fighters using it in competition? Further  why aren't we seeing Wing Chun guys in competitions or tournaments knocking people around with these incredibly powerful punches? Why  aren't we seeing Wing Chun stylists performing these devestating punches in street fights?
> 
> Where's all the fighters using these devastating Wing Chun punches?


You have such limited knowledge of other systems that it is scary. Whether you can deliver a power punch in competition depends on the position you are in at the time. Personally I don't train my punching the way WC does although the power generated is similar. And, there is absolutely no reason why you couldn't use it in competition if you were prepared to take the time to learn it. Have you ever been punched by an experienced Systema practitioner?



mook jong man said:


> No one says they are stronger , although they are quite powerful.
> I would say they cause more internal damage because of the way the vertical fist is formed on impact . (ungloved of course)
> 
> As an experiment get someone to hit you on the side of your shoulder with a horizontal fist and then get the same person , using the same force to hit you with a vertical fist , last three knuckles and forming the fist on impact.
> 
> You tell me which one hurts the most and has penetrating force.
> 
> Why aren't professionals using it in competition.
> Simples , they probably think it is a load of ***** like you do and can't be bothered spending years to perfect it.


Good points. I teach vertical fist more even than a neutral fist and don't teach the horizontal fist at all. And Mook, I think you are wrong. A good WC punch, as demonstrated, is way more powerful than most karate punches the way I have seen them taught, and that is from a 30 plus year karate background. That is not to say that karate punches from a good karateka aren't powerful but the way I have seen some karate schools train striking leaves a lot to be desired.



Hanzou said:


> Bottom line; If Bozepte's punching method actually worked, people would be using it in competition. You have guys who are living, breathing, eating, and crapping martial arts, and they are looking for any advantage in a fight. There's no way they wouldn't use a punch that could floor a person with little body movement.


Then perhaps they should eat a bit of humble pie, find a good WC school and learn how to do it. 



Hanzou said:


> Boztepe said they were stronger. He specifically stated that Karate and Boxing blows have less power than the Wing Chun punch.
> 
> That wasn't internal damage I saw in that video. I saw a guy hit someone with a punch, and the guy went flying backwards from the impact.
> 
> I could also use a Phoenix-Eye fist punch to get even more penetrating force. Doesn't mean I'd use that punch in a fight, because its a great way to break my fingers.
> 
> Really? I know some WC instructors that are in their 20s and 30s. You telling me that even these instructors haven't mastered the secret of the magical kung fu punch?
> 
> In all seriousness, the idea that a superior punching method exists that no professional fighter wants to use is nonsense. They will spend years learning it if its legit, because they make their living doing this stuff. The problem is that its not legit.
> 
> Mythbusters for example, recently proved that the one-inch punch had less than half the power of a full punch. In the end, these wild claims simply don't stack up to scientific scrutiny.


First point, he is right. The punch he was demonstrating utilised his entire body. That delivers much more power than your normal karate or boxing strike. Even then the guy went flying back and I would be certain Boztepe wasn't striking with anywhere near his full power.

If you wouldn't use a Phoenix eye fist in a fight then you are ignoring one of your most effective strikes. But then, you don't believe in vital point striking either. A light Phoenix eye punch can be extremely effective, even when used as a distraction to apply a lock.

As to Mythbusters. You have misquoted again. Obviously a one inch punch has less power than a full punch but that doesn't mean it is ineffective. I would have thought Mythbusters would have been classed as 'scientific scrutiny'.



> *A ninja can knock out a person with a punch from one inch away.
> 
> *
> *PLAUSIBLE*
> The first had Jamie test a full force conventional punch and measure the force. Anthony, who was trained in the use of the one inch punch, performed it. The one inch punch had half the force of Jamie&#8217;s punch, and the three inch punch had two thirds the force. Anthony further demonstrated the power of the punch by using it to break only the last of three wooden boards, a feat that Jamie was unable to match. The Mythbusters concluded that with the right training, a person can use the one inch punch with enough power and expertise to knock down a person.



As others have said, you have no idea of other styles and other methods. Perhaps you should restrict your discussion to MMA and refrain from offering 'expert' opinion on things you know very little about.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Absolute BS! Nothing to do with Chi, just good bio-mechanics. I can get the same result as he does if my partner doesn't have a pad. Even with a pad they will go a couple of steps back.
> 
> But why do you pick a video taken out of context by a detractor to make your point. Here is part of the rest of that seminar ..
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzBVs09-n4
> 
> And I think you'll find the supposed challenge that Bas Rutten took up isn't as you put it either. And for the record, having met and trained with Bas I wouldn't be challenging him either, even with his stuffed arm.


If it's good bio-mechanics, it begs the question.  These are skills which would be useful to competitive martial artists.  Any advantage would be pursued.  So, why not use this tremendously awesome power?  You guys seem to believe that it's because MMAists have a bad attitude, wouldn't take the time or perhaps are just too short sighted.  Or am I wrong?  What is there about this that you think makes it unsuitable?  What is it about MMA that you believe precludes these bio-mechanically sound techniques from being helpful?

 I would like to assure you that this is not the case.  There seems to be a fundamental disregard for the pragmatic nature of professional athletes.  They are serious martial artists with years of experience and skills drawn from various martial arts systems.  Many are black beltor equivalent in multiple systems, and are not dabblers.  They continue to train separately in multiple styles while also training for MMA competition.  While the specific cocktail of skills on display in an MMA match may seem limited to someone who is unfamiliar, these athletes are committed to learning as much as possible.  I know guys who do everything from meditation to yoga to tai chi and anything else you can imagine which they believe helps them physically, mentally or spiritually.


----------



## Blindside

Flying Crane said:


> why does anybody "need" to test?  If you are satisfied with the quality of your training, there is no need to "test" in competition.  Again, if competition is your personal interest then go for it.  But if not, there is no genuine need for it.  There is no need to prove anything to anybody, certainly no to the world at large.  why would anybody care what the rest of the world, who are probably mostly ignorant of what goes on in your training sessions, thinks of what you do?



Are you absolutely sold on the value of everything in your system?  Does every technique make sound sense?  Can you pull them off?  You and I both walked away from kenpo because we had doubts about the training method, so I know you are a critical thinker, you don't accept things "as sifu says."  I don't test the system to prove it to others, I do so to prove it to myself.  Yes I can work with my students to practice different techniques, but can I pull it off when they are fully resisting?  Good, and then because I know that working only with your own group can cause a bias in the testing sample, I then have to go outside the group and since I am not getting into street fights, that requires competition.  Competition has taught me lessons that make me a better instructor.  I see things even in my own systems that are clearly artifacts of people not pressure testing the material, going very kenpoish with a lack of resistance training, I won't do that to my students.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> If it's good bio-mechanics, it begs the question.  These are skills which would be useful to competitive martial artists.  Any advantage would be pursued.  So, why not use this tremendously awesome power?  You guys seem to believe that it's because MMAists have a bad attitude, wouldn't take the time or perhaps are just too short sighted.  Or am I wrong?  What is there about this that you think makes it unsuitable?  What is it about MMA that you believe precludes these bio-mechanically sound techniques from being helpful?
> 
> I would like to assure you that this is not the case.  There seems to be a fundamental disregard for the pragmatic nature of professional athletes.  They are serious martial artists with years of experience and skills drawn from various martial arts systems.  Many are black beltor equivalent in multiple systems, and are not dabblers.  They continue to train separately in multiple styles while also training for MMA competition.  While the specific cocktail of skills on display in an MMA match may seem limited to someone who is unfamiliar, these athletes are committed to learning as much as possible.  I know guys who do everything from meditation to yoga to tai chi and anything else you can imagine which they believe helps them physically, mentally or spiritually.


Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I have no problem with MMA. I think it is awesome training and if you are young and want competition it is the way to go. It is only when people start telling me that MMA has all the answers and that other styles are crap and top exponents of other styles are frauds that I get my nose out of joint.

I have no doubt that top MMA people exploit biomechanics to the utmost to extract every bit of advantage they can. That is probably the top 0.1% of people training MMA.  For most people they do what they do. They are not professional athletes. They can not afford the specialist coaching that a top athlete gets. I spend a lot of time teaching it to guys who have trained for decades to give them a little edge. But unless it has been shown to you, you are not going to be able to teach it to others. Having a black belt in any style doesn't guarantee a great knowledge or ability although it us a good first step. (BJJ may be the exception here but even that seems to be reducing its requirements time wise to BB.)
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> In your haste to bag the man you missed what he said. I would say that the way karate punches are generally taught they use less than 20% of their 'body' power. That doesn't mean they are delivering 20% of total power. I reckon the average standing karate punch delivers about 60% of total power which is why I reckon I can significantly improve the power of most people's punches. Obviously you have not experienced what he is discussing in your training. Now why doesn't that surprise me?



Clearly I'm not the only one who hasn't experienced what he is discussing, because no one talks about the power of Wing Chun's punches in any MA circles. Again, if there was an ounce of reality to what Bozetepe was talking about, everyone would be training in it. Its nonsense to believe that people would ignore this incredible secret power because they're "too lazy". People spent years to learn Bjj after the first UFC bouts. You honestly believe that those same people wouldn't spend years to learn a punching from Wing Chun if it was effective?



> And of course you wouldn't want to visit a good WC school. You might not be able to handle it.



The very fact that I can't just visit *any* WC school immediately sends up red flags.



> Boztepe's ground stuff is not designed to fight specialist grapplers. It is designed for the street



And its effectiveness has been tested in what way exactly? Those supposed 200 fights that Boztepe participated in?



> You have such limited knowledge of other systems that it is scary. Whether you can deliver a power punch in competition depends on the position you are in at the time.



Er... whether you can deliver a power punch on the street depends on the position you are in at the time too. Are you saying that WC exponents can't power punch because they are unable to attain the proper position in a competition format?

Seriously?



> Then perhaps they should eat a bit of humble pie, find a good WC school and learn how to do it.



It needs to be proven to be a viable method first. WC fighters entering MMA competitions have never been able to demonstrate that level of punching power. That includes one of Emin Bozetepe's students.



> First point, he is right. The punch he was demonstrating utilised his entire body. That delivers much more power than your normal karate or boxing strike. Even then the guy went flying back and I would be certain Boztepe wasn't striking with anywhere near his full power.



So again, why isn't Boztepe going out into the MA world and demonstrating this awesome technique on professional fighters, make himself a gazillionaire, and make WC the premiere striking art on the planet?

It's the exact same nonsense as that Ki-master who could destroy people from 20 feet away. When the poop hits the fan and these guys actually have to fight someone, none of this stuff comes out for display. Just like when Boztepe attacked William Cheung during a demo. Where was the one-inch punching? Where's the chi sau? Even if you want to make the excuse that Boztepe was young and inexperienced (even though at that point he had been studying Wing Chun for 6 years), Cheung was a grandmaster in WC and he didn't do anything resembling WC either. Both men scrambled on the floor wailing on each other like two untrained lunatics.

Simply put, the *facts* don't back up Boztepe's claims.



> As to Mythbusters. You have misquoted again. Obviously a one inch punch has less power than a full punch but that doesn't mean it is ineffective. I would have thought Mythbusters would have been classed as 'scientific scrutiny'.



"Plausible" on Mythbusters mean that its possible, but couldn't be proven on the show. I do believe the goal was to see if someone can be knocked out with a one-inch punch, their findings showed that someone could be knocked down by the punch. There's a big difference between knocking someone down, and knocking someone out.

Additionally, I said that they found that the one-inch punch produced less than half the power of a standard punch. Your quote backed that up, so what are you talking about?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It's the exact same nonsense as that Ki-master who could destroy people from 20 feet away. When the poop hits the fan and these guys actually have to fight someone, none of this stuff comes out for display. Just like when Boztepe attacked William Cheung during a demo. Where was the one-inch punching? Where's the chi sau? Even if you want to make the excuse that Boztepe was young and inexperienced (even though at that point he had been studying Wing Chun for 6 years), Cheung was a grandmaster in WC and he didn't do anything resembling WC either. Both men scrambled on the floor wailing on each other like two untrained lunatics.
> 
> Simply put, the *facts* don't back up Boztepe's claims.
> 
> 
> 
> "Plausible" on Mythbusters mean that its possible, but couldn't be proven on the show. I do believe the goal was to see if someone can be knocked out with a one-inch punch, their findings showed that someone could be knocked down by the punch. There's a big difference between knocking someone down, and knocking someone out.
> 
> Additionally, I said that they found that the one-inch punch produced less than half the power of a standard punch. Your quote backed that up, so what are you talking about?


Oh poleeese! This is nothing like the Ki master crap. You are demeaning another style yet again and trying to dismiss it by putting it up against fake crap. The biomechanics he had demonstrating are straight forward. You just can't be bothered looking at it because you know that all your training is world best practice.  :bs:
I have news for you. It us painfully obvious that you haven't seen much outside your own small arena. The fact that you can't discuss a particular technique without linking it to totally unrelated BS invalidates your entire arguement.

Then you dredge out a 30 year old video to demonstrate what a person is doing now? How does that work? And to suggest that 6 years of training gives a lot of experience in a TMA again demonstrates your ignorance of a TMA.

And your Mythbusters red herring ...  
You made a claim that was demonstrably false about what they examined. Nobody at anytime that I am aware has ever suggested that a one inch punch was as powerful as a fully fledged punch. Yet because the one inch punch delivers about half the power you dismiss it out of sight. That wasn't what was being examined. What was being examined was, is the one inch punch effective? Answer, yes. As to the difference between knocking down and knocking out, I would suggest it is requires less power to knock out than knock down if you strike the right spot, but what would I know, I have never trained in MMA.


----------



## Buka




----------



## seasoned

Hey guys, just a little friendly advice to keep the conversation toned down a bit. We are here to discuss styles not determine which one is better.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

For those that don't accept Emin Boztepe as a credible MAist, check out the comment from the MCMAP instructor around 17:15 in this episode of Human Weapon where he's asked the question about how a professional MMAist would fare against the US marines:






Either he's mistaken, it's false bravado on his part, or the rules/environment in MMA do make a difference.


----------



## K-man

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> For those that don't accept Emin Boztepe as a credible MAist, check out the comment from the MCMAP instructor around 17:15 in this episode of Human Weapon where he's asked the question about how a professional MMAist would fare against the US marines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either he's mistaken, it's false bravado on his part, or the rules/environment in MMA do make a difference.


Funny how in the 'House of Pain' none of them were rolling about on the floor. Must be something to do with the fact that they were training for the real world.
 :hmm:


----------



## Spinedoc

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> For those that don't accept Emin Boztepe as a credible MAist, check out the comment from the MCMAP instructor around 17:15 in this episode of Human Weapon where he's asked the question about how a professional MMAist would fare against the US marines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either he's mistaken, it's false bravado on his part, or the rules/environment in MMA do make a difference.



As a former Navy Corpsman that was stationed with the Marines.....let me say a hearty.....THANK YOU!

I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion even was. MMA is great for a workout, it's great for sport/competition...but that ain't fightin. I've been in a number of real world fights, some in the military, some out...and when there are no rules...things are markedly different. Especially in the military when the other person is most decidedly trying to kill you. 

BJJ looks like fun, in fact, recently, I got to play around with a friend who is a blue belt in BJJ. We tried different grabs and attacks, with him responding with BJJ moves, and me responding with Aikido moves. Then we free sparred for a bit. He was really impressed with the aikido, especially, when he got me to the ground, and I managed to get up to seiza and hit him with a kotegaeshi before he could grab me again. I was impressed with some of his maneuvers once he got me all the way down. He was impressed with some of the Aikido takedowns and throws....

Bottom line....we both left with positive impressions of the others martial art. He enjoys competition too, but he was also in the military. He would be one of the first to say that MMA isn't the same as real life fighting. 

So, rather than ask a disingenuous question (this thread) like "How come some martial arts don't do as well in a competition that has rules that favor other martial arts"

Why not focus on the fact that people are learning them at all....or, that fighting is not always physical (I would argue that it is mostly not physical)....or, that no one really, ever, EVER wins a fight....or, that some of us have no desire to EVER fight in a competition, and take martial arts for other reasons. 

Just my brief thoughts....

Mike


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*I have a lot of respect for Wing Chun*.  When I was in College oh so many moons ago.(like a hell of a long time ago)   I just wanted to try some thing different so enrolled in a semester Karate class and I studied a little bit of Wing Chun at a local school in Saginaw. (just a tiny weeny bit)  The instructor was really good but that is not what impressed me.  One time a new guy came in and he was a kickboxer.  I could relate because well I had already had almost 9 kickboxing fights at this time.  Anyways, he wasn't really there to train but to see how he would fair.  The Wing Chun instructor just let it happen with one of his guy's.  Full on kickboxing vs. wing chun no pads.  Total dismantle, total beat down of the kickboxer by the Wing Chun guy.  *Wasn't even close*.  That guy worked his Wing Chun real well.  So yes the right guy practicing Wing Chun should be respected.  It can work just fine but like any system will depend on the individual.

*So why didn't I stay*.  Frankly the Wing Chun I learned in that very brief time did not mesh well with my movement.  Mainly my foot work.  l could see this right from the get go.  So I moved on!  Though I did take a little bit of that rapid fire striking approach and appropriated it.  * Still in my mind there is no doubt Wing Chun can be effective!  *


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> For those that don't accept Emin Boztepe as a credible MAist, check out the comment from the MCMAP instructor around 17:15 in this episode of Human Weapon where he's asked the question about how a professional MMAist would fare against the US marines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either he's mistaken, it's false bravado on his part, or the rules/environment in MMA do make a difference.



I know I could not access the video here in Nevada so I found another link:

[video]http://www.veoh.com/watch/v20570968zbTJxhNg?h1=Human+Weapon+MCMAP[/video]


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Oh poleeese! This is nothing like the Ki master crap. You are demeaning another style yet again and trying to dismiss it by putting it up against fake crap. The biomechanics he had demonstrating are straight forward. You just can't be bothered looking at it because you know that all your training is world best practice.




If you're claiming that your hand techniques are superior to boxing, yet aren't willing to test that claim against professional athletes who use those techniques, how is it any different than the ki-master? You're still making wildly baseless claims with nothing to substantiate your claims. You're also deluding your student into a false sense of security and technical ability.



> I have news for you. It us painfully obvious that you haven't seen much outside your own small arena. The fact that you can't discuss a particular technique without linking it to totally unrelated BS invalidates your entire argument.



Please indicate where that took place.



> Then you dredge out a 30 year old video to demonstrate what a person is doing now? How does that work? And to suggest that 6 years of training gives a lot of experience in a TMA again demonstrates your ignorance of a TMA.



So that's what a traditional stylist fights like after 6 years of training? Okay...

I'm pretty sure Boztepe was instructing at that point. Cheung was definitely teaching at that point. Neither looked very impressive in that vid.




> And your Mythbusters red herring ...
> You made a claim that was demonstrably false about what they examined. Nobody at anytime that I am aware has ever suggested that a one inch punch was as powerful as a fully fledged punch. Yet because the one inch punch delivers about half the power you dismiss it out of sight. That wasn't what was being examined. What was being examined was, is the one inch punch effective? Answer, yes. As to the difference between knocking down and knocking out, I would suggest it is requires less power to knock out than knock down if you strike the right spot, but what would I know, I have never trained in MMA.



I do believe that the test for the one inch punch was that a Ninja could knock someone out with it. That sort of indicates that it's supposed to be as powerful as a regular punch. Btw, it's not hard to knock someone down with a blow when they're standing in front of you and not doing anything. I'd like to see this stuff working with a moving, reactive opponent.

I guess that's too much to ask for....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

All the respect in the world for the Marine Corp Martial Arts Program!


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> If you're claiming that your hand techniques are superior to boxing, yet aren't willing to test that claim against professional athletes who use those techniques, how is it any different than the ki-master? You're still making wildly baseless claims with nothing to substantiate your claims. You're also deluding your student into a false sense of security and technical ability.


Once again you are claiming that your technique cannot be improved if you dismiss the possibility there is a better way of striking. Boxers are specialist punchers, so are karateka. I have been instructed by some of the best guys around, people who have fought in the ring. Please explain why I need to do that. And thank you for the personal attack. I am *not* deluding anyone, particularly my students. Please keep you comments on my ability to yourself. You have no idea of my ability.



> Originally posted by *Hanzou*
> Please indicate where that took place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again, why isn't Boztepe going out into the MA world and demonstrating this awesome technique on professional fighters, make himself a gazillionaire, and make WC the premiere striking art on the planet?
> 
> 
> *It's the exact same nonsense as that Ki-master who could destroy people from 20 feet away*. When the poop hits the fan and these guys actually have to fight someone, none of this stuff comes out for display
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I think that is a reasonable example.




> Originally posted by *Hanzou*
> So that's what a traditional stylist fights like after 6 years of training? Okay...
> 
> I'm pretty sure Boztepe was instructing at that point. Cheung was definitely teaching at that point. Neither looked very impressive in that vid.



Cheung was claiming to be the best WC fighter in the world. Obviously neither had trained for the ground. In Boztepe's case he acknowledged that and changed his training. Obviously you still choose to ignore that fact. Six years training to be an expert? Really? I have 8 years Aikido and recognise my limitations. I wouldn't even take an Aikido class unless there was no one else more experienced. In my experience it is about 10 years against non-compliant partners to BJJ black. Why would a TMA be faster to gain a similar degree of competence?



> Originally posted by *Hanzou*
> I do believe that the test for the one inch punch was that a Ninja could knock someone out with it. That sort of indicates that it's supposed to be as powerful as a regular punch. Btw, it's not hard to knock someone down with a blow when they're standing in front of you and not doing anything. I'd like to see this stuff working with a moving, reactive opponent.
> 
> I guess that's too much to ask for....



No it doesn't indicate that at all. You are making an assumption. A one inch punch is a useful tool in your armoury. We were shown its effectiveness in Okinawa at the Jundokan. It is not exclusively WC. But no one I have met would claim it to be more powerful than a full blooded punch from a longer range. The fact that you might even think that they were claiming that means you have little knowledge of biomechanics. As to whether it is working against a moving opponent, fine, but that is not what this demonstration was about. We could change the scenario and say what if Chuck Liddell fought Randy Couture on ice in a Blizzard. Hypothesise all you like. It just didn't happen!


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Once again you are claiming that your technique cannot be improved if you dismiss the possibility there is a better way of striking. Boxers are specialist punchers, so are karateka.



Where is the evidence that Boztepe's method is the better way of striking? He has an interesting theory, but where's the evidence of him actually defeating professional fighters using those hand techniques? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? Why?



> I have been instructed by some of the best guys around, people who have fought in the ring. Please explain why I need to do that.




And that is relevant because......?



> And thank you for the personal attack. I am *not* deluding anyone, particularly my students. Please keep you comments on my ability to yourself. You have no idea of my ability.



I was talking about Boztepe. 





> Cheung was claiming to be the best WC fighter in the world. Obviously neither had trained for the ground. In Boztepe's case he acknowledged that and changed his training. Obviously you still choose to ignore that fact. Six years training to be an expert? Really? I have 8 years Aikido and recognise my limitations. I wouldn't even take an Aikido class unless there was no one else more experienced. In my experience it is about 10 years against non-compliant partners to BJJ black. Why would a TMA be faster to gain a similar degree of competence?




Its not about being an expert, it's about being able to showcase your training and skill after six years of study. I seriously doubt that a Bjj practitioner after 6 years of training couldn't be able to perform Bjj skills in a confrontation or streetlight.



> No it doesn't indicate that at all. You are making an assumption. A one inch punch is a useful tool in your armoury. We were shown its effectiveness in Okinawa at the Jundokan. It is not exclusively WC. But no one I have met would claim it to be more powerful than a full blooded punch from a longer range. The fact that you might even think that they were claiming that means you have little knowledge of biomechanics. As to whether it is working against a moving opponent, fine, but that is not what this demonstration was about. We could change the scenario and say what if Chuck Liddell fought Randy Couture on ice in a Blizzard. Hypothesise all you like. It just didn't happen!



 Yes, the demonstration was to see if a one inch punch had enough power to knock someone out. It failed the test. Hence why it got plausible instead of fact.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> For those that don't accept Emin Boztepe as a credible MAist, check out the comment from the MCMAP instructor around 17:15 in this episode of Human Weapon where he's asked the question about how a professional MMAist would fare against the US marines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either he's mistaken, it's false bravado on his part, or the rules/environment in MMA do make a difference.




What does that have to do with Boztepe?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Testing in some kind of competition is only one way to do it.



bingo.  that's my whole point. It's only ONE way.  Not THE ONLY way.

and why are so many people so concerned with what everyone else is doing?  take care of yourself.  I do the same.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> bingo.  that's my whole point. It's only ONE way.  Not THE ONLY way.



It's the* safest *way though. Your other options are dojo storming or getting into street fights.

If someone asked me if Bjj can help a smaller person take out a bigger, or more muscular person, I have lots of fight footage I can show where Bjj guys (and gals) do exactly that.

If someone asked the same of a Kung Fu, Aikido, or Karate style, it would be a bit harder to find examples.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> bingo.  that's my whole point. It's only ONE way.  Not THE ONLY way.
> 
> and why are so many people so concerned with what everyone else is doing?  take care of yourself.  I do the same.



I agree to an extent.   I don't stress about this stuff.   But when it comes up in a thread like this, I do have concerns that people might not be learning what they think they're learning.  And the stakes are high in self defense training.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk H


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Where is the evidence that Boztepe's method is the better way of striking? He has an interesting theory, but where's the evidence of him actually defeating professional fighters using those hand techniques? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? Why?
> 
> You weren't addressing that at Boztepe. It was addressed at me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted by *Hanzou*
> If *you*'re claiming that *your* hand techniques are superior to boxing, yet aren't willing to test that claim against professional athletes who use those techniques, how is it any different than the ki-master? *You*'re still making wildly baseless claims with nothing to substantiate *your* claims. *You*'re also deluding *your* student into a false sense of security and technical ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is relevant because......?
> 
> I teach a similar strike as do many other instructors I know.
> 
> I was talking about Boztepe.
> 
> Then perhaps you should make that clear in your post.
> 
> Its not about being an expert, it's about being able to showcase your training and skill after six years of study. I seriously doubt that a Bjj practitioner after 6 years of training couldn't be able to perform Bjj skills in a confrontation or streetlight.
> 
> So you are honestly suggesting a BJJ practitioner after 6 years training could match someone like Royce Gracie at his peak or even now?  :hmm:
> 
> Yes, the demonstration was to see if a one inch punch had enough power to knock someone out. It failed the test. Hence why it got plausible instead of fact.
Click to expand...

I can't find the episode on YouTube so don't know what they were actually trying to disprove. Obviously they didn't disprove it or they would have called it a myth. I recall seeing some show on TV where they measured the power of a one inch punch but can't find it on YouTube either.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> _You weren't addressing that at Boztepe. It was addressed at me._



Again, I was talking about Boztepe. I compared him to the Ki-master, and I pointed out the crap he put in his videos. Why in the world would that be about you when you never claimed that your style had more power and better technique than boxing and karate?

Now please answer the question;



> _Where is the evidence that Boztepe's method is the better way of striking? He has an interesting theory, but where's the evidence of him actually defeating professional fighters using those hand techniques? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? Why?_


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Again, I was talking about Boztepe. I compared him to the Ki-master, and I pointed out the crap he put in his videos. Why in the world would that be about you when you never claimed that your style had more power and better technique than boxing and karate?
> 
> Now please answer the question;
> 
> Where is the evidence that Boztepe's method is the better way of striking? He has an interesting theory, but where's the evidence of him actually defeating professional fighters using those hand techniques? Are we supposed to just take his word for it? Why?


Firstly I don't think you have the knowledge to label anything crap and secondly, after watching the video again, I could find nowhere where he claimed his punch was better than any other style's punch. He explained the WC punch. He didn't make any claims so what has he got to prove? And again, you resort to: 'if it's not demonstrated in MMA competition it is BS'. Well as we all know, most practitioners of martial arts have no interest in competing against professional fighters and I suspect they couldn't give a rat's about what you think of their technique either.

So having addressed your questions perhaps you could have the curtesy to answer the ones that I ask you, instead of just ignoring them.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I know I could not access the video here in Nevada so I found another link:
> 
> [video]http://www.veoh.com/watch/v20570968zbTJxhNg?h1=Human+Weapon+MCMAP[/video]



I loled hard at that when I originally saw it. He picked the wrong martial artist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKw3YaWxzRI

Yep. Ex soldier.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I chose that video because it points out the flaws in the method better than I would be able to in a post on the forum.
> 
> Looking at your video above, Boztepe is again stating that the Wing Chun method is superior to the boxing method.
> 
> I ask again, if this method is so much better than what professional fighters are doing, why isn't this guy doing demonstrations showcasing his skill against professional fighters?
> 
> This is yet another example of a "crazy claim" by Boztepe.




It is not that so much. Boxers use that method as well. They don't go around pushing people with their punches either.

Anyhoo. James te huna did a training promo once that I can't find where he actually mentioned the vertical fist as part of his training. With the statement thumb up for speed thumb down for authority. That chun punch is a boxing/MMA punch.

You can see him banging them off against the pads.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RSNm8M9KvPQ

The concept is seen a bit in amature boxing more than professional boxing.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2t5L7vo7vU

We use it for MMA because the elbows can be used a bit more readily to block takedowns.

It is more the case that the guy is slightly mis representing boxing. Rather than trying to present that he has a super secret system that works but nobody has adopted. He also ignores a whole system that boxers use to avoid being punched that is also incorporated into the system of boxing.

One of the most glaring ones is that a boxer would not be standing in the pocket trading with a guy unless he is prepared to be punched a lot.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Firstly I don't think you have the knowledge to label anything crap and secondly, after watching the video again, I could find nowhere where he claimed his punch was better than any other style's punch. He explained the WC punch. He didn't make any claims so what has he got to prove?



You're kidding right? Did you watch the video you linked me to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzBVs09-n4&app=desktop

In the first 2 minutes of the video he's saying that Wing Chun is the better punching method. This is on top of the video I posted earlier where he says that Wing Chun punches are more powerful than boxing or Karate punches.

What does he have to prove? He could start by putting his skills up against a boxer/kickboxer, and record the results. That would go a long way to add an air of legitimacy to his claims.




> And again, you resort to: 'if it's not demonstrated in MMA competition it is BS'. Well as we all know, most practitioners of martial arts have no interest in competing against professional fighters and I suspect they couldn't give a rat's about what you think of their technique either.



Like I said in an earlier post; competition is the safest method to testing something out. If you're claiming that your punching method is superior to a boxer, then test it out and make it public. If you have an anti-grappling system, go to a competition and test it out against grapplers. If you're not going to test it publicly, you really shouldn't make wild baseless claims publicly.



> So having addressed your questions perhaps you could have the curtesy to answer the ones that I ask you, instead of just ignoring them.




Fire away.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> It is more the case that the guy is slightly mis representing boxing. Rather than trying to present that he has a super secret system that works but nobody has adopted. He also ignores a whole system that boxers use to avoid being punched that is also incorporated into the system of boxing.
> 
> One of the most glaring ones is that a boxer would not be standing in the pocket trading with a guy unless he is prepared to be punched a lot.



I wouldn't even say slightly. He flat out says that Wing Chun is the better method because Boxers would stand there and hit each other in the face all day.

Did you check out the vid where he said that Wing Chun punches generate more power than boxing and karate punches?

These claims would be fine if he was entering the ring and beating boxers. However since he's never going to do that, its a wild, baseless claim. Like his 300 fight record and his anti-grappling system.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You're kidding right? Did you watch the video you linked me to?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzBVs09-n4&app=desktop
> 
> In the first 2 minutes of the video he's saying that Wing Chun is the better punching method. This is on top of the video I posted earlier where he says that Wing Chun punches are more powerful than boxing or Karate punches.
> 
> What does he have to prove? He could start by putting his skills up against a boxer/kickboxer, and record the results. That would go a long way to add an air of legitimacy to his claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in an earlier post; competition is the safest method to testing something out. If you're claiming that your punching method is superior to a boxer, then test it out and make it public. If you have an anti-grappling system, go to a competition and test it out against grapplers. If you're not going to test it publicly, you really shouldn't make wild baseless claims publicly.
> 
> 
> 
> Fire away. [/COLOR]


I watched it again and sure enough, he didn't say that WC was a better punching system. He was explaining the WC system and explaining why a boxing type punch doesn't fit the WC mould. So seeing he is not making any claim he had nothing to prove.

I have asked you a number of questions over time but one that I asked earlier was, what other MA styles have you trained, for how long and at what age?


----------



## K-man

Perhaps we could stop bagging people and styles and bring the discussion back to the OP.  What appears obvious to me is that everyone has a different opinion of what defines a TMA and, just how do you classify other styles that aren't under the TMA umbrella?


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I'm not "bagging" Boztepe. I'm merely disturbed by his crazy claims. It borders on ki master levels of martial silliness.
> 
> Actually there would have been a huge upside- If he had won. Clearly he didn't think he was going to win, which is why he backed out of it, and the challenge itself.





K-man said:


> So what are his crazy claims? I have a number of his videos which I find really helpful. I also think he is among the best WC, or in his case WT, guys around. And you need to check the fine details. He didn't back out of any challenge at all. He declined the conditions imposed on him and in return offered to fight with no rules. That also was knocked back. In fact he had much to lose and nothing to gain by competing. He explained some of that in the video that was posted, if you had bothered to listen.



I'm not sure of the crazy claims either.  The lengthy exchange between the Boztepe and Gracie camps is available online.  It seems to me, that neither side could agree upon a neutral location.  The Gracies wanted the LAPD training academy, while Boztepe said that would not be a fair site.  IMHO, I would say that it was more of the Gracie side, that wasn't cooperating.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> It is my position that NOT using MMA competitions to test is in no way an indictment against any particular system.  As I've said before, MMA competition is not THE yardstick against which all martial arts must be tested.



Exactly.  Especially considering that you could have the same person fight numerous times, and the results, ie: win/lose, will vary.  I do advocate that MAists should test themselves, although that isn't a requirement, if one opts not to do it.  However, I feel it's important, because I want to make sure that I can make what I do, actually work. I don't want to take the word of my teacher (not that I doubt my teachers) that because it worked for him, and his teacher, and his teachers teacher, etc., that it'll automatically work for me.  





> no, we are not "stuck" with that.  People can do that if they wish, but they can also NOT do that if they wish.



Yup.  





> a collection of such news articles would tell us nothing.



Yup.


----------



## MJS

Blindside said:


> Is there a different yardstick?
> 
> How do systems test themselves these days if it isn't in the ring?
> 
> Do traditional systems keep up with changing methods of attacks?  Are they taking into account that with the popularization of MMA that maybe more attackers are going to take the situation to the ground because it is now viewed as a successful strategy as opposed to a more punching oriented attacker from the media of boxers in the past?



While I do see your point, and I do advocate testing of some sort, to play devil's advocate for a moment...what if someone is not interested in competing?  There has to be some sort of alternative testing venue, for lack of better words, to test yourself.  Me personally...I'm not a huge fan of competing in tournaments, although I did, most recently, 2 yrs. ago, when I fought twice, in a Kyokushin tournament.  I had my wife record my 2 fights.  No, they're not on YT.  I primarily used the recording to have a 'memory' of my 1st tournament in that style, and also as a learning tool.  FWIW, I lost both fights, although I thought for sure I had the 2nd one, but it is what it is.  I learned a lot and that meant more to me than anything else.  Of course I wanted a win, and I'm sure my teacher would have wanted to see one of his students win too, but it wasn't in the cards that day.  

I'm also going to be 41 this year.  Not that I'm an old, frail man..lol...although some days I feel like it..lol...but I need to work. I can't afford to be sidelined because of an injury I got from an activity, outside of work.  That fight that I fought 2yrs ago....I went for an X-ray a few days later, because I thought I broke a rib.  My point is...I know and accept the fact that hard training is going to result in the typical bumps, bruises, etc., but for me, now, I'm not going to put my well being in the backseat to entering a tournament.


----------



## MJS

mook jong man said:


> The smart **** doing the stupid subtitles over the video knows about as much about Wing Chun as what you do , which is bloody zero.
> 
> Go into a genuine Wing Chun school , hold a telephone book over your chest and ask them to hit it from close range.
> Then come back and tell us what you think.
> But you won't do that because it is just easier to jump on the band wagon and talk **** about stuff you don't understand isn't it.



LOL...funny you should mention that telephone book.  Quite a few years ago, a guy I used to work out with on occasion, was training with a WC guy.  So, one day, he asked me if I wanted to try out a class.  I said sure.  Small group, which was fine, and of course, I felt like an ***, because I really had no idea what I was doing.  I came from a Kenpo background, so the footwork, movement, etc, was giving me a lot of issue.  Anyways, after the class, I was talking to the teacher.  I was asking questions about the art, etc., and was interested in what he was saying.  As the conversation went on, he asked me about the 1 in. punch.  Again, not being from a WC background, I said I'd heard about it, but that was pretty much it.  He didn't use a phone book, and thankfully he didn't use his fist, but instead, his palm.  Needless to say, he sent me flying.  I didn't think there was any martial arts mumbo jumbo behind it.  He asked me to get into a solid stance, that I felt I would be pretty stable in.  It was an interesting experience to say the least.


----------



## MJS

Blindside said:


> Are you absolutely sold on the value of everything in your system?  Does every technique make sound sense?  Can you pull them off?  You and I both walked away from kenpo because we had doubts about the training method, so I know you are a critical thinker, you don't accept things "as sifu says."  I don't test the system to prove it to others, I do so to prove it to myself.  Yes I can work with my students to practice different techniques, but can I pull it off when they are fully resisting?  Good, and then because I know that working only with your own group can cause a bias in the testing sample, I then have to go outside the group and since I am not getting into street fights, that requires competition.  Competition has taught me lessons that make me a better instructor.  I see things even in my own systems that are clearly artifacts of people not pressure testing the material, going very kenpoish with a lack of resistance training, I won't do that to my students.



Oh please...come on now...you, FC and I, all know the real reason why we didn't grasp Kenpo, was because we didn't have real teachers who taught us all the secrets! LOL!   Yes, I'm being a smart *** here, because that's the typical reply from some people.  Anyways...all joking aside, and to answer your questions...no, not every tech makes sound sense, I can't pull them all off, and I have my share of doubts.  Part of the reason why I crosstrain, is because I want to address certain gaps, although as I've said, many will say there are no gaps.  Hmm...OK, well, to each their own.  As for testing...as I've said, I have alternative ways, outside of competing, to test my stuff.  It works for me, and I'm happy with it.   IMO, pressure testing is a requirement, if one is really serious about their training.


----------



## Blindside

MJS said:


> While I do see your point, and I do advocate testing of some sort, to play devil's advocate for a moment...what if someone is not interested in competing?  There has to be some sort of alternative testing venue, for lack of better words, to test yourself.  Me personally...I'm not a huge fan of competing in tournaments, although I did, most recently, 2 yrs. ago, when I fought twice, in a Kyokushin tournament.  I had my wife record my 2 fights.  No, they're not on YT.  I primarily used the recording to have a 'memory' of my 1st tournament in that style, and also as a learning tool.  FWIW, I lost both fights, although I thought for sure I had the 2nd one, but it is what it is.  I learned a lot and that meant more to me than anything else.  Of course I wanted a win, and I'm sure my teacher would have wanted to see one of his students win too, but it wasn't in the cards that day.
> 
> I'm also going to be 41 this year.  Not that I'm an old, frail man..lol...although some days I feel like it..lol...but I need to work. I can't afford to be sidelined because of an injury I got from an activity, outside of work.  That fight that I fought 2yrs ago....I went for an X-ray a few days later, because I thought I broke a rib.  My point is...I know and accept the fact that hard training is going to result in the typical bumps, bruises, etc., but for me, now, I'm not going to put my well being in the backseat to entering a tournament.



If someone isn't interested in competing they shouldn't compete, but the system as a whole better have a feedback mechanism about what works and what doesn't, and part of that is testing it against people who have a different approach to fighting than your own style.  I don't require my students to compete, but sparring is a regular component of the class, so that they are getting some of that feedback regularly, those of us who do compete will bring back whatever we learn.  I am 42, and I am going to my second Dog Brothers Gathering in a couple of weeks, and I will continue to go to those until my body tells me I am being truly stupid, I think the learning opportunity is that important.  And I realize that it isn't for everyone, it is hard to find other FMA practitioners interested in sparring an near full contact outside of my group which is why the Gatherings are so important.


----------



## Reedone816

Is this kind of test acceptable?
Using science and "dojo challenge"
Really impressed with cctv4 series "experience the real kung fu", to my opinion is better than Hong Kong tv kung fu quest series.


----------



## Tez3

Mixed Martial Arts does what it says on the tin...it's a mixture of anything that works in a fight from any martial arts style, simples. There is no one style that works better, there is no style that doesn't contain something you can use. MMA'ers who aren't necessarily fighters btw ( and if they are fighters they may fight under a variety of rules ie amateur, semi pro etc so aren't all in the UFC which while a big company is just that a company not a definition of MMA). I don't see why there is a need for a discussion on 'which TMAs work and which don't' in MMA because all of the techniques, yep all, come from one TMA or another.


----------



## MJS

Blindside said:


> If someone isn't interested in competing they shouldn't compete, but the system as a whole better have a feedback mechanism about what works and what doesn't, and part of that is testing it against people who have a different approach to fighting than your own style.  I don't require my students to compete, but sparring is a regular component of the class, so that they are getting some of that feedback regularly, those of us who do compete will bring back whatever we learn.  I am 42, and I am going to my second Dog Brothers Gathering in a couple of weeks, and I will continue to go to those until my body tells me I am being truly stupid, I think the learning opportunity is that important.  And I realize that it isn't for everyone, it is hard to find other FMA practitioners interested in sparring an near full contact outside of my group which is why the Gatherings are so important.



I agree with what you wrote here.  And just to be clear, please don't take my posts as me being anti pressure testing, anti sparring, and anti competing.  That is not the case at all.   I agree that one shouldn't be forced to compete, but as you said, there should be some sort of testing method in place, to ensure that it's happening.  As for sparring...I love it.  I've done it in Arnis and I still do it in my Kyokushin class.  Given the hardcore nature of that art in general, fighting in that tourny was certainly an eye opener for me.  I did enjoy it, and took the loss, as well as the bruises in stride.  

Good luck in the DB event!


----------



## Dirty Dog

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:

_ Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy [url]http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377[/URL]. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Mark A Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Blindside said:


> I am going to my second Dog Brothers Gathering in a couple of weeks, ...



One of my guys told me his Dog Brothers experience. They like to attack from a very far distance, generate enough body momentum, charge in toward you, and then run you down. If you are not used to

- move your body outside of their attacking path, and 
- take advantage on their forward commitment, 

you may not be able to play their game very well.


----------



## Blindside

You can't generalize about "what Dog Brothers do," the Gatherings are groups of like minded fighters, not necessarily any particular style.  Last year I fought a kempo guy, two judo/escrima guys, and a well, I don't know what the fourth guy did, it was decidedly unorthodox.  The guys who earn the title of "Dog Brother" can come from any background.  But I agree that the ground is a critical range, three of those four fights did hit the floor.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> What does that have to do with Boztepe?



Nothing, it was a source that you might respect making the same point i.e. competition fighting is not the same as real fighting without rules. Although he may well have picked a bad example in Randy Couture, I didn't know he was ex-army too! Thanks DB.

A point to consider regarding the whole Boztepe/Gracie spat, R Gracie could have accepted Emin's terms and put him in his place at any time but didn't. Why?

After reading the transcripts in the link kindly provided by K-Man -  How the superfight got started - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums - my conclusion is that R Gracie thought he had the advantage in the usual MMA format, Emin thought he had the advantage in a real fight, and given all the to-ing and fro-ing I'd say that they agreed with each other. 

Or at least that R Gracie thought he wouldn't have as big an advantage in a real fight if that's more acceptable to you.

I think its also noteworthy that Emin was the only one to accept one of the other persons offers/terms but R Gracie then wanted to change the date.

Appreciate this doesn't really answer your question of why 'a few rules' makes a difference, but it suggests to me that they do.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Nothing, it was a source that you might respect making the same point i.e. competition fighting is not the same as real fighting without rules. Although he may well have picked a bad example in Randy Couture, I didn't know he was ex-army too! Thanks DB.



Yet would anyone say that  Randy Couture couldn't "really fight" in a situation where there are no rules?




> A point to consider regarding the whole Boztepe/Gracie spat, R Gracie could have accepted Emin's terms and put him in his place at any time but didn't. Why?
> 
> After reading the transcripts in the link kindly provided by K-Man -  How the superfight got started - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums - my conclusion is that R Gracie thought he had the advantage in the usual MMA format, Emin thought he had the advantage in a real fight, and given all the to-ing and fro-ing I'd say that they agreed with each other.



I find it interesting that you believe that considering that the thread you linked to almost unanimously believed that Boztepe ducked the Gracies, not the other way around.




> I think its also noteworthy that Emin was the only one to accept one of the other persons offers/terms but R Gracie then wanted to change the date.



I think its noteworthy that the Gracies have a long history of taking challenge matches and competitions, and putting their reputations and their art on the line.

Boztepe? Not so much.



> Appreciate this doesn't really answer your question of why 'a few rules' makes a difference, but it suggests to me that they do.



Well like I said earlier, do we really doubt that professional fighters can fight outside the ring? You really think a professional boxer couldn't really knock someone on their **** in a confrontation?


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Nothing, it was a source that you might respect making the same point i.e. competition fighting is not the same as real fighting without rules. Although he may well have picked a bad example in Randy Couture, I didn't know he was ex-army too! Thanks DB.
> 
> A point to consider regarding the whole Boztepe/Gracie spat, R Gracie could have accepted Emin's terms and put him in his place at any time but didn't. Why?
> 
> After reading the transcripts in the link kindly provided by K-Man -  How the superfight got started - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums - my conclusion is that R Gracie thought he had the advantage in the usual MMA format, Emin thought he had the advantage in a real fight, and given all the to-ing and fro-ing I'd say that they agreed with each other.
> 
> Or at least that R Gracie thought he wouldn't have as big an advantage in a real fight if that's more acceptable to you.
> 
> I think its also noteworthy that Emin was the only one to accept one of the other persons offers/terms but R Gracie then wanted to change the date.
> 
> Appreciate this doesn't really answer your question of why 'a few rules' makes a difference, but it suggests to me that they do.




You are basing street vs ring on a fight that didn't happen?

The Gracie's were always carefull picking matches for their fighters.


----------



## Hanzou

Reedone816 said:


> Is this kind of test acceptable?
> Using science and "dojo challenge"
> Really impressed with cctv4 series "experience the real kung fu", to my opinion is better than Hong Kong tv kung fu quest series.



Nope. 

While entertaining and informative, it just doesn't have the randomness of competitive combat. These guys aren't trying to "win" against the dojos they're "challenging", they're trying to learn from them. When two fighters enter a cage, their goal is to demolish each other because they both want to win.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> Yet would anyone say that  Randy Couture couldn't "really fight" in a situation where there are no rules? *I wouldn't.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that you believe that considering that the thread you linked to almost unanimously believed that Boztepe ducked the Gracies, not the other way around. *Thanks. That was my own opinion formed on the letters, I didn't read the 5(+) pages of comments after it to help me make up my mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its noteworthy that the Gracies have a long history of taking challenge matches and *competitions*, and putting their reputations and their art on the line.
> 
> Boztepe? Not so much. *He doesn't do competitions.*
> 
> 
> 
> Well like I said earlier, do we really doubt that professional fighters can fight outside the ring? You really think a professional boxer couldn't really knock someone on their **** in a confrontation? *Not at all.*



I don't think anyone has suggested that at all, and it's certainly not me.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

drop bear said:


> You are basing street vs ring on a fight that didn't happen?
> 
> The Gracie's were always carefull picking matches for their fighters.



Lol nicely put, but it's hard to base it on a street fight that actually did happen between a TMA Master and MMA champion no?


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> *I wouldn't.*


*

So do you disagree, or agree with the marines? I mean, I agree that a ring fight isn't always the same as a real fight, but does that really change the fact that professional fighters can actually fight?




Thanks. That was my own opinion formed on the letters, I didn't read  the 5(+) pages of comments after it to help me make up my mind.

Click to expand...



I just find it interesting that you reached a completely different conclusion than the majority people in that thread.




He doesn't do competitions.

Click to expand...



He doesnt do challenge fights either. The Gracies are well known to do both.

*


> I don't think anyone has suggested that at all, and it's certainly not me.



My mistake then.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Lol nicely put, but it's hard to base it on a street fight that actually did happen between a TMA Master and MMA champion no?



Which is my point about competition. It may not be the data we want. But it is better than making stuff up based on a perfect scenario. Which gets done a lot.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BbizTBYs-rQ


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Mixed Martial Arts does what it says on the tin...it's a mixture of anything that works in a fight from any martial arts style, simples. There is no one style that works better, there is no style that doesn't contain something you can use. MMA'ers who aren't necessarily fighters btw ( and if they are fighters they may fight under a variety of rules ie amateur, semi pro etc so aren't all in the UFC which while a big company is just that a company not a definition of MMA). I don't see why there is a need for a discussion on 'which TMAs work and which don't' in MMA because all of the techniques, yep all, come from one TMA or another.



Well that's not necessarily true. For example, I don't see a lot of MMA fighters using Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu.

They don't take everything from every style. They take what is tested as effective in the octagon, and fuse it.

Which is the crux of this thread; Why aren't we seeing arts like Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu in the octagon? Why is nearly every fighter in MMA using pretty much the same core of 4-5 styles?

I know we've gone off track a bit, but that really is the point.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Well that's not necessarily true. For example, I don't see a lot of MMA fighters using Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu.
> 
> They don't take everything from every style. They take what is tested as effective in the octagon, and fuse it.
> 
> Which is the crux of this thread; Why aren't we seeing arts like Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu in the octagon? Why is nearly every fighter in MMA using pretty much the same core of 4-5 styles?
> 
> I know we've gone off track a bit, but that really is the point.




Because that's the sport it is designed for. I don't see Hapkido, Ninjutsu or MMA in the boxing ring either, and don't expect it. Same way I don't see soccer balls used in an American Football game. (but some of the skills may be interchangeable)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Early on we saw Steve Jenum in the ring.  He was a Bussey Ninjutsu guy. (Bussey was a Hapkido and Budo Taijutsu teacher)  Over seas Anthony Netzler entered the cage and he was a Budo Taijutsu guy.  There are a few more.  Some won, some lost.  While we have not seen anyone from Hapkido I believe I just watched the UfC on Saturday and one gentleman listed his background as Kung Fu in the introduction.  He looked like an mma guy but... that is what was listed.  What we do see is that regardless of who enters they make sure now a day's that they have a developed ground and striking game.  Very few people could win now without both!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

We also have Benson Henderson in the UFC right now with a combination of Tae Kwon Do and Wrestling.  There are more with a TMA background and have been a lot more.  I will give it to you thought that BJJ, Wrestling, Muay Thai are the dominant styles shown in the cage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Why aren't we seeing arts like Shaolin Long Fist, ... in the octagon?


If you look at Sanda/Sanshou tournament, you will see a lot of long fist and Shuai-Chiao guys there. The long fist system has jab, cross, hook, uppercut, back fist, hammer fist, ..., front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, ... those tools needed in Sanda/Sanshou rule set. The reason that Sanda/Shanshou guys don't compete in MMA because their take downs skill won't get proper reward in the MMA rule set. Also the Sanda/Sanshou guys think the "hit and run mobility" is as important as the "ground game" in a self-defense or street fight situation.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Well that's not necessarily true. For example, I don't see a lot of MMA fighters using Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu.
> 
> They don't take everything from every style. They take what is tested as effective in the octagon, and fuse it.
> 
> Which is the crux of this thread; Why aren't we seeing arts like Shaolin Long Fist, Hapkido, or Ninjutsu in the octagon? Why is nearly every fighter in MMA using pretty much the same core of 4-5 styles?
> 
> I know we've gone off track a bit, but that really is the point.




You know, another possible reason (assuming your assumption is correct) is that more likely the people attracted to MMA will just do MMA and have no background in any other style. So it's possible that in a few years time there will be no contenders with a back ground in judo or bjj either. Just a mixture of moves from differing styles taught in a way that enhances their cage fighting taught purely in a MMA school.

Below lists what I assume is the leading backgrounds for UFC contenders.
http://www.ufc.com/discover/fighter/martialArtsStyles


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Because that's the sport it is designed for. I don't see Hapkido, Ninjutsu or MMA in the boxing ring either, and don't expect it. Same way I don't see soccer balls used in an American Football game. (but some of the skills may be interchangeable)



Bjj isn't designed for the ring either, yet it excels there.

Keep in mind, there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what Hapkido, Ninjutsu, or Long Fist does.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Keep in mind, there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what ... Long Fist does.



In the following 2 clips, these 2 American guys used only long fist and Shuai-Chiao. Their jab, cross, hook, uppercut can be effective. Their take down can be effective too. So to say that long fist and Shuai-Chiao has not been tested in the ring is not true.


----------



## K-man

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I will give it to you thought that BJJ, Wrestling, Muay Thai are the dominant styles shown in the cage.


All of which were developed for competition.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Bjj isn't designed for the ring either, yet it excels there.
> 
> Keep in mind, there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what Hapkido, Ninjutsu, or Long Fist does.



Yeah it does, it goes really well when the game goes to the ground. When it's stand up, I see the highlights of other styles excelling. Are strikes taught in bjj to an extent it would be reliable in the cage? Or would it be preferred to use say boxing? I'm assuming that BJJ is not used purely in the cage and like any other competitor would need to round up on other arts as well.

I honestly don't know the ratio of say submissions Vs. KOs. I'd speculate the submissions are higher since I'd thin it would be the easier game plan than going for a knock out.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you look at Sanda/Sanshou tournament, you will see a lot of long fist and Shuai-Chiao guys there. The long fist system has jab, cross, hook, uppercut, back fist, hammer fist, ..., front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, ... those tools needed in Sanda/Sanshou rule set. The reason that Sanda/Shanshou guys don't compete in MMA because their take downs skill won't get proper reward in the MMA rule set. Also the Sanda/Sanshou guys think the "hit and run mobility" is as important as the "ground game" in a self-defense or street fight situation.



Despite its traditional roots, Sanda/Sanshou looks just like kickboxing.

Sanda/Sanshou is becoming a major kickboxing style in MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following 2 clips, these 2 American guys used only long fist and Shuai-Chiao. Their jab, cross, hook, uppercut can be effective. Their take down can be effective too. So to say that long fist and Shuai-Chiao has not been tested in the ring is not true.



Honestly if you told me that was standard MMA, I wouldn't have known the difference.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Despite its traditional roots, Sanda/Sanshou looks just like kickboxing.
> 
> Sanda/Sanshou is becoming a major kickboxing style in MMA.


When you throw a 

- roundhouse kick and your opponent moves back, you will follow by a side kick.
- jab and your opponent moves back, you will followed by a cross or hook.

IMO, that's not just look like kickboxing. It's natural transition no matter what style that you may train. There are a lot of long fist dancers. There are also some long fist guys who likes to test their skill in Sanda/Sanshou rule set.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Yeah it does, it goes really well when the game goes to the ground. When it's stand up, I see the highlights of other styles excelling. Are strikes taught in bjj to an extent it would be reliable in the cage? Or would it be preferred to use say boxing? I'm assuming that BJJ is not used purely in the cage and like any other competitor would need to round up on other arts as well.



That's only because everyone trains in Bjj now, so with the ground game being even, it's the striking game that oftentimes determines the outcome of a fight.

If you look at the older UFCs, or specifically how the Gracies fight, they use a lot of striking from their feet as well as on the ground. I would say their striking was very reliable in the cage, just not on the level of boxing or Muay Thai.

That said, Bjj was definitely not designed for fighting in the cage. It was designed for fighting.



> I honestly don't know the ratio of say submissions Vs. KOs. I'd speculate the submissions are higher since I'd thin it would be the easier game plan than going for a knock out.



Depends. There's a lot of stoppages when someone mounts someone and beats the crap out of their opponent. I don't know if that's considered a KO.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Honestly if you told me that was standard MMA, I wouldn't have known the difference.



Very good point, when I see an arm bar for example, I have no idea if they are using JJ, BJJ, HKD, Judo, wrestling or learnt it at an MMA school. If I happen to look at the persons background, I'll assume that style is how they learnt it.

Same with a basic punch and basic kick. It would really need to be an obvious stylized move for me to tell the difference or in turn have a good understanding of that style.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> We also have Benson Henderson in the UFC right now with a combination of Tae Kwon Do and Wrestling.  There are more with a TMA background and have been a lot more.  I will give it to you thought that BJJ, Wrestling, Muay Thai are the dominant styles shown in the cage.



Benson Henderson was a brown belt in bjj two or three years ago.   I wouldn't be surprised if he's a black belt by now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

jezr74 said:


> You know, another possible reason (assuming your assumption is correct) is that more likely the people attracted to MMA will just do MMA and have no background in any other style. So it's possible that in a few years time there will be no contenders with a back ground in judo or bjj either. Just a mixture of moves from differing styles taught in a way that enhances their cage fighting taught purely in a MMA school.
> 
> Below lists what I assume is the leading backgrounds for UFC contenders.
> UFC® Martial Arts Styles - Fighters Train in Multiple Disciplines


I think this post makes several valid points. Firstly, in the link above which is the official UFC site they define MMA.


> Mixed Martial Arts is the fusion of two or more styles of fighting. Every UFC fighter trains in various systems to create the perfect blend of skills to compete in The Octagon.


So the premise in the OP is flawed before we even start. UFC is not a competition between two competitors from two individual styles. It is a competition between two competitors who have each trained in multiple different styles to achieve a level of competence to fight in ring according to the rules of the UFC.

The second point is that potential fighters now have a choice. They can go off to a school that teaches an individual style such as TKD or Judo or Boxing and become proficient in that style then look for another type of training to complement their initial choice. So from TKD or Boxing they might select Judo or BJJ and from Judo they might select Karate or Boxing. Or, they might go straight to an MMA gym to get a grounding in multiple disciplines right from day one. This is what *jezr* is saying above, but I think it is already happening and in the future you will see fewer and fewer fighters who could be identified by a particular style of training, if any at all. MMA will just be a generic term for a style of fighting that encompasses striking, grappling and ground.

To my mind the Gracies did an absolutely brilliant job of promoting their brand, firstly by developing a competition where they could use their style to dominate, then to promote their brand from their success. 

In UFC 1 there were fighters that could be identified as practitioners of a particular style but those days are long gone. Now you need to train in multiple disciplines to compete in a competition designed for fighters who have trained in multiple disciplines.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> Very good point, when I see an arm bar for example, I have no idea if they are using JJ, BJJ, HKD, Judo, wrestling or learnt it at an MMA school. If I happen to look at the persons background, I'll assume that style is how they learnt it.
> 
> Same with a basic punch and basic kick. It would really need to be an obvious stylized move for me to tell the difference or in turn have a good understanding of that style.



Well, when I see traditional Kung Fu, it doesn't look anything like kickboxing. It has very distinct movements and stances. I don't know, maybe I've seen too many Kung Fu movies, but shouldn't fighting Kung Fu somewhat resemble pattern/form Kung Fu?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> To my mind the Gracies did an absolutely brilliant job of promoting their brand, firstly by developing a competition where they could use their style to dominate, then to promote their brand from their success.



People often say this, but 20 years later, Bjj is still the dominant grappling form in MMA. You literally cannot go far in MMA without knowing it. Let's also not forget that Rickson was promoting Bjj in Japan via Vale Tudo, and Renzo was promoting Bjj in another NHB tournament whose name escapes me.

So yes they were brilliant promoters, but their promotion only worked because they delivered the goods.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Bjj isn't designed for the ring either, yet it excels there.
> 
> Keep in mind, there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what Hapkido, Ninjutsu, or Long Fist does.


I'm not convinced when you say BJJ was not designed for the ring. I believe it was totally designed for the ring with the added benefit of being able to be used on the street if required. The same would be true of boxing and a number of other arts.



> Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, although obviously similar in many respects to Judo and other traditional systems of Japanese Jiu Jitsu, differs in some fundamental ways from all other related systems. Judo was originally designed as a powerful system of self-defense that also included a sportive component and the idea of self-cultivation and the mutual benefit of members of society. Presently, although the techniques of Judo may certainly be applied in real fighting situations (and many practitioners of "sport" Judo have applied their skills very effectively in non-sportive confrontations), the emphasis in most schools is on sport competition. During the course of the last century the rules of Judo began to emphasize means of achieving victory in competition that did not necessarily reflect the conditions of all in fighting. For example, a Judo match may be won by a throw or a pin hold without a submission. These rules and limited groundwork that forbids many of the original submission holds found in early Judo somewhat limit direct applicability to street fights. Other styles of classical Jiu Jitsu are still plagued by the original problem Kano addressed with his emphasis on randori, namely, technical training is limited to kata practice.
> 
> Brazilian Jiu Jitsu has followed a different course in the last 80 years. The Gracie challenge and participation in countless free fighting events has led to a different emphasis in fighting strategy and the development of unique rules for BJJ sport competition. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is divided into three broad categories, each mutually supportive of the others; self-defense (including striking techniques and unarmed techniques against armed opponents), free fighting competition (commonly referred to as "vale tudo" or "anything goes" events, now popularly called MMA), and sport grappling with and without the gi (matches that include a wide range of submission holds, but no striking). Even the rules of sport grappling matches are designed to ingrain the proper strategy to be applied in the street. For example in a sport BJJ match, points are awarded based on achieving superior positions, positions from which not only grappling techniques can be more readily applied, but also from which strikes may be applied or defended. Students naturally seek the positions that will garner them the most points, thereby constantly reinforcing the most efficient strategy for real life confrontations. This "position-submission" strategy has proven to be the most effective for real life confrontations.
> History of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu



As to your claim that _"there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what Hapkido, Ninjutsu, or Long Fist does"_, well that is demonstrably false in the case of Ninjutsu because much of Ninjutsu is to do with weapons, poisons, concealment etc that has absolutely no place in the ring.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Well, when I see traditional Kung Fu, it doesn't look anything like kickboxing. It has very distinct movements and stances. I don't know, maybe I've seen too many Kung Fu movies, but shouldn't fighting Kung Fu somewhat resemble pattern/form Kung Fu?



I wouldn't think so. Your seeing exactly as you stated, patterns and forms choreographed. (no different from GSP in Captain America) But in an actual fight or sparring, it will never be as flashy. You can see insights of a style when an opportunity presents itself and it can be executed, so most the time your seeing the basics, they are good and reliable. I would say BJJ would be the same, has it's quicker less complicated moves or setups, then executes the more devastating moves if the opportunity presents.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Well, when I see traditional Kung Fu, it doesn't look anything like kickboxing. It has very distinct movements and stances. I don't know, maybe I've seen too many Kung Fu movies, but shouldn't fighting Kung Fu somewhat resemble pattern/form Kung Fu?



It depends on how you want to train your traditional Kung Fu system. For example in the long fist system there are

- 1 step 1 punch,
- 1 step 2 punches,
- 1 step 3 punches,
- 2 steps 1 punch,
- 3 steps 1 punch (this is used to chase your opponent when he moves back).

When you train you 1 step 3 punches, you can train all the combinations as:

- jab, cross, hook,
- jab, cross, uppercut,
- jab, hook, uppercut,
- jab, uppercut, cross,
- ...

When you train your punch this way, the word "style" will have little meaning.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> People often say this, but 20 years later, Bjj is still the dominant grappling form in MMA. You literally cannot go far in MMA without knowing it. Let's also not forget that Rickson was promoting Bjj in Japan via Vale Tudo, and Renzo was promoting Bjj in another NHB tournament whose name escapes me.
> 
> So yes they were brilliant promoters, but their promotion only worked because they delivered the goods.



I'm not surprised. In the area I live, have plenty of TKD, Karate and BJJ schools. I only found my HKD school by chance when I got lost driving to my brothers house and popped in to check it out.

And I absolutely agree, in MMA style fights, you must have a ground game. And standing... I've seen plenty of examples of both watching the TUF series.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I'm not convinced when you say BJJ was not designed for the ring. I believe it was totally designed for the ring with the added benefit of being able to be used on the street if required. The same would be true of boxing and a number of other arts.



Actually its the other way around. The Gracies designed Bjj for self defense, and *promoted *it through competitions and sporting events. As you said, they're brilliant (and shameless) promoters. They used Vale Tudo, UFC, and other NHB events to promote their art's effectiveness as a fighting system. That's always been their modus operandi. Rorion makes that pretty clear in the Gracie Challenge tapes. Kano designed competitions for Judokas to fight against other Judokas, and he codified rules to make the matches more interesting and attractive. The Gracies designed competitions for Bjj to fight other martial arts styles with as little rules as possible, along with issuing challenges to people to fight them in order to prove martial superiority.

That's a big difference in goal and design.



> As to your claim that _"there is nothing in MMA rules that prohibits what Hapkido, Ninjutsu, or Long Fist does"_, well that is demonstrably false in the case of Ninjutsu because much of Ninjutsu is to do with weapons, poisons, concealment etc that has absolutely no place in the ring.



So if someone practices Ninjutsu and has to defend themselves, they'll have to carry weapons, poisons, and smoke bombs in order to fight back?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> So if someone practices Ninjutsu and has to defend themselves, they'll have to carry weapons, poisons, and smoke bombs in order to fight back?


Now you are asking the wrong person. I know very little about it but I'm sure my mate Chris will give a complete answer. I am under the impression that he teaches self defence separate to Ninjustsu because Ninjutsu doesn't equip you for that sort of fighting. Perhaps, since you made the statement, you might like to provide the evidence to back it up. 

Which reminds me, you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> I wouldn't think so. Your seeing exactly as you stated, patterns and forms choreographed. (no different from GSP in Captain America) But in an actual fight or sparring, it will never be as flashy. You can see insights of a style when an opportunity presents itself and it can be executed, so most the time your seeing the basics, they are good and reliable. I would say BJJ would be the same, has it's quicker less complicated moves or setups, then executes the more devastating moves if the opportunity presents.



Well I was talking about stuff like this;










That's stuff that was published for decades in Martial Arts magazines and books as the fighting applications of Kung Fu, and it very closely resembled the forms.

 So why aren't we seeing stuff like that in MMA?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> Well I was talking about stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's stuff that was published for decades in Martial Arts magazines and books as the fighting applications of Kung Fu, and it very closely resembled the forms.
> 
> So why aren't we seeing stuff like that in MMA?



Well, let's just see what we have here...
#1 shows a stance that would be a little difficult to apply while wearing the wrist-wrap gloves that are standard in MMA competition. #2 shows an eye gouge - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #3 shows a kick to the groin - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #4 shows what appears to be a small joint manipulation, but it's a bit difficult to see clearly in such a small image - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #5 shows a strike to the back of the head or spine - illegal in pretty much every ruleset.

[Sarcasm]Gosh... I can't figure out why we're not seeing stuff like that in MMA...[/Sarcasm]


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> Well I was talking about stuff like this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's stuff that was published for decades in Martial Arts magazines and books as the fighting applications of Kung Fu, and it very closely resembled the forms.
> 
> So why aren't we seeing stuff like that in MMA?



The first slide has moves maybe good example of stylized technique, yeah can get what your meaning by kung fu styled, but no good in a cage with rules. The second looks no different to what I've seen in UFC style fights constantly, strikes, grabbing arms, knees. I'm not sure I understand what you are thinking it represents?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Now you are asking the wrong person. I know very little about it but I'm sure my mate Chris will give a complete answer. I am under the impression that he teaches self defence separate to Ninjustsu because Ninjutsu doesn't equip you for that sort of fighting. Perhaps, since you made the statement, you might like to provide the evidence to back it up.








While there's some weapon stuff, there's a lot of unarmed combat.



> Which reminds me, you didn't answer my question.



Because this thread needs to get back on track.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, let's just see what we have here...
> #1 shows a stance that would be a little difficult to apply while wearing the wrist-wrap gloves that are standard in MMA competition. #2 shows an eye gouge - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #3 shows a kick to the groin - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #4 shows what appears to be a small joint manipulation, but it's a bit difficult to see clearly in such a small image - illegal in pretty much every ruleset. #5 shows a strike to the back of the head or spine - illegal in pretty much every ruleset.
> 
> [Sarcasm]Gosh... I can't figure out why we're not seeing stuff like that in MMA...[/Sarcasm]




1.You can ask to have the wrist wrap reduced. I'm sure the promoters won't mind.
2.If you have the precision to perform an eye gouge, then why not strike another vital area of the face or head instead?
3. Instead of striking the groin, strike another target in the thigh or knee. Again, if you have that type of opening, why can't you hit a nearby target instead?
4. Wrist locks are not considered small join manipulation.
5. Again, modify by hitting the face, or knee or elbow them in the head instead.

Again, if you have that level of opening to strike those vital areas, you should have the skill to modify your strikes. Additionally, you can choose to modify the wrist wraps, especially if you're using a KF style never seen before in MMA. The wraps are in place to protect the fighter, but if feel that they hinder your ability to fight, you could go without them.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> Benson Henderson was a brown belt in bjj two or three years ago.   I wouldn't be surprised if he's a black belt by now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Yes now he is but he wasn't early on.  I believe he was around blue belt when he won the championship.  He relied heavily on his striking ability and his wrestling background.  Like any mma fighter though you can to diversify and BJJ is great to add to your ground game!


----------



## drop bear

By the way. Sakuraba wasn't a bjjer to my knowledge.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6khZnrh4RE


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Benson Henderson was a brown belt in bjj two or three years ago.   I wouldn't be surprised if he's a black belt by now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



It also depends where you are from. America has really good base level wrestling Brazil bjj Australia muay Thai. One of the important factors in these tmas are that they are good.
So the best karate can prepare you better than the worst muay Thai.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Hanzou said:


> 1.You can ask to have the wrist wrap reduced. I'm sure the promoters won't mind.
> 2.If you have the precision to perform an eye gouge, then why not strike another vital area of the face or head instead?
> 3. Instead of striking the groin, strike another target in the thigh or knee. Again, if you have that type of opening, why can't you hit a nearby target instead?
> 4. Wrist locks are not considered small join manipulation.
> 5. Again, modify by hitting the face, or knee or elbow them in the head instead.
> 
> Again, if you have that level of opening to strike those vital areas, you should have the skill to modify your strikes. Additionally, you can choose to modify the wrist wraps, especially if you're using a KF style never seen before in MMA. The wraps are in place to protect the fighter, but if feel that they hinder your ability to fight, you could go without them.



So... Basically, when you ask why we don't see these things in MMA, what you really mean us "why don't we see completely different things in MMA". Which seems sort of a silly thing to ask. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


----------



## Tez3

What some people seem to expect from MMA fighters is to be able to tell specifically every time which technique comes from which TMA, it doesn't work like that. Techniques are picked up and adapted to suit the fighter, they are used, hopefully, seamlessly so that one technique flows into another. You cannot watch a fight sitting there saying 'oh that's a TKD kick, that's a Aikido move' etc. It's an MMA fight, one where a fighter has knowledge of his opponents fighting style and will have prepared for that. In the early days, "back in the day" which I do remember, you could tell which style a fighter had come from but now MMA is taught as an encompassing style in it's own right. We are constantly looking at techniques to use from any style, it may only be one or even part of one technique, it may be more but people should stop trying to see MMA as a one TMA style being used at a time thing, it isn't. It's a meld of many styles ( the name gives it away) see it as a whole rather than it's parts. Oh and try not to think of the UFC as the only place where MMA is fought, I've watched in different capacities thousands of fights and you'd be surprised how many techniques are used by fighters covering a huge range of martial arts styles.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> So... Basically, when you ask why we don't see these things in MMA, what you really mean us "why don't we see completely different things in MMA". Which seems sort of a silly thing to ask.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.



Why is that a silly thing to ask? If someone is using Praying Mantis Kung Fu in a fight, would they look like those pics from Inside Kung Fu, or would they look more like a Sanshou/Sanda or MMA fighter? 

Whenever I see a fight breakout, I never see anyone break out the Mantis or Tiger claw. It's always some crazy kickboxing-like Melee which oftentimes ends up on the ground with someone pummeling on the other person. You see this over and over again in several street fight videos and competition videos across continents and throughout time. From Emin Boztepe vs William Cheung, to those two. Kung Fu masters fighting in the ring in 1952, to two Kung Fu guys fighting in the streets of Hong Kong recently, it all looks very similar, and it looks nothing like what you see demonstrated in Inside Kung Fu, or the Kung Fu forms.

Karate is similar in that regard as well.

Is there an ideal fighting aesthetic on one side, and a more reality based aesthetic on another? In other words, when everything breaks down to pure fighting, does all the fancy hand techniques and stances go out the window and everyone pretty much fights in a very similar fashion (i.e. like a MMA fighter)?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> By the way. Sakuraba wasn't a bjjer to my knowledge.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6khZnrh4RE



You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in grappling or MMA who doesn't respect Sakuraba. The man is considered a legend.

Just don't where his t-shirt during a Royce  Gracie seminar. You might get choked.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> So... Basically, when you ask why we don't see these things in MMA, what you really mean us "why don't we see completely different things in MMA". Which seems sort of a silly thing to ask.
> 
> 
> Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.


Come on, now, DD.  It's not quite like that and you know it.  But, you do bring up a question I've long had.  If it's too much of a tangent, just let me know.  

Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target?  It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not.  Also, my face is very mobile.  I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike.  If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great.  Now I've got no eye.  But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself.  You might break your finger.  

So, the question is twofold.  First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success?   Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes?  In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."  

I really think that everyone here is making interesting points.  That includes BOTH k-man and Hanzou.  I'm glad that the conversation is moving back to the heart of the topic and away from picking on a particular, well known martial artist.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> What some people seem to expect from MMA fighters is to be able to tell specifically every time which technique comes from which TMA, it doesn't work like that. Techniques are picked up and adapted to suit the fighter, they are used, hopefully, seamlessly so that one technique flows into another. You cannot watch a fight sitting there saying 'oh that's a TKD kick, that's a Aikido move' etc. It's an MMA fight, one where a fighter has knowledge of his opponents fighting style and will have prepared for that. In the early days, "back in the day" which I do remember, you could tell which style a fighter had come from but now MMA is taught as an encompassing style in it's own right. We are constantly looking at techniques to use from any style, it may only be one or even part of one technique, it may be more but people should stop trying to see MMA as a one TMA style being used at a time thing, it isn't. It's a meld of many styles ( the name gives it away) see it as a whole rather than it's parts. Oh and try not to think of the UFC as the only place where MMA is fought, I've watched in different capacities thousands of fights and you'd be surprised how many techniques are used by fighters covering a huge range of martial arts styles.


Tez, it's nice to see you back!  Welcome.  Very glad to see your name.  I agree completely.  Often, MMA-ists train in multiple styles. Even amateurs who never intend to fight will train "MMA" but will often also train BJJ (both gi and nogi), wrestling and muay thai seperately.  They learn each style in its singular form, but also train specifically to synthesize the various parts.  The specific formula may change.  I remember how interesting it was to see Benson Henderson (since he was brought up earlier) competing at the Pan Ams in a gi.  He did pretty well, too!  


Hanzou said:


> Why is that a silly thing to ask? If someone is using Praying Mantis Kung Fu in a fight, would they look like those pics from Inside Kung Fu, or would they look more like a Sanshou/Sanda or MMA fighter?
> 
> Whenever I see a fight breakout, I never see anyone break out the Mantis or Tiger claw. It's always some crazy kickboxing-like Melee which oftentimes ends up on the ground with someone pummeling on the other person. You see this over and over again in several street fight videos and competition videos across continents and throughout time. From Emin Boztepe vs William Cheung, to those two. Kung Fu masters fighting in the ring in 1952, to two Kung Fu guys fighting in the streets of Hong Kong recently, it all looks very similar, and it looks nothing like what you see demonstrated in Inside Kung Fu, or the Kung Fu forms.
> 
> Karate is similar in that regard as well.
> 
> Is there an ideal fighting aesthetic on one side, and a more reality based aesthetic on another? In other words, when everything breaks down to pure fighting, does all the fancy hand techniques and stances go out the window and everyone pretty much fights in a very similar fashion (i.e. like a MMA fighter)?


This is where I start to scratch my head, too.  When the topic of sport vs "street" comes up, I hear the arguments against "sport."  But it rings hollow when we can see plenty of evidence that competitive sport martial artists do indeed 'fight how they train.'  We have seen evidence that where sport is not integrated in SOME way into training, martial artists do not "fight how they train."   And this holds up even for those individuals who choose not to compete, but train within a style where competition is present.

It gets back to testing and measuring proficiency.  there has to be some independent, subjective feedback mechanism.  Competition is a very good way to do this.  Without it, I tihnk the training model is flawed, and you will find out whether YOU (as an individual) can apply the techniques after it really matters, when the stakes are high.  

Are there other ways to gain this feedback?  Sure.  Are there other things involved with martial arts than pure fighting skill?  Of course.  But is there a more effective way to measure your fighting ability in a relatively safe manner?  I'd love to hear them!


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Come on, now, DD.  It's not quite like that and you know it.  But, you do bring up a question I've long had.  If it's too much of a tangent, just let me know.
> 
> Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target?  It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not.  Also, my face is very mobile.  I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike.  If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great.  Now I've got no eye.  But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself.  You might break your finger.
> 
> So, the question is twofold.  First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success?   Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes?  In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."
> 
> I really think that everyone here is making interesting points.  That includes BOTH k-man and Hanzou.  I'm glad that the conversation is moving back to the heart of the topic and away from picking on a particular, well known martial artist.



Well we could just find a decent boxer put on a set of goggles and have an eye gouge off as well. Unless the suggestion is that tma striking makes the eye gouge more effective. Then the better eye gouger would be the one who hits the goggles more times than the other.

It would effectively be definitive as to which system delivers the better strikes.

By the way I have done this grappling because I had a krav guy try it on once. Just light access to the eyes.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target?  It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not.  Also, my face is very mobile.  I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike.  If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great.  Now I've got no eye.  But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself.  You might break your finger.
> 
> So, the question is twofold.  First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success?   Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes?  In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."


No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again. 

I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus. 

It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.

Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
:asian:


----------



## mook jong man

K-man said:


> No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.
> 
> I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.
> 
> It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.
> 
> Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
> :asian:



Actually finger whips into the eyeballs are a lot more practical than poking the eye.
There is no risk of damaging fingers on skull or bone , they are a lot faster and can be done in quick succession like chain punching.

Think like you are doing a punch with a vertical fist , but instead keep the hand loose and open and let the back of your finger nails hit the eyes like a whip.


----------



## MJS

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of my guys told me his Dog Brothers experience. They like to attack from a very far distance, generate enough body momentum, charge in toward you, and then run you down. If you are not used to
> 
> - move your body outside of their attacking path, and
> - take advantage on their forward commitment,
> 
> you may not be able to play their game very well.



Perhaps it was just the 2 fighters, because I've seen a lot of DB fights on YT, and I've never seen what you describe.


----------



## Blindside

MJS said:


> Perhaps it was just the 2 fighters, because I've seen a lot of DB fights on YT, and I've never seen what you describe.



I have, but the guy was basically a football player with a stick to block shots as he closed.  Viable tactic if you can make it work.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> People often say this, but 20 years later, Bjj is still the dominant grappling form in MMA. You literally cannot go far in MMA without knowing it. Let's also not forget that Rickson was promoting Bjj in Japan via Vale Tudo, and Renzo was promoting Bjj in another NHB tournament whose name escapes me.
> 
> So yes they were brilliant promoters, but their promotion only worked because they delivered the goods.



This is true, however, while it's been a while since I've paid to see a UFC, I'm curious as to how many pure BJJ guys we see in the ring today.  In other words...take Royce.  He's a pure BJJ guy, who started to add in some striking, the last time he entered the ring.  However, despite that, which didn't seem to help him against Matt Hughes, I'd wager a bet that any pure, 1 dimensional BJJ guy in the ring today, would probably get destroyed.  So yes, it is important to have a ground game, but you have to add in the other stuff as well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yes, mma has changed quite a bit MJS in that you never see pure BJJ guy in the ring anymore at least not at the UFC level.  At the very least they have added boxing or muay thai to their arsenal to draw on.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> This is true, however, while it's been a while since I've paid to see a UFC, I'm curious as to how many pure BJJ guys we see in the ring today.  In other words...take Royce.  He's a pure BJJ guy, who started to add in some striking, the last time he entered the ring.  However, despite that, which didn't seem to help him against Matt Hughes, I'd wager a bet that any pure, 1 dimensional BJJ guy in the ring today, would probably get destroyed.  So yes, it is important to have a ground game, but you have to add in the other stuff as well.



The winner of TUF 18 (2013) Chris Holdsworth was fairly pure Bjj, and he pretty decisively won the competition. If you watch his fights on the series, once he got a hold of you, it was all over. He's currently undefeated in the UFC.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.
> 
> I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.
> 
> It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.
> 
> Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
> :asian:



Bas Rutten on eye pokes versus grappling (At 3:00 mark)

Joe Rogan Podcast With Bas Rutten Talking About Fake Martial Arts People - YouTube


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target?



But still viable, given the right circumstances. Just not in a competitive setting.



Steve said:


> It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not.



The orbits are "squishy" in the sense that they are considerably more fragile than other parts of the head. They also form a lovely anatomical 'funnel' that guides the fingers into the socket, in the case of a near miss.



Steve said:


> Also, my face is very mobile.  I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike.  If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great.  Now I've got no eye.  But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself.  You might break your finger.



In many (even most?) cases, that flinch response may well be exactly what I'm hoping for. If you train finger strikes (which admittedly the vast majority do not, these days) then you shouldn't injure yourself. After all, you can beak your hand punching a bag, and you can break boards using finger strikes. There are risks to fighting...



Steve said:


> So, the question is twofold.  First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success?   Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes?  In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."



You can, of course. But then it wouldn't look anything like the pictures Hanzou was asking about, right? It would look like a punch to the face.


----------



## Hanzou

Dirty Dog said:


> You can, of course. But then it wouldn't look anything like the pictures Hanzou was asking about, right? It would look like a punch to the face.



You can strike with the Mantis Hook.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Just a few thoughts ...

As others have noted, I don't think that "TMA" vs "MMA" is a really useful terminology to use. The arts which make 
up the core of modern MMA are just as "traditional" as most of the arts which are typically cited as not working 
in MMA. In general, I'd say the arts commonly referred to as "TMA" are not particularly homogenous and mostly not 
all that traditional.

It seem that every time this discussion starts up we get just a few viewpoints repeated ad nauseam. To wit:

*1) Success in MMA is the ultimate criteria for determining the combative effectiveness of a martial art. If *
*something works in MMA then it will work in a "real" fight. Contrariwise if we haven't seen something work in MMA, *
*then it obviously wouldn't work in a "real" fight.
*
I generally disagree with this. The circumstances of a violent encounter, the environment and the rules of 
engagement all have an effect on the optimal tactics and techniques for surviving and/or prevailing in that 
encounter. For example, in 99+% of self-defense situations you will have no need for knowledge of how to pass the 
guard or defend a triangle choke. In the octagon those are important skills. On the other hand, a sucker punch is 
one of the most common opening gambits in a street assault.  In an MMA match you don't have to worry about being 
sucker punched because you know exactly when the fight is starting. 

Furthermore, the sport of MMA is still developing. There are fighters pulling off moves now that 15 years ago were 
dismissed as ineffective in an MMA setting. I expect this evolution will continue.

*2-a) Practitioners of my art could totally do well in MMA if we wanted to. It's just that none of us wants to *
*because we're too enlightened and not into all that barbaric fighting for money.
*
Hey, if you aren't personally interested in competition or fighting, that's great. Just don't pretend that you 
know how you would do if you did.

*2-b) Practitioners of my art could totally kick *** in MMA, except for all those rules which outlaw all my best *
*moves.
*
Unless your art is primarily a weapon art, I have to call BS on this. I studied "ninjutsu" in the Bujinkan for 
about a decade. 99% of the unarmed techniques I learned there are perfectly legal in MMA. 100% of the aikido 
techniques I've seen are legal in MMA. The overwhelming majority of Wing Chun techniques I've seen are legal in 
MMA.

In addition, these claims ignore the results of many years of Vale Tudo/NHB/MMA matches before the adoption of the 
modern unified MMA ruleset. Strikes to the throat or groin, small-joint manipulations, elbows to the back of the 
neck, and so on, were not game changers. For that matter even eye gouging was not a surefire winner. Gerard 
Gordeau (illegally) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Japan badly enough that Nakai permanently lost sight in one eye. Even 
so, Gordeau still lost the fight by submission.

Practitioners of weapon arts have a much better case. Introducing knives and swords definitely changes the 
equation. On the other other hand, if your art includes both armed and unarmed methods and your unarmed techniques 
are demonstrably ineffective then it doesn't inspire confidence in your sword techniques.

*3) The results of MMA competition are only relevant to that arena and present no useful lessons for any other *
*context.
*
This viewpoint takes my point in #1 above about environment and rules of engagement and then takes it to an 
extreme. Advocates of this view claim there is no overlap between the principles that apply in an MMA fight and 
the principles that apply in any other violent encounter. As you might guess, I think that this is also way off 
target. 

I'll just toss out one example. Let's say your martial art advocates for not going to the ground in a street 
fight. (A sensible approach under most circumstances.) Your teacher tells you that you can avoid being taken down 
by just side-stepping your opponent, or punching him as he comes in, or elbowing him on the back of the neck. You 
can watch hundreds of MMA fights and watch these tactics fail over and over again. What makes you think these 
takedown defenses will magically work in the greater chaos of a street assault when they didn't work in the cage? 
It's not enough to say "the street is different from the MMA arena." You need to explain why those differences are 
relevant to the specifics of what you are currently looking at. How does the absence of a referee or the presence 
of broken glass on the sidewalk make your takedown defense any more effective?

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Bas Rutten on eye pokes versus grappling (At 3:00 mark)
> 
> Joe Rogan Podcast With Bas Rutten Talking About Fake Martial Arts People - YouTube


Yes, but don't take what he said out of context. If an attacker is in a dominant position like Bas said with a choke, and some one goes for his eyes Bas said he can break their neck, and I have no doubt he could. Ninja girl was obviously pissing him off with her comments. That does not mean that the eyes aren't a valid target in the situations I described. Even in the situation Bas was talking about with the chokes, obviously attacking the eyes or groin alone may not succeed in securing your release but after relieving the pressure of the choke they are options you can use. 

Then you have the man himself. He is big and strong and able to take considerable pain. Ninja girl was obviously just plain unrealistic to believe what she was saying. In a SD situation for females in particular, eyes are a legitimate target but every response has to be appropriate. I'd be interested to hear Brian's response to what Bas said.


----------



## mook jong man

K-man said:


> Yes, but don't take what he said out of context. If an attacker is in a dominant position like Bas said with a choke, and some one goes for his eyes Bas said he can break their neck, and I have no doubt he could. Ninja girl was obviously pissing him off with her comments. That does not mean that the eyes aren't a valid target in the situations I described. Even in the situation Bas was talking about with the chokes, obviously attacking the eyes or groin alone may not succeed in securing your release but after relieving the pressure of the choke they are options you can use.
> 
> Then you have the man himself. He is big and strong and able to take considerable pain. Ninja girl was obviously just plain unrealistic to believe what she was saying. In a SD situation for females in particular, eyes are a legitimate target but every response has to be appropriate. I'd be interested to hear Brian's response to what Bas said.



Utmost respect for Bas Rutten , but I think that Joe Rogan is one vile arrogant human being.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Hanzou said:


> So do you disagree, or agree with the marines? I mean, I agree that a ring fight isn't always the same as a real fight, but does that really change the fact that professional fighters can actually fight?



Just for the sake of answering your questions, I'm probably inclined to agree with him, unless someone proves him wrong. But it definitely won't be me!

And no it doesn't change that fact at all, it would be ludicrous to suggest that and in no way was I trying to give the impression that I was of that opinion. 

I'd never say that a credible competition fighter would be useless outside the ring/cage as that's obviously ridiculous, and overall I'd largely agree with Tony's comments on the subject from a page or two back.

I was only speculating on whether or not the rules of MMA make a difference, and who may have *an advantage* in a 'street fight', and given that there are many folks far more knowledgeable and experienced than me on here and they can't agree on it I think it's safe to say that the subject is up for debate!


----------



## K-man

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just a few thoughts ...
> 
> As others have noted, I don't think that "TMA" vs "MMA" is a really useful terminology to use. The arts which make
> up the core of modern MMA are just as "traditional" as most of the arts which are typically cited as not working
> in MMA. In general, I'd say the arts commonly referred to as "TMA" are not particularly homogenous and mostly not
> all that traditional.
> 
> It seem that every time this discussion starts up we get just a few viewpoints repeated ad nauseam. To wit:
> 
> *1) Success in MMA is the ultimate criteria for determining the combative effectiveness of a martial art. If *
> *something works in MMA then it will work in a "real" fight. Contrariwise if we haven't seen something work in MMA, *
> *then it obviously wouldn't work in a "real" fight.
> *
> I generally disagree with this. The circumstances of a violent encounter, the environment and the rules of
> engagement all have an effect on the optimal tactics and techniques for surviving and/or prevailing in that
> encounter. For example, in 99+% of self-defense situations you will have no need for knowledge of how to pass the
> guard or defend a triangle choke. In the octagon those are important skills. On the other hand, a sucker punch is
> one of the most common opening gambits in a street assault.  In an MMA match you don't have to worry about being
> sucker punched because you know exactly when the fight is starting.
> 
> Furthermore, the sport of MMA is still developing. There are fighters pulling off moves now that 15 years ago were
> dismissed as ineffective in an MMA setting. I expect this evolution will continue.


I'm with you. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> *2-a) Practitioners of my art could totally do well in MMA if we wanted to. It's just that none of us wants to *
> *because we're too enlightened and not into all that barbaric fighting for money.
> *
> Hey, if you aren't personally interested in competition or fighting, that's great. Just don't pretend that you
> know how you would do if you did.



I don't think that anyone is saying they could do well in MMA. I know I would get my **** kicked, unless they had an Old Fart division for geriatrics. It is more that people are agreeing with your position that they simply aren't interested in the competition. 



Tony Dismukes said:


> *2-b) Practitioners of my art could totally kick *** in MMA, except for all those rules which outlaw all my best **moves.
> *
> Unless your art is primarily a weapon art, I have to call BS on this. I studied "ninjutsu" in the Bujinkan for
> about a decade. 99% of the unarmed techniques I learned there are perfectly legal in MMA. 100% of the aikido
> techniques I've seen are legal in MMA. The overwhelming majority of Wing Chun techniques I've seen are legal in
> MMA.
> 
> In addition, these claims ignore the results of many years of Vale Tudo/NHB/MMA matches before the adoption of the
> modern unified MMA ruleset. Strikes to the throat or groin, small-joint manipulations, elbows to the back of the
> neck, and so on, were not game changers. For that matter even eye gouging was not a surefire winner. Gerard
> Gordeau (illegally) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Japan badly enough that Nakai permanently lost sight in one eye. Even
> so, Gordeau still lost the fight by submission.
> 
> Practitioners of weapon arts have a much better case. Introducing knives and swords definitely changes the
> equation. On the other other hand, if your art includes both armed and unarmed methods and your unarmed techniques
> are demonstrably ineffective then it doesn't inspire confidence in your sword techniques.



Again, anyone outside of MMA with that attitude is a fool. But people always look to the champions of MMA to use as an example. If I was in a real fight with an MMA guy it would only be because I couldn't avoid the fight. But I would say straight away that my first option given the opportunity would be the point of the elbow to the face. I teach that in Krav as a primary strike in weapon disarms.


As to 100% of Aikido being legal in the ring ... not true. Even the basic takedowns you see would not be legal as the technique actually is a knee drop to the neck in real life. (Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent) Another is the elbow strike to the ribs on the way to applying nikkyo or yonkyo. (Striking downward using the point of the elbow)   


Kaitenage, one of the main take downs involves a knife hand strike to the neck. (Striking to the spine or the back of the head)


Iriminage is a bicep strike to the throat, many of the joint manipulations actually go on break fingers (Small joint manipulation), after applying sankyo the follow up is the knife hand to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face if he's still standing.  (would certainly come under the unsportsmanlike rule even if not considered a grounded opponent)


All takedowns in Aikido involve turning the head away from Nage when you are on the floor. That is to protect your face from getting kicked. (Kicking the head of a grounded opponent)


Release from a shoulder grab amongst others, not done in isolation, involves a shot at the eyes. (Eye gouging of any kind) It is only if that strike fails you move to the next technique such as nikkyo or an arm bar.


Defence against a shoulder grab from behind involves a strike to the groin. (Groin attacks of any kind) 

After any of the takedowns where you are sill standing and you have a standing wrist lock the finishing technique is the heel stomp to a vulnerable point. (Stomping a grounded opponent) 

When you consider Aikido only has about 15 techniques a lot of them work outside the rules of MMA.  


Sure you can say that you don't have to use those nasty moves, just as you see Aikido normally trained, but that's a little like saying you can take your gun into the fight but you can't have any bullets.

And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because no one from Aikido was interested, if indeed they were even invited.



Tony Dismukes said:


> *3) The results of MMA competition are only relevant to that arena and present no useful lessons for any other **context.
> *
> This viewpoint takes my point in #1 above about environment and rules of engagement and then takes it to an
> extreme. Advocates of this view claim there is no overlap between the principles that apply in an MMA fight and
> the principles that apply in any other violent encounter. As you might guess, I think that this is also way off
> target.


The results of MMA competition are really only relevant in the context of that fight. If a champion boxer was defeated in an MMA match it doesn't mean boxing is ineffective.on the street any more that it proves MMA is effective. I have no doubt both are effective. Sure you can argue that techniques are proven to work under pressure in the ring. So I can choke out an opponent in the dojo but because I don't compete in the ring I don't know that my choke will work? Yeah right! But that's pretty much what at least one person has been telling me.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'll just toss out one example. Let's say your martial art advocates for not going to the ground in a street
> fight. (A sensible approach under most circumstances.) Your teacher tells you that you can avoid being taken down
> by just side-stepping your opponent, or punching him as he comes in, or elbowing him on the back of the neck. You
> can watch hundreds of MMA fights and watch these tactics fail over and over again. What makes you think these
> takedown defenses will magically work in the greater chaos of a street assault when they didn't work in the cage?
> It's not enough to say "the street is different from the MMA arena." You need to explain why those differences are
> relevant to the specifics of what you are currently looking at. How does the absence of a referee or the presence
> of broken glass on the sidewalk make your takedown defense any more effective?
> 
> Just my two cents worth.


And I would say that instructor is a being totally unrealistic. You can minimise the risk of take down but you must be prepared to be taken to the ground. But again, just because a tactic fails in the ring against a highly trained opponent doesn't mean it will fail on the street. I teach that you take whatever you are offered. It is not realistic to say "in situation a) I will do this, if he does b) I will do that". To me that approach is wrong. It means I have to wait for my attacker to make a move before I can determine how I will respond. So if a person is trying to take me down with a shoot, sure I might use the downward elbow, but only if I've managed a sprawl or at least got one leg back first. If that's not an option, cool, I'll work from whatever situation I am in.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

mook jong man said:


> Utmost respect for Bas Rutten , but I think that Joe Rogan is one vile arrogant human being.


Agreed. He was certainly leading Bas in that interview. I mean Bas would probably have said the same thing if Ninja girl had said she would bite him if he had her in a neck hold. Sure, but that didn't stop him telling us that a bite to the chest area was a way to escape in a street scenario.
:asian:


----------



## mook jong man

K-man said:


> Agreed. He was certainly leading Bas in that interview. I mean Bas would probably have said the same thing if Ninja girl had said she would bite him if he had her in a neck hold. Sure, but that didn't stop him telling us that a bite to the chest area was a way to escape in a street scenario.
> :asian:



It's just not from that interview ,  he's got previous form in running down Kung Fu.
The man is an ignorant wanker.


----------



## K-man

mook jong man said:


> It's just not from that interview ,  he's got previous form in running down Kung Fu.
> The man is an ignorant wanker.


Hey! What's wrong with running down Kung Fu? Everyone round here seems to be doing it. I was beginning to think that must be a new game. 

But seriously, he is just one of the "if it's not MMA, it sucks" brigade. 
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Yes, but don't take what he said out of context. If an attacker is in a dominant position like Bas said with a choke, and some one goes for his eyes Bas said he can break their neck, and I have no doubt he could. Ninja girl was obviously pissing him off with her comments. That does not mean that the eyes aren't a valid target in the situations I described. Even in the situation Bas was talking about with the chokes, obviously attacking the eyes or groin alone may not succeed in securing your release but after relieving the pressure of the choke they are options you can use.
> 
> Then you have the man himself. He is big and strong and able to take considerable pain. Ninja girl was obviously just plain unrealistic to believe what she was saying. In a SD situation for females in particular, eyes are a legitimate target but every response has to be appropriate. I'd be interested to hear Brian's response to what Bas said.



Going for an eye gouge in an inferior position is crazy even if the guy isn't as big as Bas.










It just doesn't work against a grappler.

BTW, when did the effectiveness of martial arts come down to ball grabs and eye gouges?


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> It's just not from that interview ,  he's got previous form in running down Kung Fu.
> The man is an ignorant wanker.


Yeah, I agree completely that Boztepe's an... wait.  What?  Bas Rutten????  That's crazy talk.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Yeah, I agree completely that Boztepe's an... wait. What? Bas Rutten???? That's crazy talk.


Hmm! Perhaps you misread *mook*'s post?



mook jong man said:


> Utmost respect for Bas Rutten , but I think that Joe Rogan is one vile arrogant human being.


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I was only speculating on whether or not the rules of MMA make a difference, and who may have *an advantage* in a 'street fight', and given that there are many folks far more knowledgeable and experienced than me on here and they can't agree on it I think it's safe to say that the subject is up for debate!



Well think about it; Do the rules of boxing make boxers any less of a dangerous fighter? I've seen quite a few instances where boxers can knock someone out as easily in the street as the ring. Why? Because the basic fight mechanics allowed in the boxing ring work well in a fight.

Those mechanics are;

1. Giving and taking blows to the body.
2. Evasive head and body movements.
3. Keeping hands up at all times.
4. Simple combinations and few techniques.
5. Footwork
6. Timing and reflexes developed through constant sparring.

The next revolution in MMA is going to be the full implementation of boxing mechanics into MMA. Just watch.


----------



## Tez3

Thank you Steve, missed ya x  
Ah, Joe Rogan, last year after comments he made about Rosi Sexton while commentating on her fight which she later called him on, his 'fans' sent hundreds of abusive tweets as well as posting hundreds of threatening and insulting comments on her FB site. It was disgusting. Rogan did nothing to make the situation any better, I believe he could have if he'd wanted to. It was a nasty experience for her which actually left a mark, however confident you are or even used to comments that sort of bombardment was extremely hurtful.
I think the MMA v TMA argument was where I originally came in all those years ago, nice to see the same arguments still hanging in there, missed the old eye gouge one roflmao. Just reminder to lick your finger before poking someone in the eye so that the eyeball doesn't stick to your finger........


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Going for an eye gouge in an inferior position is crazy even if the guy isn't as big as Bas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just doesn't work against a grappler.
> 
> BTW, when did the effectiveness of martial arts come down to ball grabs and eye gouges?


What exactly are you trying to say? The person going for the eyes wasn't in a position to even reach the eyes. No different to saying you can't shoot me if you don't have a gun. Almost the same in the second video. No matter what you try to do on the ground against a specialist grappler will be extremely difficult even if you have a reasonable amount of training. But no one is saying that eye gouges or groin grabs are the number one means of defence. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EItM4pSChjw

And this is one of the first things we teach in Krav.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> It's just not from that interview ,  he's got previous form in running down Kung Fu.
> The man is an ignorant wanker.



He ran down Kung Fu because the exponents disparage MMA, and then end up fighting just like MMA guys.

Example:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.
> 
> I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.
> 
> It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.
> 
> Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
> :asian:




Eye gouge control vs chin control?


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> He ran down Kung Fu because the exponents disparage MMA, and then end up fighting just like MMA guys.
> 
> Example:



Correction You Tube Boy , beginner exponents end up fighting just like MMA guys.
And the bloke is still an ignorant wanker , but I can see I am talking to a hard core fan.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Eye gouge control vs chin control?


Both equally valid. Whatever you can reach. Given a choice I go for the chin as it gives better leverage. To bring the head up for a choke the eye sockets work well, especially if the guy doesn't have hair.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Correction You Tube Boy , beginner exponents end up fighting just like MMA guys.
> And the bloke is still an ignorant wanker , but I can see I am talking to a hard core fan.



Well not really, because we see the same thing over and over again;









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVjwGKXjH8&feature=youtu.be













At what point do we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion?


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Yes, mma has changed quite a bit MJS in that you never see pure BJJ guy in the ring anymore at least not at the UFC level.  At the very least they have added boxing or muay thai to their arsenal to draw on.



And more importantly have upgraded their grappling with other systems as well.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Well not really, because we see the same thing over and over again;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVjwGKXjH8&feature=youtu.be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion?



You need to get yourself a girlfriend mate , you really do spend a hell of a lot of time trawling through Wing Chun videos don't you.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Hmm! Perhaps you misread *mook*'s post?


Well, that's presuming the worst. If you guys split things up over 5 or 6 posts, how's a simple guy like me supposed to keep up! 



Hanzou said:


> He ran down Kung Fu because the exponents disparage MMA, and then end up fighting just like MMA guys.
> 
> Example:


It goes both ways.  We all have a team to support. 



mook jong man said:


> Correction You Tube Boy , beginner exponents end up fighting just like MMA guys.
> And the bloke is still an ignorant wanker , but I can see I am talking to a hard core fan.


This is getting close to crossing a line. 



drop bear said:


> And more importantly have upgraded their grappling with other systems as well.


Yes!  Not an MMA thing, really, but a curiosity and willingness to expirement, adapt and incorporate techniques.  As I said earlier, this is the mentality that, IMO makes all the difference.  What I would call "TMA" really represents a training mentality that values consistency over efficacy.  TMA is about doing things the way your instructor does them, who does things the way HIS instructor did them, back as far as possible.  MMA (or really, more of a competitive mindset) values what works over where they learn it.  Most MMA athletes would have no problem incorporating any technique that works, regardless of where it comes from.  



mook jong man said:


> You need to get yourself a girlfriend mate , you really do spend a hell of a lot of time trawling through Wing Chun videos don't you.


This is definitely getting close to the line.  Could you please chill out before you get the thread locked?  Thanks!


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> You need to get yourself a girlfriend mate , you really do spend a hell of a lot of time trawling through Wing Chun videos don't you.



Just FYI, those videos weren't all about Wing Chun, it showed several Kung Fu styles in a sparring or fighting format across regions, eras, and nationalities, and it all looked very similar. Yet it looked nothing like the popular image of how a Kung Fu stylist fights, how Kung Fu is portrayed in MA magazines, or how Kung Fu looks in its forms.

So instead of silly personal attacks, could you please  address the evidence shown in those videos, and why they support Joe Rogan's assertion about Kung Fu?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Well, that's presuming the worst. If you guys split things up over 5 or 6 posts, how's a simple guy like me supposed to keep up!
> 
> It goes both ways.  We all have a team to support.
> 
> This is getting close to crossing a line.
> 
> Yes!  Not an MMA thing, really, but a curiosity and willingness to expirement, adapt and incorporate techniques.  As I said earlier, this is the mentality that, IMO makes all the difference.  What I would call "TMA" really represents a training mentality that values consistency over efficacy.  TMA is about doing things the way your instructor does them, who does things the way HIS instructor did them, back as far as possible.  MMA (or really, more of a competitive mindset) values what works over where they learn it.  Most MMA athletes would have no problem incorporating any technique that works, regardless of where it comes from.
> 
> This is definitely getting close to the line.  Could you please chill out before you get the thread locked?  Thanks!



Yeah I would be interested to see how metamoris does or does not resemble 90s style GJJ
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4pjNl57NHRs


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah I would be interested to see how metamoris does or does not resemble 90s style GJJ
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4pjNl57NHRs


Help me out.  What do you mean by 90s style GJJ?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Help me out.  What do you mean by 90s style GJJ?



A lot more of the straight guard game. Rather than the more top dominant wrestling game. I think 90s been was less active as well.

Randomly picked.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUNkDacnDrM

Maybe just a more transitional game these days.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Love watching Metamoris!!!  Very good solid technical matches with brilliant grappling!


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> A lot more of the straight guard game. Rather than the more top dominant wrestling game. I think 90s been was less active as well.
> 
> Randomly picked.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUNkDacnDrM
> 
> Maybe just a more transitional game these days.



The thing I hated about Metamoris 3 was how nearly everything began with pulling guard. I would have liked to see more variations on take downs.

I mean seriously guys, Guard is a great position and all, but wouldn't you rather fall into side control and work from there?

That said, I loved the grappling. Eddie Bravo is like freaking Spider-Man with his holds. He really proved that the 10th planet stuff is legit. 

I still prefer Gracie-style Bjj though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> The thing I hated about Metamoris 3 was how nearly everything began with pulling guard.


One concern that I have about the MMA rule set is if you use a perfect "leg lifting" to throw your opponent, you won't get any credit in MMA game. This is why people take the short cut, skip the throwing training, and just use "pulling guard" instead.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One concern that I have about the MMA rule set is if you use a perfect "leg lifting" to throw your opponent, you won't get any credit in MMA game. This is why people take the short cut, skip the throwing training, and just use "pulling guard" instead.



Don't worry, Ronda will save us all;


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> , it showed several Kung Fu styles in a sparring or fighting format across regions, eras, and nationalities, and it all looked very similar. Yet it looked nothing like the popular image of how a Kung Fu stylist fights, how Kung Fu is portrayed in MA magazines, or how Kung Fu looks in its forms.



ever stop to consider that possibly the "popular image of how a kung fu stylist fights" might be just that: a popular image.  It *might* not reflect reality.  Too much Hollywood influence mixed in there.

Fighting is fighting.  Kung fu "style" is just a training method that teaches the body how to engage in a certain way.  That "stylized" kung fu doesn't reflect what it looks like when used for fighting.  Principles are being put to use.  But fighting looks like...well, fighting.  

If you train under a good sifu, you come to understand this.  If you've only watched movies and people who don't really understand the method, then you won't understand this.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> ever stop to consider that possibly the "popular image of how a kung fu stylist fights" might be just that: a popular image.  It *might* not reflect reality.  Too much Hollywood influence mixed in there.
> 
> Fighting is fighting.  Kung fu "style" is just a training method that teaches the body how to engage in a certain way.  That "stylized" kung fu doesn't reflect what it looks like when used for fighting.  Principles are being put to use.  But fighting looks like...well, fighting.
> 
> If you train under a good sifu, you come to understand this.  If you've only watched movies and people who don't really understand the method, then you won't understand this.



So if the end result has you looking like a kickboxer, or a MMA fighter, why not just practice kickboxing or MMA instead? What's the purpose of learning all those forms and weapons if in the end you just look like a MMA guy with less crisp technical ability?

Again, this is assuming that the Kung Fu practitioners in those videos are a good representation of what a Kung Fu exponent can accomplish in a fight via training.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> So if the end result has you looking like a kickboxer, or a MMA fighter, why not just practice kickboxing or MMA instead? What's the purpose of learning all those forms and weapons if in the end you just look like a MMA guy with less crisp technical ability?
> 
> Again, this is assuming that the Kung Fu practitioners in those videos are a good representation of what a Kung Fu exponent can accomplish in a fight via training.



An MMA guy looks like an MMA guy. 

This goes back to the start of things, people learn a MA for different reasons.  It's MMA that looks like Kickboxing, Boxing, Kung Fu, BJJ moves mixed together.

Anyhoo, I don't care what I look like, and I care less what other people think I look like. I train <Insert MA Here> therefore my actions are a result of that MA.

It's like saying an F1 drivers is really a mixture of Soccer Mum, Taxi Driver, Learner Driver and Fully Licensed driver. They have some fundamentals that are identical, but the differences are the rule set. I've never got a lift home from the pub by an F1 driver.


----------



## Flying Crane

Blindside said:


> Are you absolutely sold on the value of everything in your system?  Does every technique make sound sense?  Can you pull them off?  You and I both walked away from kenpo because we had doubts about the training method, so I know you are a critical thinker, you don't accept things "as sifu says."  I don't test the system to prove it to others, I do so to prove it to myself.  Yes I can work with my students to practice different techniques, but can I pull it off when they are fully resisting?  Good, and then because I know that working only with your own group can cause a bias in the testing sample, I then have to go outside the group and since I am not getting into street fights, that requires competition.  Competition has taught me lessons that make me a better instructor.  I see things even in my own systems that are clearly artifacts of people not pressure testing the material, going very kenpoish with a lack of resistance training, I won't do that to my students.



obviously these are all legitimate points that i don't disagree with.  As I keep saying, if you are interested in competition, then do it.  It certainly can teach you something.

but if you are not interested in competition, don't do it.

in terms of my own belief in the techniques of my system, that's not quite how we look at it.  what we are really training is principles, as they are expressed by techniques.  but it's the principle that is important, less so the specific technique. once you understand the principle, you can apply it with any movement, even if it's not a "proper"technique.  it makes for a direct and very uncomplicated approach to combat.  So to answer your question, I'll say that I do believe in the training approach that we use.  being concerned with every technique, or every movement from every form, well that's not what we stress in our training.  a whole lot of it distills down to variations on about a half dozen applications anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I agree to an extent.   I don't stress about this stuff.   But when it comes up in a thread like this, I do have concerns that people might not be learning what they think they're learning.  And the stakes are high in self defense training.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk H



i agree, and I don't stress it either.  The problem is, Seems to me that threads like this are really a thinly camouflaged opportunity for some people to be derisive of everything other than what they do.  It's obnoxious really, and it's been done a million times here.  

So I say, no, ya don't gotta compete if you aren't interested in it.  And no, every style does not need to be "represented"in mma competition.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> So if the end result has you looking like a kickboxer, or a MMA fighter, why not just practice kickboxing or MMA instead? What's the purpose of learning all those forms and weapons if in the end you just look like a MMA guy with less crisp technical ability?
> 
> Again, this is assuming that the Kung Fu practitioners in those videos are a good representation of what a Kung Fu exponent can accomplish in a fight via training.



it doesn't matter what you look like when you fight.  Why are you so concerned about it?  You don't understand traditional Chinese martial arts, but you think it should somehow match up to a hollywood image.

and i haven't bothered to watch any of the videos, 'cause i honestly don't care what's on them.  i understand the integrity of my own training.  that's what matters to me.  i'm not concerned with what everyone else in the world is doing.


----------



## Tez3

I've known quite a lot of people who want to compete just the once, whether it's MMA or their own style. many just want to test themselves in a competitive arena, perhaps to see if they can take a full contact strike or perhaps to see if they have the confidence to go in and fight. I've also known a lot of people who like to train 'opposing' styles such as a stand up one and a ground one, sometimes it's for extra techniques for self defence sometimes it's just for interest. We've had people who are very serious about their own style but like to come in to train MMA for relaxation believe it or not. Most martial artists are curious about other styles and do respect them, so training MMA is an exploration. Very few people are professional fighters doing nothing but fighting every so often. We have a lot of amateur fighters who fight professional rules, they will get a purse of course but are still amateur in the fact they have careers and jobs elsewhere. There's several people from CMAs who fight MMA, at least here there is, they enjoy their own training but like to have a go in the cage and why not, it's a sport. Most of the MMA gyms I know are cool so come in and play if you fancy, it's hard but fun. If you don't fancy that's cool too, no one should stress about what they look like if they are confident in their techniques and abilities. MMA is TMA there's no conflict there honestly! Just train what you love and enjoy.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A lot more of the straight guard game. Rather than the more top dominant wrestling game. I think 90s been was less active as well.
> 
> Randomly picked.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUNkDacnDrM
> 
> Maybe just a more transitional game these days.





Brian R. VanCise said:


> Love watching Metamoris!!!  Very good solid technical matches with brilliant grappling!





Hanzou said:


> The thing I hated about Metamoris 3 was how nearly everything began with pulling guard. I would have liked to see more variations on take downs.
> 
> I mean seriously guys, Guard is a great position and all, but wouldn't you rather fall into side control and work from there?
> 
> That said, I loved the grappling. Eddie Bravo is like freaking Spider-Man with his holds. He really proved that the 10th planet stuff is legit.
> 
> I still prefer Gracie-style Bjj though.


All great comments.  I enjoyed some of the Metamoris matches more than others.  In general, though, it's an example of how different competitions can have radically different rules.  And as a result, the competetive strategies look very different.  A commonly held belief is that a Mixed Martial Artist will attempt to use the same tactics in a street fight.  Further, some people seem to think that they won't be able to help it.  

I think this is just silly.  For anyone.  A MMAist is no more likely to pull guard in a street fight than a karateka is to break someone's neck or gouge their eye out in a bar fight.  Just as an MMAist isn't going to punch or kick someone in a grappling match, or attempt to grapple in a boxing match.  People move in and out of different situations.  

What I mean is, if we're to learn any lessons from Metamoris, early UFCs and modern MMA, it's that martial artists can "fight like they train" but can also modify tactics to suit the situation without freezing, becoming indecisive or ineffective.  Josh Barnett punches the hell out of guys in MMA, but he didn't punch Dean Lister once in their grappling match.  He did, on the other hand, put on a very nice display of CaCC Wrestling.  We see guys move from boxing or Muay Thai into MMA, and back again.


----------



## Cirdan

Welcome back Tez 



Tez3 said:


> MMA is TMA there's no conflict there honestly! Just train what you love and enjoy.



Indeed, it is all fist meets flesh. The only conflict comes from insecurity or plain old love of dead horse bashin.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> i agree, and I don't stress it either.  The problem is, Seems to me that threads like this are really a thinly camouflaged opportunity for some people to be derisive of everything other than what they do.  It's obnoxious really, and it's been done a million times here.
> 
> So I say, no, ya don't gotta compete if you aren't interested in it.  And no, every style does not need to be "represented"in mma competition.


You say this with MMA in mind, but seriously, step back and look.  You and others are sharing thinly veiled derision just as much as anyone else.  

Regarding competition, I agree.  The point I was making earlier has to do with the qualifications of an instructor, more than the choices of a student.  If you're learning from someone who has never actually found out whether they're doing it right, you risk finding out yourself when it's too late.  "Oh no!  I'm being mugged and my training didn't adequately prepare me!"  That's too late.  

Once again, it's not about technique.  It's about YOUR ability or MY ability to execute the techniques.  The advantage of competition is that it is a very effective way to lower the stakes.  It's not the only way, but in the safe world in which most of us live, it's the most effective, IMO.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> it doesn't matter what you look like when you fight.  Why are you so concerned about it?  You don't understand traditional Chinese martial arts, but you think it should somehow match up to a hollywood image.
> 
> and i haven't bothered to watch any of the videos, 'cause i honestly don't care what's on them.  i understand the integrity of my own training.  that's what matters to me.  i'm not concerned with what everyone else in the world is doing.


Speaking only for myself, it's not what you look like.  It's how closely your fighting resembles the techniques, demonstrations and philosophies of the style.  What we've seen and heard in the controlled environment of training is radically different than examples we've seen of unscripted, uncontrolled interactions.  The closest I've seen so far of a demonstration of the WC philosophies outside of compliant or scripted demos is the one where the kid is sparring with the muay thai guy.  That was neat, really, and the way he jammed up the other kid and pushed him back was interesting.  But as everyone said, the two kids weren't well trained.  

So, you say we don't know what it looks like.  Well, I'd love to see some examples of what it looks like.  Please share some examples.  It would be awesome.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Bas Rutten on eye pokes versus grappling (At 3:00 mark)
> 
> Joe Rogan Podcast With Bas Rutten Talking About Fake Martial Arts People - YouTube



While I generally agree with Bas on this there are two overlooked things that need to be taken into account.

1) There is a difference between getting a poke in the eye and having your eye completely destroyed leaving you permanently blind in one eye for the rest of your life (and never being able to watch 3D TV ) I am sure that anyone who has had a penetrating eye injury would be able to attest to the effects as to the level of pain and shock better than any of us on this forum can. I don't know of anyone who could honestly say they would not try to avoid that possibility at almost any cost if they could.

2) Anyone who would consider breaking someone's neck and end their life had better be absolutely sure that they are mentally and emotionally prepared to do it and live with the consequences and they had better be prepared to defend themselves in court when they do (breaking someones neck because they poked you in the eye might not go down so well in the courts). An serious eye injury is nasty but it is not necessarily life threatening.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> The winner of TUF 18 (2013) Chris Holdsworth was fairly pure Bjj, and he pretty decisively won the competition. If you watch his fights on the series, once he got a hold of you, it was all over. He's currently undefeated in the UFC.



I don't dispute that those folks exist.  My point was simply that you had a world class grappler (Gracie) get destroyed by another grappler (Hughes) who also had more superior striking.  Note that in my closing post, I said that it's important to have a good ground game, but to be sure you add in the other stuff as well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

MJS said:


> I don't dispute that those folks exist.  My point was simply that you had a world class grappler (Gracie) get destroyed by another grappler (Hughes) who also had more superior striking.  Note that in my closing post, I said that it's important to have a good ground game, but to be sure you add in the other stuff as well.



Also Holdsworth is working by all accounts to substantially improve his striking game because he will not go very far in the UFC without improvements.


----------



## MJS

Just to toss in my 2 pennies on a few things you said:




K-man said:


> I'm with you.



Agreed as well. 



I don't think that anyone is saying they could do well in MMA. I know I would get my **** kicked, unless they had an Old Fart division for geriatrics. It is more that people are agreeing with your position that they simply aren't interested in the competition. [/quote]

Although some will say that their art wasn't designed for that stuff, etc. and we've seen it on this very forum.  As I said earlier, if one doesn't wish to compete, they shouldn't feel as if they have to.  I should be able to join a BJJ gym, for the sake of learning the art, and not frowned upon for not entering an event.  Of course, as I also said, I do see an importance in competing and testing yourself.  If you don't wish to test yourself in a ring, tourny, etc, then find another way.   And FWIW, I've never claimed to be some Ultimate Fighter either. 





> Again, anyone outside of MMA with that attitude is a fool. But people always look to the champions of MMA to use as an example. If I was in a real fight with an MMA guy it would only be because I couldn't avoid the fight. But I would say straight away that my first option given the opportunity would be the point of the elbow to the face. I teach that in Krav as a primary strike in weapon disarms.
> 
> 
> As to 100% of Aikido being legal in the ring ... not true. Even the basic takedowns you see would not be legal as the technique actually is a knee drop to the neck in real life. (Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent) Another is the elbow strike to the ribs on the way to applying nikkyo or yonkyo. (Striking downward using the point of the elbow)
> 
> 
> Kaitenage, one of the main take downs involves a knife hand strike to the neck. (Striking to the spine or the back of the head)
> 
> 
> Iriminage is a bicep strike to the throat, many of the joint manipulations actually go on break fingers (Small joint manipulation), after applying sankyo the follow up is the knife hand to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face if he's still standing.  (would certainly come under the unsportsmanlike rule even if not considered a grounded opponent)
> 
> 
> All takedowns in Aikido involve turning the head away from Nage when you are on the floor. That is to protect your face from getting kicked. (Kicking the head of a grounded opponent)
> 
> 
> Release from a shoulder grab amongst others, not done in isolation, involves a shot at the eyes. (Eye gouging of any kind) It is only if that strike fails you move to the next technique such as nikkyo or an arm bar.
> 
> 
> Defence against a shoulder grab from behind involves a strike to the groin. (Groin attacks of any kind)
> 
> After any of the takedowns where you are sill standing and you have a standing wrist lock the finishing technique is the heel stomp to a vulnerable point. (Stomping a grounded opponent)
> 
> When you consider Aikido only has about 15 techniques a lot of them work outside the rules of MMA.
> 
> 
> Sure you can say that you don't have to use those nasty moves, just as you see Aikido normally trained, but that's a little like saying you can take your gun into the fight but you can't have any bullets.
> 
> And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because no one from Aikido was interested, if indeed they were even invited.



Agreed.  From the UFC site:

No small joint manipulation.  Aikido and  Arnis, both have small joint manip. and according to the rules, it's not legal.  So, while some may be, I would agree with you, in saying that 100% of certain arts can be used.  Of course, it's a pet peeve of mine, when I hear people always talk about 'the deadly' things in their art.  Sure, those things are all very viable, useful tools, but if that's what one needs, in order to always win, then IMHO, that person missed out on some lessons.  



> The results of MMA competition are really only relevant in the context of that fight. If a champion boxer was defeated in an MMA match it doesn't mean boxing is ineffective.on the street any more that it proves MMA is effective. I have no doubt both are effective. Sure you can argue that techniques are proven to work under pressure in the ring. So I can choke out an opponent in the dojo but because I don't compete in the ring I don't know that my choke will work? Yeah right! But that's pretty much what at least one person has been telling me.



True, and yet we see countless fan boys, make the claim that if it's been done in the ring, if (insert your fav fighter here) did it, then IT MUST WORK!  Sorry, I call BS on that.  That's just like what I've said many times...that I don't care if it works for my teacher, or his teacher, or his teachers teacher...I want to know it works for ME!!!!  My high percentage, bread and butter move, might not work for the next guy, just like his might not work for me. 



> And I would say that instructor is a being totally unrealistic. You can minimise the risk of take down but you must be prepared to be taken to the ground. But again, just because a tactic fails in the ring against a highly trained opponent doesn't mean it will fail on the street. I teach that you take whatever you are offered. It is not realistic to say "in situation a) I will do this, if he does b) I will do that". To me that approach is wrong. It means I have to wait for my attacker to make a move before I can determine how I will respond. So if a person is trying to take me down with a shoot, sure I might use the downward elbow, but only if I've managed a sprawl or at least got one leg back first. If that's not an option, cool, I'll work from whatever situation I am in.
> :asian:



Agreed once again.   Situations will vary all the time.  We could have 5 different people throw a punch at us, and slight variations, will alter or could alter, what our response is.  I've seen some pretty questionable take down defenses in Kenpo.  Of course, when I complain about them, I get, from the die hard Kenpo guys, "Well, it's because you don't understand the art.  You had a crap teacher. You didn't learn the 'real' Kenpo."  Sure, all of those things might very well be true.  However, I'm not drinking the same kool aid as they are, so blind to other things out there, and not one to assume that my art is the ultimate.  I have to wonder if those same Kenpo Gods, have ever tried, or should I say, tested, their defense against someone who really knows how to shoot in for a take down.  Yes, I'm aware that the average street punk probably won't be a UFC vet, but I look at it like this...if I can make my defense work against someone who knows what they're doing, odds are high that it'll work even better against the untrained guy.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> it doesn't matter what you look like when you fight.  Why are you so concerned about it?  You don't understand traditional Chinese martial arts, but you think it should somehow match up to a hollywood image.



How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it. A lot of those videos don't show a lot of technical skill, at least not in the unscripted fighting side of things. The forms match the hollywood image, yet the actual fighting does not.

My question is simply why is that the case? I wonder why such an honest question makes you so defensive.



> and i haven't bothered to watch any of the videos, 'cause i honestly don't care what's on them.  i understand the integrity of my own training.  that's what matters to me.  i'm not concerned with what everyone else in the world is doing.



Well that's great. However, maybe you should watch them to understand exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> I don't dispute that those folks exist.  My point was simply that you had a world class grappler (Gracie) get destroyed by another grappler (Hughes) who also had more superior striking.  Note that in my closing post, I said that it's important to have a good ground game, but to be sure you add in the other stuff as well.



I certainly agree that times have definitely changed, and you need a very well rounded toolset to win in MMA.  I was just merely pointing out that the semi-pure Bjj stylists still exist in MMA, and that Bjj is still the cornerstone of MMA.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it. A lot of those videos don't show a lot of technical skill, at least not in the unscripted fighting side of things. The forms match the hollywood image, yet the actual fighting does not.
> 
> My question is simply why is that the case? I wonder why such an honest question makes you so defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's great. However, maybe you should watch them to understand exactly what I'm talking about.




The question is simple enough, I think your just not getting the answer you want that's complicating it.


----------



## K-man

MJS said:


> No small joint manipulation.  Aikido and  Arnis, both have small joint manip. and according to the rules, it's not legal.  So, while some may be, I would agree with you, in saying that 100% of certain arts can be used.  Of course, it's a pet peeve of mine, when I hear people always talk about 'the deadly' things in their art.  Sure, those things are all very viable, useful tools, but if that's what one needs, in order to always win, then IMHO, that person missed out on some lessons.


I think it goes a little further than that. Despite what Hanzou claims, if you look at the origins of BJJ it was developed as a competitive sport, certainly very realistic and brutal, that could be used as a means of defending yourself on the street. The original UFC was developed around what became GJJ and even they had to add a striking component to their training to remain competitive. *MMA* says a lot just in its name. It is not just one style to be competitive across all the fighting styles you needed to know more than one system. 

So, hypothetically the Aikido practitioner who may have had enough weapons in his traditional armoury has about half of them removed. The GJJ practitioner has nothing removed. Now although Aikido contains strikes and kicks, they are performed differently and for a different reason than say Muay Thai. So maybe  Muay Thai might be a fit with Aikido. Then Aikido is not designed around staying to fight on the ground. It is about getting up from the ground or not going there in the first place, so to be competitive he now needs to learn BJJ. 

The philosophy of Aikido is not to harm your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.

So while I certainly agree that you need to test the effectiveness of your art to be confident that you can use it to defend yourself, the MMA ring or Octagon is not the place.
:asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> You say this with MMA in mind, but seriously, step back and look.  You and others are sharing thinly veiled derision just as much as anyone else.
> 
> Regarding competition, I agree.  The point I was making earlier has to do with the qualifications of an instructor, more than the choices of a student.  If you're learning from someone who has never actually found out whether they're doing it right, you risk finding out yourself when it's too late.  "Oh no!  I'm being mugged and my training didn't adequately prepare me!"  That's too late.
> 
> Once again, it's not about technique.  It's about YOUR ability or MY ability to execute the techniques.  The advantage of competition is that it is a very effective way to lower the stakes.  It's not the only way, but in the safe world in which most of us live, it's the most effective, IMO.



it's true that it happens both ways, and it's equally obnoxious.  this thread happened to be started from one particular point of view.  So that's where we are with this particular one.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it.


You keep saying this but you don't say what your experience is. :hmm:



Hanzou said:


> My question is simply why is that the case? I wonder why such an honest question makes you so defensive.


Your simple question has been answered over and over. I can only answer it in light of my training or my limited experience in several other styles I have dabbled in. Principally the answer is the same for every style that doesn't compete. Our MAs are not designed for competition and even those that do have competitions of their own have different competition to the ones you compete in.

Maybe we would be better taking a BJJ guy into the ring with a TKD guy under WTF rules. That will probably show that the TKD is much better under those rules. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> You keep saying this but you don't say what your experience is. :hmm:
> 
> Your simple question has been answered over and over. I can only answer it in light of my training or my limited experience in several other styles I have dabbled in. Principally the answer is the same for every style that doesn't compete. Our MAs are not designed for competition and even those that do have competitions of their own have different competition to the ones you compete in.
> 
> Maybe we would be better taking a BJJ guy into the ring with a TKD guy under WTF rules. That will probably show that the TKD is much better under those rules. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.




That the tkd guy can kick better. Because his system trains more effective kicking.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Speaking only for myself, it's not what you look like.  It's how closely your fighting resembles the techniques, demonstrations and philosophies of the style.  What we've seen and heard in the controlled environment of training is radically different than examples we've seen of unscripted, uncontrolled interactions.  The closest I've seen so far of a demonstration of the WC philosophies outside of compliant or scripted demos is the one where the kid is sparring with the muay thai guy.  That was neat, really, and the way he jammed up the other kid and pushed him back was interesting.  But as everyone said, the two kids weren't well trained.
> 
> So, you say we don't know what it looks like.  Well, I'd love to see some examples of what it looks like.  Please share some examples.  It would be awesome.



what I'm saying is, it most likely will look like any other fighting.  As Hanzou said, they just look like MMA guys fighting, it doesn't look like their style.  yup, in the end result. People come together and fight, they punch, they push, they pull, the grab, they go to the ground...Some people seem to think that Chinese martial arts will produce some guy who looks radically different from that.  They think it's going to be heavily stylized and postured.  It won't, or it shouldn't if the guy actually knows what he's doing and isn't trying to look like a Shaw Brothers movie.  

From my experience with the Chinese arts, the main purpose in the training method is to teach you to engage the body in a complete manner.  Some of the TRAINING methods may be "stylized" in some way, but that is because an exaggerated movement often aids the body to grasp that full-body integration.  But the important thing to remember is, that exaggerated, "stylized" movement, often seen in forms, has a training purpose that usually will not get translated directly into combat.  The big, exaggerated movement helps you understand the full body engagement.  Once you understand it, you can engage that principle with smaller, non-exaggerated, non-stylized movements.  But there's a progression that, in Chinese training theory says, you start with big movements and gradually develop the ability to get the same effects with smaller movements.  It's a bit like starting with training wheels, and then the training wheels come off the bike once you have some level of skill.

In terms of a real fight then, it just looks like someone fighting.  Punches look like punches.  There may be some subtle differences that the educated eye might catch, like a full-body engagement.  Or not.  And really, I know that other systems probably strive for this same effect, full-body engagement.  They each have their methodology to train and develop that skill.  What you see in a "stylized" system is simply that system's methodology for developing that skill.  It's a training methodology, but it isn't necessarily seen in a direct way, in a real fight. 

it's a bit difficult to express without showing, but I'm doing my best.  

And I did train in Wing Chun for a few years but gave it up.  I ultimately realized it wasn't the best match for me, I couldn't quite grasp how that particular training method was supposed to work.  It could have been a reflection of the quality of training I received, or maybe I was too spread out trying to train in several systems at once, or whatever it may have been.  But at any rate, I do something else that makes more sense to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it. A lot of those videos don't show a lot of technical skill, at least not in the unscripted fighting side of things. The forms match the hollywood image, yet the actual fighting does not.
> 
> My question is simply why is that the case? I wonder why such an honest question makes you so defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's great. However, maybe you should watch them to understand exactly what I'm talking about.



It is clear by what you post, that you do not understand Chinese martial arts.  It ain't just technique that you can see.  And no, I'm not talking about qi energy either.  Take a look at my earlier response to Steve, I tried to explain it a bit.  

and, sure there's a lot of bad examples out there.  I seem to recall mentioning, earlier in this thread, that every system has its share of lousy folks.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> what I'm saying is, it most likely will look like any other fighting.  As Hanzou said, they just look like MMA guys fighting, it doesn't look like their style.  yup, in the end result. People come together and fight, they punch, they push, they pull, the grab, they go to the ground...Some people seem to think that Chinese martial arts will produce some guy who looks radically different from that.  They think it's going to be heavily stylized and postured.  It won't, or it shouldn't if the guy actually knows what he's doing and isn't trying to look like a Shaw Brothers movie.
> 
> From my experience with the Chinese arts, the main purpose in the training method is to teach you to engage the body in a complete manner.  Some of the TRAINING methods may be "stylized" in some way, but that is because an exaggerated movement often aids the body to grasp that full-body integration.  But the important thing to remember is, that exaggerated, "stylized" movement, often seen in forms, has a training purpose that usually will not get translated directly into combat.  The big, exaggerated movement helps you understand the full body engagement.  Once you understand it, you can engage that principle with smaller, non-exaggerated, non-stylized movements.  But there's a progression that, in Chinese training theory says, you start with big movements and gradually develop the ability to get the same effects with smaller movements.  It's a bit like starting with training wheels, and then the training wheels come off the bike once you have some level of skill.
> 
> In terms of a real fight then, it just looks like someone fighting.  Punches look like punches.  There may be some subtle differences that the educated eye might catch, like a full-body engagement.  Or not.  And really, I know that other systems probably strive for this same effect, full-body engagement.  They each have their methodology to train and develop that skill.  What you see in a "stylized" system is simply that system's methodology for developing that skill.  It's a training methodology, but it isn't necessarily seen in a direct way, in a real fight.
> 
> it's a bit difficult to express without showing, but I'm doing my best.
> 
> And I did train in Wing Chun for a few years but gave it up.  I ultimately realized it wasn't the best match for me, I couldn't quite grasp how that particular training method was supposed to work.  It could have been a reflection of the quality of training I received, or maybe I was too spread out trying to train in several systems at once, or whatever it may have been.  But at any rate, I do something else that makes more sense to me.




Little boxes.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlSpc87Jfr0

It is a dumb song that irritates me. It just shows the person singing it has not bothered to learn anything about the subject he was singing about.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Little boxes.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlSpc87Jfr0
> 
> It is a dumb song that irritates me. It just shows the person singing it has not bothered to learn anything about the subject he was singing about.




I'm not sure how that relates, exactly.  I will say however, that that song was written about the City in which I live.  Little boxes made of ricky-tacky on the hillside...yup, that's Daly City, California.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I think it goes a little further than that. Despite what Hanzou claims, if you look at the origins of BJJ it was developed as a competitive sport, certainly very realistic and brutal, that could be used as a means of defending yourself on the street. The original UFC was developed around what became GJJ and even they had to add a striking component to their training to remain competitive. *MMA* says a lot just in its name. It is not just one style to be competitive across all the fighting styles you needed to know more than one system.
> 
> So, hypothetically the Aikido practitioner who may have had enough weapons in his traditional armoury has about half of them removed. The GJJ practitioner has nothing removed. Now although Aikido contains strikes and kicks, they are performed differently and for a different reason than say Muay Thai. So maybe  Muay Thai might be a fit with Aikido. Then Aikido is not designed around staying to fight on the ground. It is about getting up from the ground or not going there in the first place, so to be competitive he now needs to learn BJJ.
> 
> The philosophy of Aikido is not to harm your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.
> 
> So while I certainly agree that you need to test the effectiveness of your art to be confident that you can use it to defend yourself, the MMA ring or Octagon is not the place.
> :asian:



I would just like to point out again that Wrist locks are not considered small joints in MMA. You CAN use wrist and ankle locks in the vast majority of MMA competitions. Royce Gracie used a wrist lock to defeat Akebono in 2004.

It's also kind of strange to develop a "sport" who's sporting events revolve solely around beating the crap out of other, unrelated martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure how that relates, exactly.  I will say however, that that song was written about the City in which I live.  Little boxes made of ricky-tacky on the hillside...yup, that's Daly City, California.



Only if you are not really looking.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Little boxes.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlSpc87Jfr0
> 
> It is a dumb song that irritates me. It just shows the person singing it has not bothered to learn anything about the subject he was singing about.


Oh boy! The younger generation. <shows despair>  Pete Seeger was one of the great folk singers of the 60s. That song was at the top of the hit parade for weeks. 

And of course it was a political song of protest at the time. He knew exactly what he was singing about ... shoddy construction and the spread of suburbia. He only died earlier this year but he was one of the greats of his era.



Flying Crane said:


> I'm not sure how that relates, exactly.  I will say however, that that song was written about the City in which I live.  Little boxes made of ricky-tacky on the hillside...yup, that's Daly City, California.


Did they ever improve the architecture?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I would just like to point out again that Wrist locks are not considered small joints in MMA. You CAN use wrist and ankle locks in the vast majority of MMA competitions. Royce Gracie used a wrist lock to defeat Akebono in 2004.
> 
> It's also kind of strange to develop a "sport" who's sporting events revolve solely around beating the crap out of other, unrelated martial arts.


I was talking of small joint manipulation, ie fingers. And of course that also applies to any of the CMA guys who might practise Chin Na as I do.

And what was the sport who's sporting events revolve solely around beating the crap out of other unrelated martial arts? I must have missed that one.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I was talking of small joint manipulation, ie fingers. And of course that also applies to any of the CMA guys who might practise Chin Na as I do.
> 
> And what was the sport who's sporting events revolve solely around beating the crap out of other unrelated martial arts? I must have missed that one.




So too deadly to compete?


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> So too deadly to compete?


Read my earlier post.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I was talking of small joint manipulation, ie fingers. And of course that also applies to any of the CMA guys who might practise Chin Na as I do.



We also have that in Bjj as well, along with wrist and ankle locks. 

There's a Bjj competitor out of Brazil who is known for his devastating wrist locks in competition;

Wrist Locks With The Master



> And what was the sport who's sporting events revolve solely around beating the crap out of other unrelated martial arts? I must have missed that one.



That would be Brazilian Jiujitsu.

Events: Gracie Challenge Fights, Vale Tudo, UFC.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> We also have that in Bjj as well, along with wrist and ankle locks.
> 
> There's a Bjj competitor out of Brazil who is known for his devastating wrist locks in competition;
> 
> Wrist Locks With The Master
> 
> That would be Brazilian Jiujitsu.
> 
> Events: Gracie Challenge Fights, Vale Tudo, UFC.


So you are saying you practise Chin Na? Interesting, most martial artists haven't even heard of it.

And with due respect to a man who has obviously gone a long way in BJJ, his wrist locks in this instance were not impressive.

And the bit about the sport in question? That was my attempt at humour. Sorry you didn't pick up on that.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So you are saying you practise Chin Na? Interesting, most martial artists haven't even heard of it.



Well, finger breaks. We don't call it Chin Na though.



> And with due respect to a man who has obviously gone a long way in BJJ, his wrist locks in this instance were not impressive.



Well, unimpressive and effective is better than impressive and ineffective. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well, finger breaks. We don't call it Chin Na though.
> 
> Well, unimpressive and effective is better than impressive and ineffective. Wouldn't you agree?


Then you don't practise Chin Na.

Unlike you who bags everything not MMA I prefer not to go down that track, but since you asked. No, neither effective or impressive. So again, what is your experience that suggests that the techniques in the video would be effective?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Then you don't practise Chin Na.
> 
> Unlike you who bags everything not MMA I prefer not to go down that track, but since you asked. No, neither effective or impressive. So again, what is your experience that suggests that the techniques in the video would be effective?



My apologies, I put the wrong video up. I thought that video was this one;






Fast forward to 4:45. That's where he starts talking about wrist locks.

They're clearly effective, since Paixo used them in Bjj competitions and submitted highly trained grapplers with them.

Since we acknowledge that Bjj is effective, then a Bjj practitioner subbing Bjj black belts with wrist locks has extremely effective wrist locks.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> My apologies, I put the wrong video up. I thought that video was this one;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fast forward to 4:45. That's where he starts talking about wrist locks.
> 
> They're clearly effective, since Paixo used them in Bjj competitions and submitted highly trained grapplers with them.
> 
> Since we acknowledge that Bjj is effective, then a Bjj practitioner subbing Bjj black belts with wrist locks has extremely effective wrist locks.


Ok, that one is fine but what are you trying to say? I'm not doubting wrist locks. We train them every session. I have no doubt they are effective in competition but I asked you about finger locks and using fingers to control as taught in Chin Na.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Ok, that one is fine but what are you trying to say? I'm not doubting wrist locks. We train them every session. I have no doubt they are effective in competition but I asked you about finger locks and using fingers to control as taught in Chin Na.



You asked about the wrist locks in the video, because earlier you said that Paxio's wrist locks were neither impressive or effective. 



			
				K-man said:
			
		

> _Unlike you who bags everything not MMA I prefer not to go down that track, but since you asked. No, neither effective or impressive. So again, what is your experience that suggests that the techniques in the *video *would be effective?_


If you're forcing the submission of a skilled grappler with a wrist lock, then I would say that your skills are very effective. In Bjj, we use wrist locks to force a submission when the opponent isn't tapping to another submission. And yes, its brutally effective. I've known people who quit Bjj altogether because some Brazilians came to a competition and started snapping wrists.

I favor wrist and arm locks and breaks to finger locks and breaks. The time you spend trying to pry someone's fingers open could be better spent snapping their wrist instead.

The effectiveness of the Bjj wrist lock is just another example of how competition is an excellent pressure-cooker to test the effectiveness of techniques.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You asked about the wrist locks in the video, because earlier you said that Paxio's wrist locks were neither impressive or effective. If you're forcing the submission of a skilled grappler, then I would say that your skills are very effective.
> 
> [/I][/COLOR]If you're forcing the submission of a skilled grappler with a wrist lock, then I would say that your skills are very effective. In Bjj, we use wrist locks to force a submission when the opponent isn't tapping to another submission. And yes, its brutally effective. I've known people who quit Bjj altogether because some Brazilians came to a competition and started snapping wrists.
> 
> I favor wrist and arm locks and breaks to finger locks and breaks. The time you spend trying to pry someone's fingers open could be better spent snapping their wrist instead.


Sorry, I didn't ask about wrist locks at all. I was talking about small joint manipulation that is not legal in MMA competition. Chin Na has very little to do with finger breaks and absolutely nothing to do with prying fingers. I think wrist locks and arm bars are great. I teach them and train them almost every day. They are part and parcel of everyday TMA training. I'm not sure why you introduced them into the discussion.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Sorry, I didn't ask about wrist locks at all. I was talking about small joint manipulation that is not legal in MMA competition. Chin Na has very little to do with finger breaks and absolutely nothing to do with prying fingers. I think wrist locks and arm bars are great. I teach them and train them almost every day. They are part and parcel of everyday TMA training. I'm not sure why you introduced them into the discussion.



You didn't say this;



K-man said:


> And with due respect to a man who has obviously gone a long way in BJJ, his wrist locks in this instance were not impressive.



I brought up wrist locks, because you said that Aikido couldn't compete in MMA because wrist locks were illegal. When I mentioned that in many MMA competitions they were perfectly legal, you switched over to finger locks, which Aikido isn't all that well known for. When I think Aikido, I'm thinking wrist locks and spectacular throws.

It would be wonderful to see an Aikido specialist apply such skills in an MMA competition.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

I can't believe this is still going on.

And I'm still reading it.



Hanzou said:


> How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it. A lot of those videos don't show a lot of technical skill, at least not in the unscripted fighting side of things. The forms match the hollywood image, yet the actual fighting does not.
> 
> My question is simply why is that the case? I wonder why such an honest question makes you so defensive.



Bruce Lee said something about how when he started in TV/movies he soon realised that real fighting techniques (presumably WC/Kung Fu at the time but I may be corrected on that) didn't look good on screen as everything happened too fast and close for the eye to follow, or something like that. I'm sure somebody can dig it out if it's relevant.

Carry on!


----------



## Tez3

I think that the point of MMA is being missed by some, arguing over which style has the most techniques used or which stylist would do better is pointless. It really is, an MMA fighter is someone who can use techniques that work for them, these will be from as many styles as is necessary and will be adapted by that fighter and his coaches if it looks a good move but could be tweaked. Bear in mind too that many styles have similar techniques done in slightly different ways. Perhaps I could make a plea that people start seeing MMA as a whole rather than try to pick it apart to prove which style has more techniques used. You won't have an Aikidoka fighting nor a Judoka or Karateka in the cage, what you will have is an MMA fighter and that should be good enough for anyone!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I think that the point of MMA is being missed by some, arguing over which style has the most techniques used or which stylist would do better is pointless. It really is, an MMA fighter is someone who can use techniques that work for them, these will be from as many styles as is necessary and will be adapted by that fighter and his coaches if it looks a good move but could be tweaked. Bear in mind too that many styles have similar techniques done in slightly different ways. Perhaps I could make a plea that people start seeing MMA as a whole rather than try to pick it apart to prove which style has more techniques used. You won't have an Aikidoka fighting nor a Judoka or Karateka in the cage, what you will have is an MMA fighter and that should be good enough for anyone!



Well to be fair, we have  Judokas and Karatekas in MMA. 

We're still waiting for the first Aikidoka.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> Well to be fair, we have Judokas and Karatekas in MMA.
> 
> We're still waiting for the first Aikidoka.



Here's a guy who claims to use Aikido in his MMA fights, blended with a lot of other techniques....hence......MMA. I have no idea to the veracity of his claims.

[video=youtube_share;L7iLl2myzkQ]http://youtu.be/L7iLl2myzkQ[/video]


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You didn't say this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by K-man
> And with due respect to a man who has obviously gone a long way in BJJ, his wrist locks in this instance were not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up wrist locks, because you said that Aikido couldn't compete in MMA because wrist locks were illegal. When I mentioned that in many MMA competitions they were perfectly legal, you switched over to finger locks, which Aikido isn't all that well known for. When I think Aikido, I'm thinking wrist locks and spectacular throws.
> 
> It would be wonderful to see an Aikido specialist apply such skills in an MMA competition.
Click to expand...

Sure I said that, but that was in response to your digression. I didn't say anywhere that wrist locks were not legal. I was replying to *Tony Dismukes'* comment that 100% of Aikido was legal. I also *didn't* say that Aikido couldn't compete in MMA because wrist locks were illegal. What I actually said:_ "And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because no one from Aikido was interested, if indeed they were even invited."
_
What I am pointing out is that in Aikido once we have a wrist lock in place we often change to control using the fingers. So you see it in context and as nothing to do with wrist locks:



> Originally Posted by K-man  As to 100% of Aikido being legal in the ring ... not true. Even the basic takedowns you see would not be legal as the technique actually is a knee drop to the neck in real life. (Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent) Another is the elbow strike to the ribs on the way to applying nikkyo or yonkyo. (Striking downward using the point of the elbow)
> 
> 
> Kaitenage, one of the main take downs involves a knife hand strike to the neck. (Striking to the spine or the back of the head)
> 
> 
> Iriminage is a bicep strike to the throat, *many of the joint manipulations actually go on break fingers (Small joint manipulation)*, after applying sankyo the follow up is the knife hand to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face if he's still standing. (would certainly come under the unsportsmanlike rule even if not considered a grounded opponent)
> 
> 
> All takedowns in Aikido involve turning the head away from Nage when you are on the floor. That is to protect your face from getting kicked. (Kicking the head of a grounded opponent)
> 
> 
> Release from a shoulder grab amongst others, not done in isolation, involves a shot at the eyes. (Eye gouging of any kind) It is only if that strike fails you move to the next technique such as nikkyo or an arm bar.
> 
> 
> Defence against a shoulder grab from behind involves a strike to the groin. (Groin attacks of any kind)
> 
> 
> After any of the takedowns where you are sill standing and you have a standing wrist lock the finishing technique is the heel stomp to a vulnerable point. (Stomping a grounded opponent)
> 
> 
> When you consider Aikido only has about 15 techniques a lot of them work outside the rules of MMA.
> 
> 
> Sure you can say that you don't have to use those nasty moves, just as you see Aikido normally trained, but that's a little like saying you can take your gun into the fight but you can't have any bullets.


So out of all the techniques I pointed out as not being able to be used in MMA competition you pick one out of context and ignore the rest. :hmm:


----------



## K-man

Spinedoc said:


> Here's a guy who claims to use Aikido in his MMA fights, blended with a lot of other techniques....hence......MMA. I have no idea to the veracity of his claims.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;L7iLl2myzkQ]http://youtu.be/L7iLl2myzkQ[/video]


Well he showed four techniques. I can promise you the first one is most unlikely to work in the way it was shown unless the guy is highly skilled and even then against full resistance as shown, not likely. The nikkyo on the floor with the collar grab, again extremely unlikely although the last nikkyo would work really well. Sankyo is great but again not easy to pull off in that situation. Kote gaeshi is my favourite but in the way he demonstrated it it is reasonably easy to reverse if you know how. On top of that, unless you are lightning fast you will be punched. It is impossible to plan to use a particular technique in the way it was demonstrated. All these techniques are opportunistic. If the opportunity arises you use it but you can't just try to apply it.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Sure I said that, but that was in response to your digression. I didn't say anywhere that wrist locks were not legal. I was replying to *Tony Dismukes'* comment that 100% of Aikido was legal. I also *didn't* say that Aikido couldn't compete in MMA because wrist locks were illegal. What I actually said:_ "And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because no one from Aikido was interested, if indeed they were even invited."
> _
> What I am pointing out is that in Aikido once we have a wrist lock in place we often change to control using the fingers. So you see it in context and as nothing to do with wrist locks:
> 
> So out of all the techniques I pointed out as not being able to be used in MMA competition you pick one out of context and ignore the rest. :hmm:



Okay, so what exactly prevents Aikido from being strongly utilized in MMA?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Okay, so what exactly prevents Aikido from being strongly utilized in MMA?


Read what I wrote. I posted it twice. But because you are having difficulty understanding here it is for the last time.



> Originally posted by* K-man*
> And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because *no one from Aikido was interested,* if indeed they were even invited.


And that was in the context of ...


> When you consider Aikido only has about 15 techniques a lot of them work outside the rules of MMA.
> 
> 
> Sure you can say that you don't have to use those nasty moves, just as you see Aikido normally trained, but that's a little like saying you can take your gun into the fight but you can't have any bullets.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Read what I wrote. I posted it twice. But because you are having difficulty understanding here it is for the last time.



Don't practicioners like Rik Ellis completely disprove that argument?


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Read what I wrote. I posted it twice. But because you are having difficulty understanding here it is for the last time.
> 
> 
> And that was in the context of ...


Wait. Kman.  I don't believe that in the universe of aikido practitioners, not one of them was not interested in competition.  The law of averages just doesn't support this.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Wait. Kman.  I don't believe that in the universe of aikido practitioners, not one of them was not interested in competition.  The law of averages just doesn't support this.



Or google akido competition.

But the other side of that would be the reason that a mma fighter does not compete in boxing kick boxing or wrestling because they can't utilise all of their weapons.

Oh wait.....


----------



## K-man

K-man said:


> The philosophy of Aikido is not to harm your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.


Come on Steve. Keep up mate. Here is the context.  I know it's moving fast. 


I'm trying to keep things in context, despite being constantly misquoted.



Steve said:


> Wait. Kman.  I don't believe that in the universe of aikido practitioners, not one of them was not interested in competition.  The law of averages just doesn't support this.


OK. If you are so sure of that perhaps you would care to list them for me because I know of none.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

Steven segal of course is an akido/mma trainer to the stars.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D7MNOpQhlBQ


----------



## Spinedoc

Well, I would state that no one that I know at the yudansha level or higher in Aikido would even consider MMA or competition. It is anathema to what you learn in Aikido, and given how long it takes to achieve a high rank in Aikido, I don't know of anyone that would consider it. I'm going to a seminar next weekend with Donovan Waite Shihan, so perhaps I'll ask him, but I think I can already surmise his answer. 

When I've asked some in the past, they've laughed and said, that for starters they have no interest, and secondly, they have nothing to prove. It's just not even considered or thought of. 

Aikido is about harmony, peace, and not (at least intentionally) harming your attacker. These are the fundamental tenets of Aikido. UFC/MMA are completely antithetical to these. So, now ask yourself, if you have studied an art for more than 5 years with those goals in mind, how likely are you to pursue a course in complete opposition to what you have been devoting yourself to?

The reason I posted the Rick Ellis video was to somewhat prove the opposite of what you are inferring that being that most of his maneuvers weren't pure aikido, and he actually used a lot more MMA techniques.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Don't practicioners like Rik Ellis completely disprove that argument?


You don't give up do you? Since when does one exception change a situation like this where thousands of others don't compete?

Rik Ellis has this to say :


> Much to the irritation of many in the aikido community, *I am the only person in the UK with a serious background in traditional aikido* who is also a professional cage fighter. I hold a Dan grade with the Ellis School of Traditional Aikido but I also train in MMA with Suleman Raja of the Prize Fighters Gym in Farnborough and do fight conditioning at the Fight Science gym in Aldershot with Nick &#8216;Headhunter' Chapman.
> Aikido vs MMA - Blitz Martial Arts Magazine


Isn't that exactly what I said? Would Rik Ellis have learned Aikido if his father wasn't a top Aikidoka? I doubt it. He wanted to compete but he didn't want to compete as an Aikidoka. He went to train in an MMA gym so he could compete in MMA as a fighter trained to compete in MMA. Sure he uses some techniques that are taught in Aikido but the same techniques are taught in jujutsu. I teach the same techniques in Krav and Karate.

And just because you have missed it or deliberately misunderstood it the first two or three times I posted it ...



> Originally Posted by *K-man*
> The philosophy of Aikido is not to harm your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.


Rik Ellis does not represent Aikido in the ring. He is a mixed martial artist with an Aikido background.


----------



## drop bear

Akidokas competing. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqovX4G8Z0

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aj8xH_aiCtg

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QWpVUMCcSys

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lhg4RRib40

An akidoka who has taken up mma.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SUTehKiyXWQ


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Or google akido competition.
> 
> But the other side of that would be the reason that a mma fighter does not compete in boxing kick boxing or wrestling because they can't utilise all of their weapons.
> 
> Oh wait.....


Isn't that pretty much what I suggested earlier? I didn't say MMA because MMA trains in those areas. What I asked about was how a BJJ guy would go in a competition under WTF rules. It just isn't going to happen. Why? Because it is totally illogical.

Now if you do Google 'Aikido competition' it is likely you will come up with Tomiki aikido. Even here, this competition was totally against the wishes of Ueshiba, and it is a totally different type of competition to what people expect in the martial arts.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Isn't that pretty much what I suggested earlier? I didn't say MMA because MMA trains in those areas. What I asked about was how a BJJ guy would go in a competition under WTF rules. It just isn't going to happen. Why? Because it is totally illogical.
> 
> Now if you do Google 'Aikido competition' it is likely you will come up with Tomiki aikido. Even here, this competition was totally against the wishes of Ueshiba, and it is a totally different type of competition to what people expect in the martial arts.
> :asian:




So you are suggesting grappling with finger grabs vs grappling is the same as no kicking at all vs kicking?

It is that big a transition?

Akido should still be able to stop people within the mma rule set.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> Akidokas competing.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqovX4G8Z0
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aj8xH_aiCtg
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QWpVUMCcSys
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lhg4RRib40
> 
> An akidoka who has taken up mma.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SUTehKiyXWQ


Number 1. Perhaps. Makes a good arguement why some aikido people should never fight.
Number 2. Looks more like some form of karate than Aikido. I've never seen Aikido kicks like those. Who said the guy is aikido?
Number 3. Out of context. Here is the whole video ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rs4gTZjSqJc
Number 4. Tomiki Aikido (see previous comment posted above)
Number 5. Proves my point. You want to fight in MMA, you go to an MMA gym.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> So you are suggesting grappling with finger grabs vs grappling is the same as no kicking at all vs kicking?



Sorry. I don't understand the question. It doesn't sound like anything I have suggested.



drop bear said:


> Akido should still be able to stop people within the mma rule set.


Just the same as pure boxing should be able to stop people within the MMA rule set or pure wrestling or pure BJJ? That is a patently false assumption and totally illogical. Plus it totally ignores what I have already posted two or three times in this thread about the Aikido techniques that are outside MMA rules. It is just as stupid as my hypothetical about the BJJ fighter fighting a TKD guy under WTF rules.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Sorry. I don't understand the question. It doesn't sound like anything I have suggested.
> 
> Just the same as pure boxing should be able to stop people within the MMA rule set or pure wrestling or pure BJJ? That is a patently false assumption and totally illogical. Plus it totally ignores what I have already posted two or three times in this thread about the Aikido techniques that are outside MMA rules. It is just as stupid as my hypothetical about the BJJ fighter fighting a TKD guy under WTF rules.



So if we took away finger grabs akido is completely nullified? Just like if we removed all grappling from bjj.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> So if we took away finger grabs akido is completely nullified? Just like if we removed all grappling from bjj.


What are you on about? Where did you get that stupid idea from? Certainly nothing I have posted.
Finger locks would be less than half of one percent of Aikido. If grappling was removed from BJJ there wouldn't be much left.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> What are you on about? Where did you get that stupid idea from? Certainly nothing I have posted.
> Finger locks would be less than half of one percent of Aikido. If grappling was removed from BJJ there wouldn't be much left.



So, hypothetically the Aikido practitioner who may have had enough weapons in his traditional armoury has about half of them removed. The GJJ practitioner has nothing removed. Now although Aikido contains strikes and kicks, they are performed differently and for a different reason than say Muay Thai. So maybe Muay Thai might be a fit with Aikido. Then Aikido is not designed around staying to fight on the ground. It is about getting up from the ground or not going there in the first place, so to be competitive he now needs to learn BJJ. 


I would just like to point out again that Wrist locks are not considered small joints in MMA. You CAN use wrist and ankle locks in the vast majority of MMA competitions. Royce Gracie used a wrist lock to defeat Akebono in 2004.

_I was talking of small joint manipulation, ie fingers. And of course that also applies to any of the CMA guys who might practise Chin Na as I do.

_Isn't that pretty much what I suggested earlier? I didn't say MMA because MMA trains in those areas. What I asked about was how a BJJ guy would go in a competition under WTF rules. It just isn't going to happen. Why? Because it is totally illogical.


----------



## Hanzou

I'm forced to agree with Bas Rutten's take on Aikido in MMA;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk

That reasoning seems far more likely than "There are no Aikidoka interested in MMA".


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm forced to agree with Bas Rutten's take on Aikido in MMA;
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk
> 
> That reasoning seems far more likely than "There are no Aikidoka interested in MMA".


I don't disagree with anything Bas said in this video. What he is talking about with the swinging punch is the training methodology that personally I haven't seen in Aikido. I agree when he says you can't catch punches so if Aikido guys are training that way then their training is flawed. Controlling a committed punch is slightly different.

If you are right with your theory why haven't we seen at least hundreds or even thousands of Aikidoka trying to match it in MMA and failing? Obviously that is not the case. I have never met anyone from Aikido that had expressed any wish to compete in MMA. In fact I only know one who competes in Tomiki tournaments.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> So, hypothetically the Aikido practitioner who may have had enough weapons in his traditional armoury has about half of them removed. The GJJ practitioner has nothing removed. Now although Aikido contains strikes and kicks, they are performed differently and for a different reason than say Muay Thai. So maybe Muay Thai might be a fit with Aikido. Then Aikido is not designed around staying to fight on the ground. It is about getting up from the ground or not going there in the first place, so to be competitive he now needs to learn BJJ.
> 
> 
> I would just like to point out again that Wrist locks are not considered small joints in MMA. You CAN use wrist and ankle locks in the vast majority of MMA competitions. Royce Gracie used a wrist lock to defeat Akebono in 2004.
> 
> _I was talking of small joint manipulation, ie fingers. And of course that also applies to any of the CMA guys who might practise Chin Na as I do.
> 
> _Isn't that pretty much what I suggested earlier? I didn't say MMA because MMA trains in those areas. What I asked about was how a BJJ guy would go in a competition under WTF rules. It just isn't going to happen. Why? Because it is totally illogical.


And I would just like to point out that I never said wrist locks were small joint manipulation and I never claimed they were outside MMA rules. As I have already posted what I said three times I am assuming you are just trying to annoy as I don't believe you are stupid. As to what you have posted here, it is mostly what I said, especially the last sentence.

i pointed out nine areas where normal Aikido practice falls foul of MMA rules. You made one up that I didn't list and, despite my clarification, you keep posting your words as mine.


----------



## Tez3

What we see in MMA fights is MMA fighters, you know, the all round stuff, the stand up and the ground work all in together mixed up with various techniques from various styles with no one 'style' dominating. Are we ever going to get away from this one style is better than another thing? No one style works better in MMA, what works better is a fighter who has taken techniques from everywhere and anywhere that he/she can make work _for them._ when are people going to see this and stop arguing over styles? The style is MMA full stop.
On the subject of this Aikido 'cage fighter' from the UK, I've never heard of him as a fighter, the fact he calls himself a 'cage fighter' tells you something here, we are trying very hard to get the public to see it as MMA fighters/fights, the term cage fighter has connotations that we don't want here. It seems he's fought at least once on a small show but there's nothing to say he's Aikido in his fighting because he does what all MMA fighters do ie fight MMA. I know a couple of techniques as do our fighters from Aikido, as we do with techniques that come from other styles, as the risk of repeating myself, that's what MMA is, taking techniques from everywhere. In a proper MMA fight you aren't going to be able to say what techniques come from where, they should all flow one into another, they maybe changed a bit, modified a bit so the fighter size and reach perhaps but really all these arguing style v style is pretty pointless, it's MMA, you know MIXED MARTIAL ARTS.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> I'm forced to agree with Bas Rutten's take on Aikido in MMA;
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk
> 
> That reasoning seems far more likely than "There are no Aikidoka interested in MMA".



You still haven't answered my question. If you have spent a great deal of time in the pursuit and mastery of peace, harmony, blending, and mastering an art that at it's fundamental core teaches you to not harm your opponent......why would you...after doing that, pursue a competition that encompasses the exact opposite.

Think about that. When you can understand that......you will understand why you don't see competent aikidoka in MMA.


----------



## Tez3

Spinedoc said:


> You still haven't answered my question. If you have spent a great deal of time in the pursuit and mastery of peace, harmony, blending, and mastering an art that at it's fundamental core teaches you to not harm your opponent......why would you...after doing that, pursue a competition that encompasses the exact opposite.
> 
> Think about that. When you can understand that......you will understand why you don't see competent aikidoka in MMA.



Well you don't actually see any person who is competent in only one style in MMA, you see MMA fighters in MMA. I'm sure if an Aikidoka wanted to compete in MMA they would but train specifically just as everyone else does. All this one style stuff is really just beating around the bush. Any Aikidoka, Karateka, Judoka etc isn't that if they fight in MMA, they are an MMA fighter! What they are in other parts of their martial arts life is irrelevant as far as fighting in MMA is concerned. I know MMA fighters who also compete in boxing, karate and Judo as well as Muay Thai, when competing in these they can be described as that stylist ie a boxer in a boxing fight.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I don't disagree with anything Bas said in this video. What he is talking about with the swinging punch is the training methodology that personally I haven't seen in Aikido. I agree when he says you can't catch punches so if Aikido guys are training that way then their training is flawed. Controlling a committed punch is slightly different.




I'm sure he is talking about this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HB01hhonf8Q
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Qz99LrUAM

i.e. Catching someone's arm while their punching, gripping their wrist and putting them in a lock.

All of which is perfectly legal in MMA, and if someone could pull it off, they'd be elite level fairly easily.



> If you are right with your theory why haven't we seen at least hundreds or even thousands of Aikidoka trying to match it in MMA and failing? Obviously that is not the case. I have never met anyone from Aikido that had expressed any wish to compete in MMA. In fact I only know one who competes in Tomiki tournaments.



Not all MMA matches are televised. In order to even get to the level of being on t.v. You have to fight in the lower leagues. UFC and similar venues are considered elite level. Only the too fighters get to fight on that level. The reality is that fighters using unorthodox methods like Aikido just don't make the cut for whatever reason.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Well you don't actually see any person who is competent in only one style in MMA, you see MMA fighters in MMA. I'm sure if an Aikidoka wanted to compete in MMA they would but train specifically just as everyone else does. All this one style stuff is really just beating around the bush. Any Aikidoka, Karateka, Judoka etc isn't that if they fight in MMA, they are an MMA fighter! What they are in other parts of their martial arts life is irrelevant as far as fighting in MMA is concerned. I know MMA fighters who also compete in boxing, karate and Judo as well as Muay Thai, when competing in these they can be described as that stylist ie a boxer in a boxing fight.



While true that MMA fighters train in multiple disciplines, it's also true that their primary art still defines their fighting style. Ronda Rousey for example had extremely weak striking when she entered MMA, but her expert level Judo skills filled the gaps in her striking ability and allowed her to be champion. Now she's been training in boxing to improve her striking ability, but that improved striking ability simply enhances her Judo abilities, because now she can set up Judo throws from strikes.

The same applies to guys like Chris Holdsworth, and Damien Maia who are mediocre strikers, but incredible Bjj stylists. 

If someone was primarily an Aikido, Kung Fu, or whatever stylist, it would be very apparent, because they would be doing techniques never before seen in MMA. Like what Ronda Rousey is currently doing. No one was throwing people like that before she showed up on the scene.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Come on Steve. Keep up mate. Here is the context.  I know it's moving fast.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to keep things in context, despite being constantly misquoted.
> 
> OK. If you are so sure of that perhaps you would care to list them for me because I know of none.
> :asian:


Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on.  I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury.  From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain.  Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions.  But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.  

The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> You still haven't answered my question. If you have spent a great deal of time in the pursuit and mastery of peace, harmony, blending, and mastering an art that at it's fundamental core teaches you to not harm your opponent......why would you...after doing that, pursue a competition that encompasses the exact opposite.
> 
> Think about that. When you can understand that......you will understand why you don't see competent aikidoka in MMA.



Well everyone doesn't train for the same reasons.

Hell, Steven Segal is a scumbag, and he's supposedly a highly competent Aikidoka. This despite him bullying people and allegedly raping his wife. If a guy like that can reach high levels in Aikido, a person wanting to win a trophy or belt should also be able to do so.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Wait. Kman.  I don't believe that in the universe of aikido practitioners, not one of them was not interested in competition.  The law of averages just doesn't support this.



In my 27 years of Rhee TKD I have known only 2 students who have left because they wanted to compete. The law of averages doesn't support that either but that is the reality. It is not hard for me to see why Aikido practitioners might not be interested either.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Well everyone doesn't train for the same reasons.
> 
> Hell, Steven Segal is a scumbag, and he's supposedly a highly competent Aikidoka. This despite him bullying people and allegedly raping his wife. If a guy like that can reach high levels in Aikido, a person wanting to win a trophy or belt should also be able to do so.



I think Segal is too much of a dick to use as any kind of example of any damn thing.  

I think the persona of an Aikidoka is different from that of an MMA fighter, as it should be. Just like you probably won't see a Buddhist getting in a food fight. Not that it won't ever happen, it's just not the right fit. And I know a whole lot of young guy fighters who always say they want to go into MMA, but they never do. I think it takes the right fit and the right kind of training - which is MMA training.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> What are you on about? Where did you get that stupid idea from? Certainly nothing I have posted.
> Finger locks would be less than half of one percent of Aikido. If grappling was removed from BJJ there wouldn't be much left.


Judoka sometimes sign up for BJJ competitions, both gi and no-gi.  I've even seen catch wrestlers put a gi on and try gi BJJ.  

Jiu Jitiero sometimes sign up for judo competitions.  Catch wrestlers, Jiu Jitiero and judoka compete in no-gi submission wrestling tournaments.  Sambo practitioners will join in sometimes, as well.  

All of the above move into and out of different rule sets.  And they are at no point trying to injure the other person, but they are trying to hurt them.  

I understand that the OP references MMA.  But, we've gone now down a slight tangent where we have a style which purports to avoid testing because it's against the philosophy of the art.  Doesn't that just feel odd to everyone?  

As I said before, it's just human nature, and while I could buy that the majority of aikidoka aren't interested in competition, it is unlikely to the point of being impossible that there are no aikidoka interested in competition or testing their art.  I completely understand and respect that MMA is its own animal.  But there are many venues where grappling skills can be tested and refined.


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc said:


> You still haven't answered my question. If you have spent a great deal of time in the pursuit and mastery of peace, harmony, blending, and mastering an art that at it's fundamental core teaches you to not harm your opponent......why would you...after doing that, pursue a competition that encompasses the exact opposite.
> 
> Think about that. When you can understand that......you will understand why you don't see competent aikidoka in MMA.


I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier.  What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD?  Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football.  In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect."    If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah.  Exactly.  That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.  



Buka said:


> I think Segal is too much of a dick to use as any kind of example of any damn thing.
> 
> I think the persona of an Aikidoka is different from that of an MMA fighter, as it should be. Just like you probably won't see a Buddhist getting in a food fight. Not that it won't ever happen, it's just not the right fit. And I know a whole lot of young guy fighters who always say they want to go into MMA, but they never do. I think it takes the right fit and the right kind of training - which is MMA training.


Buka, I agree regarding Segal!  

What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear.  I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice.  And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks. 

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.  



RTKDCMB said:


> In my 27 years of Rhee TKD I have known only 2 students who have left because they wanted to compete. The law of averages doesn't support that either but that is the reality. It is not hard for me to see why Aikido practitioners might not be interested either.


Why would they have to leave to compete?  I don't understand.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Steve said:


> Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on.  I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury.  From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain.  Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions.  But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.
> 
> The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.



Some might argue that 'the law of averages' is a non sequitur.

From wiki: "_Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence"._


----------



## Hanzou

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Some might argue that 'the law of averages' is a non sequitur.
> 
> From wiki: "_Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence"._




The other side of the argument would be why aren't there any MMA fighters or gyms incorporating Aikido into their curriculum? 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qE0OZm0HXRo

Throwing punchers on their heads would be a devastating skill in the Octagon.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier.  What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD?  Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football.  In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect."    If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah.  Exactly.  That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.
> 
> Buka, I agree regarding Segal!
> 
> What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear.  I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice.  And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.
> 
> Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.
> 
> Why would they have to leave to compete?  I don't understand.




I was having a look at tkd and I think it is separated into traditional and competitive. So it is a bit different to say a karate that can be both at the same time.
ABOUT


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> And I would just like to point out that I never said wrist locks were small joint manipulation and I never claimed they were outside MMA rules. As I have already posted what I said three times I am assuming you are just trying to annoy as I don't believe you are stupid. As to what you have posted here, it is mostly what I said, especially the last sentence.
> 
> i pointed out nine areas where normal Aikido practice falls foul of MMA rules. You made one up that I didn't list and, despite my clarification, you keep posting your words as mine.



So as a percentage of your total system what would the illegal moves be?

Personally I don't think it makes that much difference until you compare very different competitions. And I don't think is makes much difference if you have abbreviated your system. So say a kick boxer would have an easier time boxing than a boxer transitioning to kick boxing.

So it is not the skills you have but cannot use that gets you. It is the skills you don't have.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> I do believe that the test for the one inch punch was that a Ninja could knock someone out with it.



please PLEASE PLEASE!!! tell me you said this as a joke.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.



That there was beautiful.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear.  I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice.  And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.
> 
> Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.



So I've gotta ask: how do you know which it is, in other people?  and I don't mean the generic "you", I mean, "you, Steve".  How do you know what it is, in other people?  serious question.

What you've said is a fine statement to make, but please tell me how it is that you know?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> So I've gotta ask: how do you know which it is, in other people?  and I don't mean the generic "you", I mean, "you, Steve".  How do you know what it is, in other people?  serious question.
> 
> What you've said is a fine statement to make, but please tell me how it is that you know?


Hold on, FC.  I never said that I could, at least, not unless I witness an act of cowardice.  

Gandhi spoke often of cowardice, because he knew that in a campaign of non-violence, there was no room for cowards.  He spoke of it often, because non-violence is an attractive facade behind which cowards can hide.  For exactly the same reasons, people who train in a style such as Aikido should be vigilant.   "We don't want to hurt anyone," can very easily become, "I'm worried that what I've learned doesn't work, and I'm afraid to find out." 

My concern, as I've said many times now, is that without adequate preparation, the point of "finding out" is in a moment where the stakes are too high.  "Oh no!  I'm being mugged, and I can't apply the skills I've been taught!"

Gandhi said, 





> "I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing. "


----------



## Hanzou

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?

This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on.  I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury.  From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain.  Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions.  But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.
> 
> The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.


I think this post is a perfect example of a non sequitur.  I haven't been talking about either.  But seeing you make the point, yes, pain is probably the common factor in this discussion. Compliance rather than destruction is the objective in Aikido which is the opposite in philosophy to MMA. As to injury? I would suggest that at the elite level of every contact sport there is a very high chance of injury. Bas Rutten's arm is a prime example. Muhammad Ali's brain damage is indicative of what I am sure we will see much more of down the track in MMA fighters. One of our top football teams here was virtually non-competitive bt the end of the season with more than half their training list injured. So your statement that injuries are rare is false. In the relatively few tournaments I competed in I had broken bones three times. You don't feel it at the time but you sure pay for it later.

Your second example is non-sensible, not non sequitur. If Aikidoka as a cohort were interested in competing surely you would see them all lining up to try their skills. The fact that they are not would seem a pretty fair indication that MMA fighting was not high on their agenda.



Steve said:


> Judoka sometimes sign up for BJJ competitions, both gi and no-gi.  I've even seen catch wrestlers put a gi on and try gi BJJ.
> 
> Jiu Jitiero sometimes sign up for judo competitions.  Catch wrestlers, Jiu Jitiero and judoka compete in no-gi submission wrestling tournaments.  Sambo practitioners will join in sometimes, as well.
> 
> All of the above move into and out of different rule sets.  And they are at no point trying to injure the other person, but they are trying to hurt them.


 Why would that be a surprise? They all practise the same skill set.



Steve said:


> I understand that the OP references MMA.  But, we've gone now down a slight tangent where we have a style which purports to avoid testing because it's against the philosophy of the art.  Doesn't that just feel odd to everyone?


 It's not odd. It's just another example of style bashing that has been allowed to continue way too long.  



Steve said:


> As I said before, it's just human nature, and while I could buy that the majority of aikidoka aren't interested in competition, it is unlikely to the point of being impossible that there are no aikidoka interested in competition or testing their art.  I completely understand and respect that MMA is its own animal.  But there are many venues where grappling skills can be tested and refined.


Why when your art does fight on the floor would you want to test your grappling skills? I don't train any of my martial arts to get into a fight, on the ground or otherwise. I train them for different reasons. I don't train BJJ, although I would actually like to, for a number of factors. Firstly I haven't time, secondly I am too old to do it justice and despite your claim about no injuries perhaps you could tell my mates with their shoulder reconstructions that injuries are rare. 



Steve said:


> I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier.  What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD?  Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football.  In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect."    If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah.  Exactly.  That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.


 And I would say that this is style bashing as well. The implication is that certain styles are nothing to do with fighting. There are philosophies involved in all levels and styles of training. In junior football here, that is Australian Rules, they are talking about not allowing tackling in the younger age levels. I don't necessarily agree but I at least can understand the reasoning.



Steve said:


> What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear.  I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice.  And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.


And again, I would call this unashamed style bashing. Calling someone a coward because they don't want to fight is a form of bullying that takes me back to childhood.  I know a number of people who have given up karate to train aikido because they feel it is more effective. I have no doubt that highly trained Aikidoka have the necessary skills to defend themselves. It just takes longer to develop those skills than in certain other martial arts.



Steve said:


> Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.
> 
> Why would they have to leave to compete?  I don't understand.


So what exactly are you saying about Aikido with all this talk about cowardice?


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


> Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?
> 
> This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.



Absolutely. Without a doubt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice.  Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence. .



Agree! There is a difference between:

- to have the ability to do it, but don't want to do it, and
- don't have the ability to do it, but want to do it.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I'm sure he is talking about this:
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HB01hhonf8Q
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Qz99LrUAM
> 
> i.e. Catching someone's arm while their punching, gripping their wrist and putting them in a lock.
> 
> All of which is perfectly legal in MMA, and if someone could pull it off, they'd be elite level fairly easily.
> 
> Not all MMA matches are televised. In order to even get to the level of being on t.v. You have to fight in the lower leagues. UFC and similar venues are considered elite level. Only the too fighters get to fight on that level. The reality is that fighters using unorthodox methods like Aikido just don't make the cut for whatever reason.


So when you guys are teaching a new person to MMA submissions as in locks you put them straight into the ring. Even the title says basic. Because you have *no* practical experience outside of MMA you have no idea of the training methods of other styles.


Hanzou said:


> *Well everyone doesn't train for the same reasons.*


Hooray! At last you got the message!



Hanzou said:


> Hell, Steven Segal is a scumbag, and he's supposedly a highly competent Aikidoka. This despite him bullying people and allegedly raping his wife. If a guy like that can reach high levels in Aikido, a person wanting to win a trophy or belt should also be able to do so.


What has this to do with the OP. I have no idea as to the character of Segal but he is a competent martial artist. I'm sure there are examples of other fighters who might fall into the same classification. This type of character assassination would be in keeping with some of the other MA sites but it's sad to see it appearing on MT. 



Hanzou said:


> The other side of the argument would be why aren't there any MMA fighters or gyms incorporating Aikido into their curriculum?
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qE0OZm0HXRo
> 
> Throwing punchers on their heads would be a devastating skill in the Octagon.


i think you'll find that many of the locks and holds from Aikido are found in MMA. The fact that they are found in Jiu Jutsu and hence BJJ means that you don't need Aikido. But again, in bagging the training methodology of another art you are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge of what some training exercises are designed for, and I'm not going to get in a discussion here over 'receiving' as a training method.



Hanzou said:


> Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?
> 
> This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.


Again, I would call this style bashing!


----------



## Tez3

QUOTE=Hanzou;1654885]While true that MMA fighters train in multiple disciplines, it's also true that their primary art still defines their fighting style. Ronda Rousey for example had extremely weak striking when she entered MMA, but her expert level Judo skills filled the gaps in her striking ability and allowed her to be champion. Now she's been training in boxing to improve her striking ability, but that improved striking ability simply enhances her Judo abilities, because now she can set up Judo throws from strikes.

The same applies to guys like Chris Holdsworth, and Damien Maia who are mediocre strikers, but incredible Bjj stylists. 

 If someone was primarily an Aikido, Kung Fu, or whatever stylist, it would be very apparent, because they would be doing techniques never before seen in MMA. Like what Ronda Rousey is currently doing. No one was throwing people like that before she showed up on the scene.[/QUOTE]

That used to be true however these days most MMA fighters train from scratch, starting with no knowledge of any martial art, they train MMA. Time has moved on, the modern MMA fighter is  a different animal now. I don't know how many MMA fights you've seen over how many years, I've seen thousands of fights over more than 16 years and trust me I have seen a lot of people throw like Rousey, Judo and BJJ rather than wrestling has long been the core ground style in the UK and Europe. When I first went into MMA, Judo throws were my staple as it was with the others I trained with. I can name several MMA fighters off the top of my head who used throws long before Rousey came on the scene, Jimmy Wallhead comes to mind as well as Phil 'Billy' Harris. making 'statements' like that shows a lack of deep knowledge of MMA, well knowledge anyway. 
I will reiterate, Aiki techniques can and are used in MMA, just depends who the fighter is and if he needs a particular technique. The days of a single style fighter who then trains other styles is going, the up and coming fighters are all MMA and no single style.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So when you guys are teaching a new person to MMA submissions as in locks you put them straight into the ring. Even the title says basic. Because you have *no* practical experience outside of MMA you have no idea of the training methods of other styles.
> Hooray! At last you got the message!



I do Bjj, not MMA.  I was merely pointing out that those were examples of what Bas Rutten was talking about.



> What has this to do with the OP. I have no idea as to the character of Segal but he is a competent martial artist. I'm sure there are examples of other fighters who might fall into the same classification. This type of character assassination would be in keeping with some of the other MA sites but it's sad to see it appearing on MT.



Read the post I was responding to. Also Segal's character is pretty well known.



> i think you'll find that many of the locks and holds from Aikido are found in MMA. The fact that they are found in Jiu Jutsu and hence BJJ means that you don't need Aikido. But again, in bagging the training methodology of another art you are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge of what some training exercises are designed for, and I'm not going to get in a discussion here over 'receiving' as a training method.



While the locks and holds are similar, the method of getting people into those locks and holds are very different.  Why can't we see someone catch someone's punch and toss that person across the ring like we see in Aikido demonstrations?



> Again, I would call this style bashing!



I didn't mention any style, and I said "some" not "all".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?
> 
> This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.


I don't believe if you ever created a MA system in the ancient time that people would not challenge you. Back in the 70th, there was a guy named Li Ming-Hsing in Taiwan who created a new system called "7 skillful fist". He claimed that he could punch harder than Muhammad Ali since he could throw 7 punches in one second, and he believed if he added all 7 punches power as one, it should be more powerful than Ali's punch. Someone brought him to NYC. During a public challenge match, A tiger claw guy from NYC knocked him out within 8 seconds. I have never heard that's person's name since then. 

When you are young, you test your skill against other systems. When you are old, you send your students to test their skills against other systems. From your students testing result, you will know whether your teaching method is on the right track or not.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> So as a percentage of your total system what would the illegal moves be?
> 
> Personally I don't think it makes that much difference until you compare very different competitions. And I don't think is makes much difference if you have abbreviated your system. So say a kick boxer would have an easier time boxing than a boxer transitioning to kick boxing.
> 
> So it is not the skills you have but cannot use that gets you. It is the skills you don't have.


In all honesty, almost all of the finishing techniques. Without them you are relying on a limited number of submission holds. Most Aikido schools don't train or don't emphasise the real martial nature of Aikido. That is probably because of Ueshiba's profound change of attitude after the war. Daito Ryu was a particularly effective style of fighting and that was what Ueshiba received his teaching ticket for. He distilled the best of Daito Ryu into his style of Aiki Jutsu. With his change of philosophy a lot of the martial nature of Aikido has been lost, just has almost all of the martial aspect of Tai Chi. 

But back to your question. I would love to discuss the martial nature of Aikido further but this thread is not the place for that. I pointed out the different areas in an earlier post and reposted it once because it was being taken out of context. If you read that post you should see what I am referring to.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't believe if you ever created a MA system in the ancient time that people would not challenge you. Back in the 70th, there was a guy named Li Ming-Hsing in Taiwan who created a new system called "7 skillful fist". He claimed that he could punch harder than Muhammad Ali since he could throw 7 punches in one second, and he believed if he added all 7 punches power as one, it should be more powerful than Ali's punch. Someone brought him to NYC. During a public challenge match, A tiger claw guy from NYC knocked him out within 8 seconds. I have never heard that's person's name since then.
> 
> When you are young, you test your skill against other systems. When you are old, you send your students to test their skills against other systems. From your students testing result, you will know whether your teaching method is on the right track or not.



Yeah, I also remember hearing stories of traditional Jujutsu schools fighting each other constantly in old Japan. Like if you opened up a new dojo, the other schools would storm it and beat the crap out of you and your students. Also the prominent schools would have their best students fight in duels to see which school was superior.



> However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract your opponent or to unbalance him in lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw. *During the same period the numerous jujutsu schools would challenge each other to duels which became a popular pastime for warriors under a peaceful unified government, from these challenges **randori was created to practice without risk of breaking the law and the various styles of each school evolved from combating each other without intention to kill.*[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7]



Jujutsu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 I wonder what changed....[/SUP]


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I also remember hearing stories of traditional Jujutsu schools fighting each other constantly in old Japan. Like if you opened up a new dojo, the other schools would storm it and beat the crap out of you and your students. Also the prominent schools would have their best students fight in duels to see which school was superior.


We don't need to go that far. 

When the Gong Li system master Wang Feng-Ting open a Shuai-Chiao school in Taiwan back in the 70th, 2 Shuai-Chiao guys from another school went to visit that school. They first pretended to be just beginners, sat on the corner, and watch. When the teaching assistant (the school master wasn't there) asked if they would like to train with them, those 2 guys not only beat up all the students, they also beat up the assistant instructor. The assistant instructor went to tell the school master. The school master invited both guys to his house, pull them some tea with glass powder in it. Both guys had blood came out of their butts for the next 3 months. That school soon shut down.


----------



## Tez3

Doesn't anyone consider they are perhaps overthinking this MMA lark?   :idunno:


----------



## granfire

Totally OT, but OMG, TEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:inlove:


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Doesn't anyone consider they are perhaps overthinking this MMA lark?   :idunno:



That's crazy talk.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## RTKDCMB

K-man said:


> Your second example is non-sensible, not non sequitur.



Actually that would be a tautology (circular reasoning).


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> Why would they have to leave to compete?  I don't understand.



We are not a competition style. The philosophy of the school, you can't very well have "To put the art into use only for self defense and defense of the weak" on the pledge and then go out and fight people by choice.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?
> 
> This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.



The key word is SOME, as you have indicated.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> We are not a competition style. The philosophy of the school, you can't very well have "To put the art into use only for self defense and defense of the weak" on the pledge and then go out and fight people by choice.




Depends why you fight.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Depends why you fight.



Fighting is a choice, self defense is not.


----------



## Tez3

RTKDCMB said:


> We are not a competition style. The philosophy of the school, you can't very well have "To put the art into use only for self defense and defense of the weak" on the pledge and then go out and fight people by choice.




Well, as you are getting paid to fight it could be considered a job or career. It's consensual fighting which is different from going around bashing random people. You could say 'To use the art into use only for self defence, the defence of the week and to pay the grocery bills'.
The truth is, I suspect, that Aikidoka may not want to compete but there are some techniques in Aikido that MMA fighters can use to fight, not all will but they are there to add to the MMA arsenal if wanted. An MMA fighter has to have the arsenal at her disposal that suits her.  I'm saying her because TUF is on again shortly and I have two mates in it, Aish the Bash and JoJo Calderwood, so guess who I'm shouting on. Yep I'm boasting lol, but these girls are GREAT!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> The truth is, I suspect, that Aikidoka may not want to compete but there are some techniques in Aikido that MMA fighters can use to fight, not all will but they are there to add to the MMA arsenal if wanted.



I'm sure there's plenty of MMA fighters who could find use for the Ki push technique demonstrated by the founder of Aikido here;







All kidding aside, you're probably not seeing a whole lot of Aikido in MMA because its so difficult to find quality Aikido schools. 

Videos like this;






And the one of the founder of Aikido doing supernatural stuff isn't very encouraging.


----------



## Tez3

All kidding aside you don't see a great deal of anything in MMA, what you see is a whole of everything. You still seem to think that an MMA fighter stands there and thinks right I shall use a TKD move to counter this then a BJJ one then a MT one, then I'll karate kick and a JKD punch. It simply isn't like that, you can rarely pick one technique out from another even when it's grappling, the techniques can come from BJJ, JJ, Judo and wrestling intermingled and mixed up. A techniques from Aikido isn't going to be a stand alone one, it will be mixed it perhaps tweaked a little.
I don't know what you have against Aikido, it doesn't sound very rational to keep going on about it. I've seen a couple of Aiki techniques used, our fighters were shown them at a seminar we went to. Fighters will utilise all and any technique from where ever. Some styles lend themselves to 'donating' more techniques than others but all styles have something to offer someone. 
Incidentally on the subject of Judo, here Olympic Judoka Neil Addams has done Judo for MMA for a number of years, they are very popular too. Iain Abernethy a karateka (he's also a Judoka btw) renowned for his Bunkai seminars will often in his seminars point out a technique from kata that is useful for MMA (of which he is a fan btw) especially if I'm there lol.
I get that you don't like Aikido much but you are wrong about using techniques from it in MMA, not all but there are some, if people want to use them.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> Actually that would be a tautology (circular reasoning).


LOL.  You're right.  Kman's argument was circular.  My mistake.  It remains a fallacious argument.  I'm getting the impression, however, that you and others think it was MY reasoning.  It was not.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> All kidding aside you don't see a great deal of anything in MMA, what you see is a whole of everything. You still seem to think that an MMA fighter stands there and thinks right I shall use a TKD move to counter this then a BJJ one then a MT one, then I'll karate kick and a JKD punch. It simply isn't like that, you can rarely pick one technique out from another even when it's grappling, the techniques can come from BJJ, JJ, Judo and wrestling intermingled and mixed up. A techniques from Aikido isn't going to be a stand alone one, it will be mixed it perhaps tweaked a little.



Again, I can see the primary art of a fighter peeking through when they fight. Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that Ronda Rousey fights like the typical MMA female fighter? She's dominating right now because of her Judo abilities, and you can see those abilities at work whenever she fights. That's because 80%-85% of her martial arts experience comes from Judo. The reason the other female fighters look fairly similar to one another, while Rousey looks like she is from another martial planet is because they're all coming from boxing/kickboxing, Wrestling, and Bjj backgrounds. They don't know how to counter Rousey's Judo because they never had to deal with it before she showed up on the scene.



> I don't know what you have against Aikido, it doesn't sound very rational to keep going on about it. I've seen a couple of Aiki techniques used, our fighters were shown them at a seminar we went to.



A seminar is different than in the cage. Again, Rousey was able to modify Judo because Judo's already existing training mechanism made it possible for that transition to take place. You just needed someone to be willing to modify it, and that modification simply required going from gi to no-gi. If you know how to throw a fully resisting opponent with a gi on, throwing someone without the gi is simply a matter of modifying your grips. We do the exact same thing in Bjj in no-gi competition. The fact that Judokas are now doing it is an awesome thing to see.

I have nothing against Aikido, I just simply don't believe that Aikido works in the octagon for the exact reason Bas Rutten said it wouldn't work.


----------



## Tez3

Gosh, is a seminar really different from the cage, wow nearly 20 years in MMA ( and 20 more in MA) and I never knew! 

Rousey is the poster girl for the UFC which I assume is the only promotion you watch. Honestly how many female MMA fighters have you watched over the years? We had a female fighter, several years ago who was a black belt Judoka, she was very good winning a UK title in MMA, yes Judo throws and all, unfortunately she was also in the Army and went off to Iraq and Afghanistan so didn't pursue her MMA career, Rousey's fighting isn't unique at all. People think it is because she's the first female in the UFC to use it, other female fighters around the world notably Japan have been fighting like her or should I say she's been fighting like them. Rousey is 'dominating' right now because her opponents are picked carefully as to be honest are most of the UFC fighters, it is after all a business and they aim to make money, putting her in with a fighter who will beat her isn't on the agenda. Yes she's good but she's not unique far from it. She's a product of the UFC factory. Judo has been used in MMA for years, Rousey isn't the first and people aren't doing Judo because of her. Judo has been a primary art for many fighters here for years. The UK doesn't have the background of wrestling there is in the states so it's always been Judo and then BJJ here. Obviously Japan has always been into Judo lol.
More and more there is no primary style for MMA fighters, several years ago young teenagers were coming into the gyms knowing nothing so were taught MMA, those kids are of age now and you will see no 'primary' style anymore when they fight.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Gosh, is a seminar really different from the cage, wow nearly 20 years in MMA ( and 20 more in MA) and I never knew!
> 
> Rousey is the poster girl for the UFC which I assume is the only promotion you watch. Honestly how many female MMA fighters have you watched over the years? We had a female fighter, several years ago who was a black belt Judoka, she was very good winning a UK title in MMA, yes Judo throws and all, unfortunately she was also in the Army and went off to Iraq and Afghanistan so didn't pursue her MMA career, Rousey's fighting isn't unique at all. People think it is because she's the first female in the UFC to use it, other female fighters around the world notably Japan have been fighting like her or should I say she's been fighting like them. Rousey is 'dominating' right now because her opponents are picked carefully as to be honest are most of the UFC fighters, it is after all a business and they aim to make money, putting her in with a fighter who will beat her isn't on the agenda. Yes she's good but she's not unique far from it. She's a product of the UFC factory. Judo has been used in MMA for years, Rousey isn't the first and people aren't doing Judo because of her. Judo has been a primary art for many fighters here for years. The UK doesn't have the background of wrestling there is in the states so it's always been Judo and then BJJ here. Obviously Japan has always been into Judo lol.
> More and more there is no primary style for MMA fighters, several years ago young teenagers were coming into the gyms knowing nothing so were taught MMA, those kids are of age now and you will see no 'primary' style anymore when they fight.



Okay, but my point wasn't really about Rousey being a pioneer, it was about her fighting style looking very different from existing fighters in her league (Strikeforce and UFC) because of her Judo background.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but my point wasn't really about Rousey being a pioneer, it was about her fighting style looking very different from existing fighters in her league (Strikeforce and UFC) because of her Judo background.



Well she may be unusual for America but certainly not anywhere else.


----------



## Tez3

From   thedifficultway.blogspot.co.uk  

"

I think the answer to this lies in several structural issues. The main one being that the MMA promotion that the overwhelming majority of us English speakers watch is the UFC. The UFC as an American franchise draws a large quantity of its fighters from the American population, unsurprisingly. Although Brazil is also a major &#8216;supplier&#8217; of fighters. However, the American nature of the UFC has a relevance to Judo. America is a minor Judo nation, it is utterly dwarfed by the big Asian powers of Japan and Korea and the European big beasts of Russia, France, Holland and Germany. Also America has a very small practicing Judo population with a small elite talent pool. By contrast America has a massive wrestling talent pool, a world class wrestling talent development framework and world class coaches across the country. It is then unsurprising that an American MMA promotion like the UFC produces many more fighters with a wrestling background than Judo one. If you look to MMA promotions in Japan, Russia, Brazil and France you will find a much higher profile of Judoka being successful, because all these countries have in place what America has in place for wrestling, but not Judo. It&#8217;s interesting to note that some of the most famous Brazilian fighters have Judo black belts &#8211; Silva, Silva and Nogueira &#8211; and that in Brazil Judo is one of the most popular sports, more popular than BJJ."


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Well she may be unusual for America but certainly not anywhere else.


Tez, the salient point is that her judo shines because it is her base art.  Similarly, wrestling shines when the athlete's base is firmly established in wrestling.   Machida's karate is apparent in his style of MMA because he is firmly entrenched in his base art.  

Any high level MMAist will be well trained in multiple arts, but the base tends to shine through.  We can presume that the same would be true for other arts.  Cung Le's san shou was apparent.  A skilled aikidoka would very likely LOOK like an aikidoka.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Tez, the salient point is that her judo shines because it is her base art.  Similarly, wrestling shines when the athlete's base is firmly established in wrestling.   Machida's karate is apparent in his style of MMA because he is firmly entrenched in his base art.
> 
> Any high level MMAist will be well trained in multiple arts, but the base tends to shine through.  We can presume that the same would be true for other arts.  Cung Le's san shou was apparent.  A skilled aikidoka would very likely LOOK like an aikidoka.



If they have a base art, it's getting less and less likely that fighters do these days as they train MMA from knowing no martial arts. However Hanzou's original assertion was that no one used Judo or had it as a base art until Rousey, that simply isn't true which is why I posted what I did. He was also sure no one used Aiki techniques which again is simply not true. It may be true that Aikidoka don't compete but it is true that there are techniques to be had from Aiki. That's my points.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Come on guy's and gal's*.  Not every system is designed to step into a cage.  Aikido is a receiving system meaning that it counter attacks after an attack happens. (ie. grab, strike)  In mma there is of course some counter fighting but really almost every mma athlete goes into the cage with offensive striking and offensive minded takedowns.  Nobody is grabbing them to start and the mind set is go and knockout the other guy and or submit him.   Aikido is designed to defend against someone trying to grab, strike, etc.  It is a system that I title a "receiving" system meaning they are waiting on their attacker and then defend against the attack.  It is designed for some thing else other than fighting in a cage and it has been used successfully in this area.

*
We are debating, arguing some thing that we are not going to come to a conclusion on.*  Why, because not every TMA was designed with a one on one mutual fight in mind.  Some were designed for battlefield combat, self-defense, some have that sporting aspect, etc.  MMA is designed exactly for the cage and utilizes techniques drawn from a wide range of TMA systems.  It is good in the cage because well that is what it is designed for.  Both can work for what they are designed for.  TMA's have been very successful for self-defense and personal protection.  Some have done well in the cage as well.  MMA is an exceptional system for one on one mutual combat and it absolutely has cross over to be utilized for personal protection on the street.  

*I am sure we will continue the never ending debate here! *


----------



## Steve

Brian, you make some very good points.   I, for one, am enjoying the conversation.  I don't expect to come to any conclusions, but as long as everyone is generally polite and respectful, I think the back and forth is enjoyable.  

And, by the way, I'm right and you are wrong... so, there's that.


----------



## Tames D

Tez3 said:


> Well she may be unusual for America but certainly not anywhere else.



Here we go again... America vs the world. I never thought she is unusual, and I'm in America.


----------



## Tez3

Tames D said:


> Here we go again... America vs the world. I never thought she is unusual, and I'm in America.



Really? I put up an explanation, a very good one I thought and not even mine, on the regional differences between countries, nothing to do with country v country. I don't suppose you do find it unusual but then the comment wasn't aimed at you but at someone who did and said that she was unique. Thank you however for proving my point that she's not unusual.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Really? I put up an explanation, a very good one I thought and not even mine, on the regional differences between countries, nothing to do with country v country. I don't suppose you do find it unusual but then the comment wasn't aimed at you but at someone who did and said that she was unique. Thank you however for proving my point that she's not unusual.



Yet you yourself said that Judo isn't prevalent in America, so American MMA fighters are going to be coming from Wrestling backgrounds instead of Judo backgrounds like Rousey. 

So obviously Rousey is unique in American MMA. Why? Because her base style is different than the base style of American MMA fighters.


----------



## mook jong man




----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on.  I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury.  From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain.  Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions.  But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.
> 
> The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.





Steve said:


> LOL.  You're right.  Kman's argument was circular.  My mistake.  It remains a fallacious argument.  I'm getting the impression, however, that you and others think it was MY reasoning.  It was not.


My argument was that a large part of martial Aikido lies out side the rules of MMA competition. I have posted several times purely to stop one part of the whole of that being quoted out of context. That is hardly circular and was posted multiple times because of the trolling that is occurring. 



> fal·la·cy   (fl-s)
> n. pl. fal·la·cies
> 1. A false notion.
> 2. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
> 3. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
> 4. The quality of being deceptive.
> [Alteration of Middle English fallace, from Old French, from Latin fallcia, deceit, from fallx, fallc-, deceitful, from fallere, to deceive.]


So what is the fallacy? 

Was it where you introduced pain and injury for the first time in a way that is demonstrably false_ (while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare)?

_Or was it where I said that if people wanted to compete they were free to do so but the fact is they choose not to?

Now as to the use of English or more precisely Latin translating into English. Non sequitur means 'it does not follow'. Your first point has nothing to do with anything I said. Certainly it didn't follow in the context of the discussion, but that is your arguement, not mine.

The second part is patently obvious. If you can show me Aikido guys crying in the corner because they can't compete in a pissing competition I'll agree with you. 

Anyway let's get back to the style bashing. We've had WC, we've done Aikido, we've had a go at Boztepe, we've accused Seagal of raping his wife, now we're on to busting Ueshiba as a fraud, and all in the context of why TMAs have more difficulty in the ring. Good work! I think I'll pop over to Bullshido to get away from the crap.


----------



## Steve

It was the circular argument.   Don't get so defensive.  Wall of text is just camo. 

Edit:  Just to add a little more, the hurt/injury thing was to distinguish between the two.  Someone (and if it comes down to it, I'll go back and look who it was) said something about aikidoka not wanting to hurt anyone.  I was pointing out that Aikido training looks like it hurts plenty.

And, serious injury, while possible, is actually pretty unlikely in most competitions, which I believe is still largely true in the universe of martial arts competitions, including MMA. 

Someone's circular argument (I thought it was you, but I could go back and look) was that the reason we don't see aikido represented in competition is because no aikidoka would compete.  

Whenever anyone starts quoting the dictionary, it's a sure sign they're taking things personally.  

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Yet you yourself said that Judo isn't prevalent in America, so American MMA fighters are going to be coming from Wrestling backgrounds instead of Judo backgrounds like Rousey.
> 
> So obviously Rousey is unique in American MMA. Why? Because her base style is different than the base style of American MMA fighters.




Your statements are always 'all' or 'nothing'. _Most_ American MMA fighters come from a wrestling background however some come from a BJJ one as well as a Judo one. However fighters with a base of Judo aren't unknown in the UFC, Werdum, Anderson Silva, Okami, Lombard, Maia, Mizugaku, Jussier da Silva to name a few all have more than a good grounding in Judo. Rousey isn't unusual at all.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Your statements are always 'all' or 'nothing'. _Most_ American MMA fighters come from a wrestling background however some come from a BJJ one as well as a Judo one. However fighters with a base of Judo aren't unknown in the UFC, Werdum, Anderson Silva, Okami, Lombard, Maia, Mizugaku, Jussier da Silva to name a few all have more than a good grounding in Judo. Rousey isn't unusual at all.


While we've had many, and it's true that judo is well represented, can't you see that Rousey is currently the judoka who has most successfully displayed judo in the UFC?

Why are we bickering about this?  It's such a nonsense, trivial point.  

Up to this point, the person who had the best Judo that I can remember in the UFC was Karo Parisyan.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Your statements are always 'all' or 'nothing'. _Most_ American MMA fighters come from a wrestling background however some come from a BJJ one as well as a Judo one. However fighters with a base of Judo aren't unknown in the UFC, Werdum, Anderson Silva, Okami, Lombard, Maia, Mizugaku, Jussier da Silva to name a few all have more than a good grounding in Judo. Rousey isn't unusual at all.



Please show us a female fighter in the UFC that fights like Ronda Rousey (i.e. utilizing clear Judo throws and takedowns).


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> It was the circular argument.   Don't get so defensive.  Wall of text is just camo.
> 
> Edit:  Just to add a little more, the hurt/injury thing was to distinguish between the two.  Someone (and if it comes down to it, I'll go back and look who it was) said something about aikidoka not wanting to hurt anyone.  I was pointing out that Aikido training looks like it hurts plenty.
> 
> And, serious injury, while possible, is actually pretty unlikely in most competitions, which I believe is still largely true in the universe of martial arts competitions, including MMA.
> 
> Someone's circular argument (I thought it was you, but I could go back and look) was that the reason we don't see aikido represented in competition is because no aikidoka would compete.
> 
> Whenever anyone starts quoting the dictionary, it's a sure sign they're taking things personally.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Firstly Aikido with its submissions does hurt. If I said that the objective in Aikido was not to hurt your opponent then I apologise, what I meant was in the sense not to injure an opponent. As to injury in MMA competition. I will sit that one out. The chance of cumulative brain damage is now under the microscope and joint damage is a real issue.

My arguement was, and still is, that the reason that you don't see Aikido people in competition is because they don't *want* to compete. You have misquoted my statement to make it circular.

As to taking it personally. Yes, I'm pissed off at the misquoting and style bashing that has continued unchecked throughout this thread.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Firstly Aikido with its submissions does hurt. If I said that the objective in Aikido was not to hurt your opponent then I apologise, what I meant was in the sense not to injure an opponent. As to injury in MMA competition. I will sit that one out. The chance of cumulative brain damage is now under the microscope and joint damage is a real issue.
> 
> My arguement was, and still is, that the reason that you don't see Aikido people in competition is because they don't *want* to compete. You have misquoted my statement to make it circular.
> 
> As to taking it personally. Yes, I'm pissed off at the misquoting and style bashing that has continued unchecked throughout this thread.


I think that you're presuming ill intent.  speaking for myself, if I'm misquoting anyone, it's because the thread moves so fast that I can't keep up.  I'm not a genius and I'm likely to make mistakes.  

For example, if you say that there have never been any aikidoka competing in MMA because no one who trains aikido is interested in competition, that raises several red flags for me.  It may not be a circular argument, but it sure does seem circular to me, even now, after you've cleared it up.


----------



## K-man

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Come on guy's and gal's*.  Not every system is designed to step into a cage.  Aikido is a receiving system meaning that it counter attacks after an attack happens. (ie. grab, strike)  In mma there is of course some counter fighting but really almost every mma athlete goes into the cage with offensive striking and offensive minded takedowns.  Nobody is grabbing them to start and the mind set is go and knockout the other guy and or submit him.   Aikido is designed to defend against someone trying to grab, strike, etc.  It is a system that I title a "receiving" system meaning they are waiting on their attacker and then defend against the attack.  It is designed for some thing else other than fighting in a cage and it has been used successfully in this area.



Could I suggest this is not entirely accurate. The receiving in Aikido is probably the most misunderstood aspect of the training. Receiving as in taking ukemi is a lesson in blending, something that I am not very good at for the obvious reason that I'm too old to throw myself around. Although it might be possible to escape injury by throwing yourself like you see in good ukemi, it is unlikely to occur in a real situation. The technique has to be slowed for it to happen. But the lesson in receiving is to counter the tendency to resist. Resistance makes everything a battle of strength while Aikido teaches us to circle around strength. This also enables reversals and the ability to utilise other offensive opportunities. 

In the main Aikido does wait for an attack but again that is not necessary. We sometimes use what I would call 'predictive response', the same as you see in karate bunkai. For example, entering with a back fist strike to the head reflexively will normally bring up the arm to protect or deflect. This gives us the wrist. That might be utilised in a situation where preemptive action is an option.

Now another Aikido myth is that it is designed to work against grabs. Yes it might work against grabs but in real life that is an unlikely situation. In a street fight no one is going to grab you by the wrist. The rationale for working from grabs is that you learn to ignore being held or indeed being impeded. It is an incredibly clever training methodology. Unless people have trained in Aikido they won't understand what I am getting at, but in being held I am learning to ignore the distraction so I can still enter. Another thing that causes ignorant comment is the downward knife hand strike that everyone loves to rubbish. It does annoy me when I see it performed in a sloppy way but there is a reason for its use. With a punch you can move aside and a committed punch will miss. It cannot track you so to speak. A downward knife hand can track you if you move aside before you should. Therefore you are learning to take your partner's centre while maintaining your own and taking them off the line.

And you are 100% right when you say it is not designed for cage fighting.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *We are debating, arguing some thing that we are not going to come to a conclusion on.*  Why, because not every TMA was designed with a one on one mutual fight in mind.  Some were designed for battlefield combat, self-defense, some have that sporting aspect, etc.  MMA is designed exactly for the cage and utilizes techniques drawn from a wide range of TMA systems.  It is good in the cage because well that is what it is designed for.  Both can work for what they are designed for.  TMA's have been very successful for self-defense and personal protection.  Some have done well in the cage as well.  MMA is an exceptional system for one on one mutual combat and it absolutely has cross over to be utilized for personal protection on the street.
> 
> *I am sure we will continue the never ending debate here! *


And this part I agree with totally. Just some people can't/won't see it.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I think that you're presuming ill intent.  speaking for myself, if I'm misquoting anyone, it's because the thread moves so fast that I can't keep up.  I'm not a genius and I'm likely to make mistakes.
> 
> For example, if you say that there have never been any aikidoka competing in MMA because no one who trains aikido is interested in competition, that raises several red flags for me.  It may not be a circular argument, but it sure does seem circular to me, even now, after you've cleared it up.


Perhaps what I should have said was 'very few' Aikido people are interested in competition. 

Let me put it another way. How many times do you see highly trained wrestlers fighting highly trained boxers? Why not? Because they are not interested in competing against boxers. Here are a couple who tried. But it doesn't invalidate the general statement.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y1Cx0ysQiM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQcium20Cdk

Then when you get too cocky
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3kucj_b_8

edit: I went back and found the original post.



K-man said:


> The philosophy of Aikido is not to *harm* your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.


OK so I went back and found what I actually said. I didn't say 'not to hurt'. I said 'not to harm'. Big difference.


And, my statement was not that nobody with an Aikido background won't ever fight in MMA. I said no one will go to learn Aikido if they want to fight in the ring. That is *nobody*. If someone wants to fight in the ring they will train in a sport that is designed to match the rules of the competition they want to compete in.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Please show us a female fighter in the UFC that fights like Ronda Rousey (i.e. utilizing clear Judo throws and takedowns).



 Steve, I'm not bickering, I don't care one way or another other than now having a Tom Jones ear worm.

Hanzou, let it go mate, you said no one did Judo in MMA until Rousey, it's obvious there are many who have and still do use Judo. that's all. :burp:


----------



## mook jong man

I dedicate this song to Tez.

[video=youtube_share;NjEE_1U0-8s]http://youtu.be/NjEE_1U0-8s[/video]


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Perhaps what I should have said was 'very few' Aikido people are interested in competition.
> 
> Let me put it another way. How many times do you see highly trained wrestlers fighting highly trained boxers? Why not? Because they are not interested in competing against boxers. Here are a couple who tried. But it doesn't invalidate the general statement.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y1Cx0ysQiM
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQcium20Cdk
> 
> Then when you get too cocky
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3kucj_b_8
> 
> edit: I went back and found the original post.
> 
> 
> OK so I went back and found what I actually said. I didn't say 'not to hurt'. I said 'not to harm'. Big difference.
> 
> 
> And, my statement was not that nobody with an Aikido background won't ever fight in MMA. I said no one will go to learn Aikido if they want to fight in the ring. That is *nobody*. If someone wants to fight in the ring they will train in a sport that is designed to match the rules of the competition they want to compete in.



We see wrestlers and boxers fighting all the time in Mma.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Hanzou, let it go mate, *you said no one did Judo in MMA until Rousey*, it's obvious there are many who have and still do use Judo. that's all. :burp:



Where did I say that?


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> We see wrestlers and boxers fighting all the time in Mma.


Can you give me some examples of a fights in MMA with a *highly trained* boxer taking on a *highly trained* wrestler. I would have thought that was totally against the whole concept of *mixed* martial art. Unless they have cross trained I doubt there will be many of either persuasion in MMA let alone fighting each other. 

Will Elite Wrestling Always Beat Elite Boxing in MMA? | Bleacher Report

Now Randy Couture would be the main guy I can think of as a wrestler but he also had boxing skills. He fought and beat James Toney in a classic mismatch. That fight was possibly one of the main reasons you won't have 'one trick ponies' in MMA.

In the main a good wrestler will probably outperform a good boxer but still doesn't invalidate my statement. There are very few highly trained wrestlers taking on highly trained boxers anywhere.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Can you give me some examples of a fights in MMA with a *highly trained* boxer taking on a *highly trained* wrestler. I would have thought that was totally against the whole concept of *mixed* martial art. Unless they have cross trained I doubt there will be many of either persuasion in MMA let alone fighting each other.
> 
> Will Elite Wrestling Always Beat Elite Boxing in MMA? | Bleacher Report
> 
> Now Randy Couture would be the main guy I can think of as a wrestler but he also had boxing skills. He fought and beat James Toney in a classic mismatch. That fight was possibly one of the main reasons you won't have 'one trick ponies' in MMA.
> 
> In the main a good wrestler will probably outperform a good boxer but still doesn't invalidate my statement. There are very few highly trained wrestlers taking on highly trained boxers anywhere.


Jens Pulver was a professional boxer with a record of 4-0.  He was, for a time, widely regarded as one of the best boxers in MMA.  He fought Uriah Faber, regarded as the best wrestler in the history of University of California Davis.  I'm not sure if he ever made All American, but he is an exemplary wrestler.  

Marcus Davis is a professional boxer with a record of 17-2-1 as a pro.  He has fought many very well trained wrestlers, but the match that comes to mind is against Melvin Guillard.  

Stephen Bonnar was a gold gloves boxer.  Vitor Belfort is a highly trained boxer with at least one or two pro wins.  Little Nog was the Amateur heavyweight champion of Brazil.  Holly Holms is a former champ and was 33-2-3 as a pro boxer, and was also a successful kickboxer.  ... there are many, many guys who compete in MMA who are "highly trained" boxers with professional records.  There are so many top notch wrestlers in the UFC, as well. 

I must not be understanding you.  Do you think MMAists are not "highly trained" in the various, discrete disciplines?


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Jens Pulver was a professional boxer with a record of 4-0.  He was, for a time, widely regarded as one of the best boxers in MMA.  He fought Uriah Faber, regarded as the best wrestler in the history of University of California Davis.  I'm not sure if he ever made All American, but he is an exemplary wrestler.
> 
> Marcus Davis is a professional boxer with a record of 17-2-1 as a pro.  He has fought many very well trained wrestlers, but the match that comes to mind is against Melvin Guillard.
> 
> Stephen Bonnar was a gold gloves boxer.  Vitor Belfort is a highly trained boxer with at least one or two pro wins.  Little Nog was the Amateur heavyweight champion of Brazil.  Holly Holms is a former champ and was 33-2-3 as a pro boxer, and was also a successful kickboxer.  ... there are many, many guys who compete in MMA who are "highly trained" boxers with professional records.  There are so many top notch wrestlers in the UFC, as well.



Jens Pulver, specialist boxer? No, he started out as a wrestler.
Lil&#39; Evil: The Jens Pulver Story | Bleacher Report

Uriah Faber, specialist wrestler? No, he is listed under BJJ, along with boxing kickboxing and wrestling.
Urijah Faber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcus Davis, boxer? Yes. But took up grappling before entering MMA.
Marcus Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melvin Guillard, wrestler? Sure, in college but actually ended up boxing professionally before turning to MMA. Also a brown belt in Judo.
Melvin Guillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen Bonnar, boxer? Well he is a BB in BJJ and TKD also lists Muay Thai and Wrestling.
Stephan Bonnar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vitor Belfort, boxer? Well he had one professional fight in 2006. He has BBs in BJJ and Judo and a blue belt in Shotokan.
Vitor Belfort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little Nog? Amateur boxer and 3rd degree black belt in BJJ.
Antônio Rogério Nogueira - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holly Holm? Started out boxing but lists boxing, kickboxing, Jiu Jitsu and Wrestling as her skills.
Holly Holm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The two things they have in common is that they are all listed as Mixed Martial Artists and they all train multiple disciplines.



Steve said:


> I must not be understanding you.  Do you think MMAists are not "highly trained" in the various, discrete disciplines?


I believe champion MMAs are highly trained in all aspects of the areas in which they fight. Understandably they train all areas to be competitive. 

If you go back through the thread you will find the inane suggestion that even though every other MMA fighter trains all aspects of MMA fighting that an Aikido guy without any additional training should be able to step into the ring with them. The same BS was put up for WC also. Once the Aikidoka takes additional training to compete then that is evidence that Aikido is useless as a martial art.


----------



## Steve

for the love of Pete, k-man.  You asked for "highly trained" boxers vs "highly trained" wrestlers.  I answered your question.  I provided several examples of "highly trained" boxers vs "highly trained' wrestlers.  

Grow up.  Remove the chip from your shoulder, stop acting like a bloody victim and then maybe we can have a decent conversation.  You're instigating trouble, and then complaining about it when you start it.  You ask leading questions like the one above, and then when answered in good faith, you spend good time that you'll never get back saying what boils down to, "Aha!  Gotcha!"   Well, great.  It's dishonest.  And it's a disingenuous way to make yourself look like the victim when in reality you're actively picking a fight.  

Tell you what.  This may come as a shock, but I'm not interested in it.  I like honest discussions.  This isn't that.  Let me know when you are willing to take a breath, presume some good will, give other people the benefit of the doubt, speak plainly and say what you mean.  When you can do those things, maybe you'll find that you have much more in common with everyone in this thread than otherwise.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> If you go back through the thread you will find the inane suggestion that even though every other MMA fighter trains all aspects of MMA fighting that an Aikido guy without any additional training should be able to step into the ring with them. The same BS was put up for WC also. Once the Aikidoka takes additional training to compete then that is evidence that Aikido is useless as a martial art.



Who said that Aikido was useless? I was merely floating the theory that Aikido's (and Wing Chun's) training methods may make it less attractive for MMA exponents. 

If you notice, all the main styles of MMA have very similar training methods. Aikido and Wing Chun do not share those methods.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> for the love of Pete, k-man.  You asked for "highly trained" boxers vs "highly trained" wrestlers.  I answered your question.  I provided several examples of "highly trained" boxers vs "highly trained' wrestlers.
> 
> Grow up.  Remove the chip from your shoulder, stop acting like a bloody victim and then maybe we can have a decent conversation.  You're instigating trouble, and then complaining about it when you start it.  You ask leading questions like the one above, and then when answered in good faith, you spend good time that you'll never get back saying what boils down to, "Aha!  Gotcha!"   Well, great.  It's dishonest.  And it's a disingenuous way to make yourself look like the victim when in reality you're actively picking a fight.
> 
> Tell you what.  This may come as a shock, but I'm not interested in it.  I like honest discussions.  This isn't that.  Let me know when you are willing to take a breath, presume some good will, give other people the benefit of the doubt, speak plainly and say what you mean.  When you can do those things, maybe you'll find that you have much more in common with everyone in this thread than otherwise.


You see I would say you took my request out of context yet again. If you looked at the point I am trying to make instead of posting stuff that is totally irrelevant you might not feel so frustrated. I am purely speaking against the absurd proposition that a traditional martial artist should be able to just enter an MMA championship with no other training. I picked wrestling and boxing as an example because they are both competition sports that potentially could compete one on one. I even posted an example of when it actually happened. I thought there may have been other instances that you knew of, hence a polite request, not a demand like you will see time after time in other posts.

As to whether your examples were highly trained boxers vs highly trained wrestlers. No, not one example. Just highly trained MMA vs highly trained MMA. Not one was fighting as a wrestler and not one was fighting as a boxer. Yet an Aikido practitioner is expected to fight as an Aikidoka.

Here was my question.



> Originally posted by *K-man*
> Can you give me some examples of a fights in MMA with a highly trained boxer taking on a highly trained wrestler. I would have thought that was totally against the whole concept of mixed martial art. *Unless they have cross trained I doubt there will be many of either persuasion in MMA let alone fighting each other. *


Every single one you listed has cross trained which is the exact point I have been making.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Jens Pulver, specialist boxer? No, he started out as a wrestler.
> Lil&#39; Evil: The Jens Pulver Story | Bleacher Report
> 
> Uriah Faber, specialist wrestler? No, he is listed under BJJ, along with boxing kickboxing and wrestling.
> Urijah Faber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Marcus Davis, boxer? Yes. But took up grappling before entering MMA.
> Marcus Davis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Melvin Guillard, wrestler? Sure, in college but actually ended up boxing professionally before turning to MMA. Also a brown belt in Judo.
> Melvin Guillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Stephen Bonnar, boxer? Well he is a BB in BJJ and TKD also lists Muay Thai and Wrestling.
> Stephan Bonnar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Vitor Belfort, boxer? Well he had one professional fight in 2006. He has BBs in BJJ and Judo and a blue belt in Shotokan.
> Vitor Belfort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Little Nog? Amateur boxer and 3rd degree black belt in BJJ.
> Antônio Rogério Nogueira - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Holly Holm? Started out boxing but lists boxing, kickboxing, Jiu Jitsu and Wrestling as her skills.
> Holly Holm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The two things they have in common is that they are all listed as Mixed Martial Artists and they all train multiple disciplines.
> 
> I believe champion MMAs are highly trained in all aspects of the areas in which they fight. Understandably they train all areas to be competitive.
> 
> If you go back through the thread you will find the inane suggestion that even though every other MMA fighter trains all aspects of MMA fighting that an Aikido guy without any additional training should be able to step into the ring with them. The same BS was put up for WC also. Once the Aikidoka takes additional training to compete then that is evidence that Aikido is useless as a martial art.



The areas in which they fight would be pretty non specific though. So striking grappling and groundwork. Does not have to mean boxing wrestling and jits. 

It could be chun and akido.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Who said that Aikido was useless? I was merely floating the theory that Aikido's (and Wing Chun's) training methods may make it less attractive for MMA exponents.
> 
> If you notice, all the main styles of MMA have very similar training methods. Aikido and Wing Chun do not share those methods.


And I would agree 100% with the proposition that Aikido and WC training methods make them less attractive for MMA exponents. I would go even further and say that in particular Aikido is totally unsuited to MMA. But that is not saying that Aikido is not a art that can be used in self defence.

As to whether someone said Aikido was useless, there's 30 pages to trawl through to find that.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> And I would agree 100% with the proposition that Aikido and WC training methods make them less attractive for MMA exponents. I would go even further and say that in particular Aikido is totally unsuited to MMA. But that is not saying that Aikido is not a art that can be used in self defence.



Well then comes the next question; What makes Aikido "totally unsuited" to MMA?


----------



## jezr74

I'd have to admit the vibe of this thread was a TMA bashing to me. And it came across that way very early on.

That's just my two cents.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> The areas in which they fight would be pretty non specific though. So striking grappling and groundwork. Does not have to mean boxing wrestling and jits.
> 
> It could be chun and akido.


Yes but they would not be a good fit. Obviously the first 'go to' would be BJJ for both to provide the ground game. For an Aikidoka, I would pick Muay Thai as well. There are not a lot of usable techniques in Aikido that you would use in the ring, pretty much as Bas said in an earlier post. I don't know enough of WC to suggest another component for them. I'll leave that up to *FC*. But the whole truth is, once you have done all the cross training required you are now a Mixed Martial Artist, not an Aikidoka or a Chunner. 

Starting from scratch, your boxing, wrestling and jits gives you all the basics. For me it would be BJJ and Muay Thai because that gives you the kicks as well. But here we come back to the same answer. These are all combinations of styles.
:asian:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well then comes the next question; What makes Aikido "totally unsuited" to MMA?


For a start, in these times there is not any one style alone that is suited to MMA competition so why would Aikido be any different? Then you look at the philosophy of Aikido and it hardly fits with the philosophy of MMA. You then look at the techniques employed in Aikido and what you don't normally see on video, or in demonstrations where people are throwing themselves spectacularly across the floor, are the finishing moves to the techniques of which a dozen or so, which is almost all of them, fall outside the rules of MMA. Please don't ask me to repost as I think they have been posted three times already. 

Why can't you just accept the fact that you aren't going to find Aikido practitioners in the MMA ring anytime soon.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> For a start, in these times there is not any one style alone that is suited to MMA competition so why would Aikido be any different?



Not a problem. Most Aikido practitioners, and martial artists in general already take more than one style. Steven Segal for example also has a belt in karate.



> Then you look at the philosophy of Aikido and it hardly fits with the philosophy of MMA.



There are competitive styles of Aikido. Shodokan Aikido immediately springs to mind. 



> You then look at the techniques employed in Aikido and what you don't normally see on video, or in demonstrations where people are throwing themselves spectacularly across the floor, are the finishing moves to the techniques of which a dozen or so, which is almost all of them, fall outside the rules of MMA. Please don't ask me to repost as I think they have been posted three times already.



The majority of Aikido techniques I've seen are perfectly legal in MMA.



> Why can't you just accept the fact that you aren't going to find Aikido practitioners in the MMA ring anytime soon.



Because it doesn't make sense.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Not a problem. Most Aikido practitioners, and martial artists in general already take more than one style. Steven Segal for example also has a belt in karate.



I think you would need evidence to back that claim. Certainly many martial artists do cross train, but definitely not most. I'm not sure that is at all common for people training Aikido as their primary art. None of our aikido guys cross train although we do have a few karate guys like me cross training in Aikido. I went to Aikido to improve my Karate skills but I also have a Systema and Krav background. Another friend training Aikido with me has a BJJ blackbelt plus extensive Karate and MMA experience but we are the exceptions. I would suggest most Aikido practitioners have only the one style and are not in the least bit interested in cross training. I haven't a single one from our Aikido school in my classes and we train in the same dojo.

But again, if I was fighting it the ring what would my style be? Aikido, Karate, Krav or Systema? Or would it just be MMA?



Hanzou said:


> There are competitive styles of Aikido. Shodokan Aikido immediately springs to mind.



I did already address that in an earlier post, and the competition there is nothing like any normal form of Martial Art competition. And, as I pointed out earlier, Ueshiba was against Tomiki introducing competition. Shodokan or Tomiki Aikido is only a tiny part of Aikido. 



Hanzou said:


> The majority of Aikido techniques I've seen are perfectly legal in MMA.



The techniques you see trained are all legal but if you read my posts you will see that is not what I was talking about. The techniques by themselves would be almost totally useless in the MMA context as Bas said in the video you posted. What you don't want to understand is that behind every technique is a finishing move if you wanted to escalate the level of violence. Possibly many schools don't train those. I don't know because I only train under one teacher. But we do train the finishes, or rather we make sure that we are in a position to finish if required. Those were the techniques I have posted three times. If you can't understand what I have written I would suggest your are being deliberately obtuse.



Hanzou said:


> Because it doesn't make sense.



To you.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Yes but they would not be a good fit. Obviously the first 'go to' would be BJJ for both to provide the ground game. For an Aikidoka, I would pick Muay Thai as well. There are not a lot of usable techniques in Aikido that you would use in the ring, pretty much as Bas said in an earlier post. I don't know enough of WC to suggest another component for them. I'll leave that up to *FC*. But the whole truth is, once you have done all the cross training required you are now a Mixed Martial Artist, not an Aikidoka or a Chunner.
> 
> Starting from scratch, your boxing, wrestling and jits gives you all the basics. For me it would be BJJ and Muay Thai because that gives you the kicks as well. But here we come back to the same answer. These are all combinations of styles.
> :asian:



Except that mmaers cross train in tma,s. They grade as high as any of the people who do not train mma. They are every bit the sub style.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I think you would need evidence to back that claim. Certainly many martial artists do cross train, but definitely not most. I'm not sure that is at all common for people training Aikido as their primary art. None of our aikido guys cross train although we do have a few karate guys like me cross training in Aikido. I went to Aikido to improve my Karate skills but I also have a Systema and Krav background. Another friend training Aikido with me has a BJJ blackbelt plus extensive Karate and MMA experience but we are the exceptions. I would suggest most Aikido practitioners have only the one style and are not in the least bit interested in cross training. I haven't a single one from our Aikido school in my classes and we train in the same dojo.



I think the point would be that an Aikidoka having a secondary or tertiary style isn't unheard of.



> But again, if I was fighting it the ring what would my style be? Aikido, Karate, Krav or Systema? Or would it just be MMA?



Whichever you would view as your primary style.



> I did already address that in an earlier post, and the competition there is nothing like any normal form of Martial Art competition. And, as I pointed out earlier, Ueshiba was against Tomiki introducing competition. Shodokan or Tomiki Aikido is only a tiny part of Aikido.



Every martial art competition has its own unique rule set. Competitive Bjj is way different than competitive Judo or Karate for example, yet both still compete in MMA competition.

Shodokan Aikido exists though, so the notion that competition goes against the philosophy of Aikido is false.



> The techniques you see trained are all legal but if you read my posts you will see that is not what I was talking about. The techniques by themselves would be almost totally useless in the MMA context as Bas said in the video you posted. What you don't want to understand is that behind every technique is a finishing move if you wanted to escalate the level of violence. Possibly many schools don't train those. I don't know because I only train under one teacher. But we do train the finishes, or rather we make sure that we are in a position to finish if required. Those were the techniques I have posted three times. If you can't understand what I have written I would suggest your are being deliberately obtuse.



I can't understand how techniques like these;














Couldn't be used in a MMA environment.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> I can't understand how techniques like these;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't be used in a MMA environment.





I'm sure that while those techniques are Aikido and are taught by Aiki instructors but I have also done them in Wado Ryu which also contains a fair amount of Juijutsu. 

One day, perhaps in some martial arts heaven people will accept MMA as being MMA and not keep looking to find styles that are good in MMA and calling other styles rubbish for it, the truth is, whether people like it or not there are techniques in just about every martial art that can be copied, used, adapted, whatever for use in MMA. Even weapons styles can because you can look at timing, movement, foot placement etc as being useful depending on your size, weight and preferences. Style bashing is boring apart from upsetting perfectly good martial artists.
People gravitate towards martial styles they can do firstly, I couldn't do Capoeira for toffee, that they can afford, that they enjoy training in. They may like competition, they may not, I'm sure if someone doing Aikido wanted to compete in MMA they would, I'm sure that if people doing Aikido wanted to do anything in any other style they would, why wouldn't they. If they don't why worry. 
MMA must be the only style that other stylists feel they can comment on and think they sound knowledgeable LOL. would non TKDists discuss over so many pages TKD? or would non weapons people discuss weapons so intently and argue so much about it, I think not. :argue:

MMA is also entertainment so I suppose people like to have a chunter about it. England's football team make a pig's ear out their time in the World Cup recently and every armchair critic let forth an almighty rant of what they should do, should have done and most importantly what they would have done if they had been England's manager. Same with MMA, because it's a mix up of styles anyone who has a style feels they know what works in MMA, more karate, more TKD etc, more wrestling they shout. 
The thing about MMA is that it's not one size fits all, each fighter, each person who trains will make the way they fight and what techniques they use personal to them, there's really good techniques that work for the big guys that I can't use, I'm too short, some I can use and they can't. could they techniques above be used, probably if someone wanted to, if it 'fitted' them. Perhaps not, quite honestly you can't say for sure yes or no, it will depend on the person using them. An MMA fighter might look at the videos and think they could give it a go or they may think it doesn't suit them perhaps they feel clumsy doing it or too slow, perhaps another would look at it and think wow if I just adapted that a bit I can do that. It's the fighter more than the technique that should be taken into account. Posting up techniques and saying they would or wouldn't work is a bit pointless, sorry if you don't agree. I've seen a terrific flying triangle choke that 'works for MMA' but it won't work for me or anyone above lightweight, I've seen techniques people say won't work in the cage being used successfully. It's individual which is something many of us enjoy. Match techniques to the fighter, don't just say this will work or that won't.
Okay the sun is shining I'm off to sit in my garden doing nothing as I'm now happily retired from work. Have fun peoples.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> You see I would say you took my request out of context yet again. If you looked at the point I am trying to make instead of posting stuff that is totally irrelevant you might not feel so frustrated. I am purely speaking against the absurd proposition that a traditional martial artist should be able to just enter an MMA championship with no other training. I picked wrestling and boxing as an example because they are both competition sports that potentially could compete one on one. I even posted an example of when it actually happened. I thought there may have been other instances that you knew of, hence a polite request, not a demand like you will see time after time in other posts.
> 
> As to whether your examples were highly trained boxers vs highly trained wrestlers. No, not one example. Just highly trained MMA vs highly trained MMA. Not one was fighting as a wrestler and not one was fighting as a boxer. Yet an Aikido practitioner is expected to fight as an Aikidoka.
> 
> Here was my question.
> 
> Every single one you listed has cross trained which is the exact point I have been making.
> 
> Is that clear enough?



Essentially, you accept no ownership?  It's all me.  I took you out of context.   And I posted stuff that is irrelevant to your point , in spite of being a very direct answer to what was a very direct question.  You played no part in being misunderstood.   You had nothing to do with it.   Just an innocent bystander.  Come on.   

If your point was that every professional mmaist cross trains, we'll no ****.   That's not a point.  I'd say that's a given.   That's a premise that I would guess every single person here takes for granted.  

I typically enjoy conversations like this.   I like the subject.  I learn something most times.   But this pervasive victim hood is a killer for me.   This constant framing of everything as though anything that isn't a compliment is an insult.   

You guys can have it.  I don't have the patience for it.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

I was looking for videos of flying triangles but came across this, posting it for a number of reasons mostly because if you look up Leigh he has videos of him doing techniques you wouldn't think would work but also because this video taken at one of our fight nights brings back memories. Leigh in his budgie smugglers and most of Gav Bradley his opponent who sadly died in a kayaking accident earlier this year. The walk in with the Butlins ( good fighters themselves, twins are MMA younger brother Andy a boxer) is giggle worthy,  the fight good natured, Leigh stood in when we were left without an opponent. You can say it's not up to 'UFC' standard but everyone enjoyed it, had a good time and basically that's what it's about. ( we did go on to have Bisping make his pro debut on the show though lol) RIP Gav.
Leigh Remedios vs Gavin Bradley - YouTube


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> I'm sure that while those techniques are Aikido and are taught by Aiki instructors but I have also done them in Wado Ryu which also contains a fair amount of Juijutsu.
> 
> One day, perhaps in some martial arts heaven people will accept MMA as being MMA and not keep looking to find styles that are good in MMA and calling other styles rubbish for it, the truth is, whether people like it or not there are techniques in just about every martial art that can be copied, used, adapted, whatever for use in MMA. Even weapons styles can because you can look at timing, movement, foot placement etc as being useful depending on your size, weight and preferences. Style bashing is boring apart from upsetting perfectly good martial artists.



Where's the style bashing? No one is calling other styles rubbish for not participating in MMA. This thread began because a poster stated that Bjj and other grappling arts had an advantage in the MMA format. To date, no one has come up with a logical reasoning why that is. Ironically, Aikido is also a grappling art, yet for some reason, the rules of MMA don't give that style an advantage, according to some, it actually gives it a disadvantage.

There are some interesting statements being made, and I would simply like to hear some logical reasoning behind those statements.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Where's the style bashing? No one is calling other styles rubbish for not participating in MMA. This thread began because a poster stated that Bjj and other grappling arts had an advantage in the MMA format. To date, no one has come up with a logical reasoning why that is. Ironically, Aikido is also a grappling art, yet for some reason, the rules of MMA don't give that style an advantage, according to some, it actually gives it a disadvantage.
> 
> There are some interesting statements being made, and I would simply like to hear some logical reasoning behind those statements.




Oi, the man wants logic. Okay once more for the man at the back. It's  about which techniques work for which fighter, it's not the style, it's not that one is better than another it's about what the individual fighter finds good to use. It's not 'Aikido works/doesn't work' or 'BJJ is/isn't' best it's about what a fighter finds best to use. Techniques are tools a fighter uses, he will take the best tools for him from whatever he finds. It really is that simple. *It's not the style that is best or not workable, it's all about the fighter. *


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Oi, the man wants logic. Okay once more for the man at the back. It's  about which techniques work for which fighter, it's not the style, it's not that one is better than another it's about what the individual fighter finds good to use. It's not 'Aikido works/doesn't work' or 'BJJ is/isn't' best it's about what a fighter finds best to use. Techniques are tools a fighter uses, he will take the best tools for him from whatever he finds. It really is that simple. *It's not the style that is best or not workable, it's all about the fighter. *



Again, where are you pulling this argument from? *No one* is saying this works or that works. *No one* is saying this style is effective while this style is ineffective. The argument is that some martial arts supposedly have an advantage in the MMA format, and others don't. MMA rules supposedly favor one set of martial arts, while it supposedly doesn't favor another set of martial arts. Hence the title.

Please stay on topic.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Again, where are you pulling this argument from? *No one* is saying this works or that works. *No one* is saying this style is effective while this style is ineffective. The argument is that some martial arts supposedly have an advantage in the MMA format, and others don't. MMA rules supposedly favor one set of martial arts, while it supposedly doesn't favor another set of martial arts. Hence the title.
> 
> Please stay on topic.



Oh dear. The argument that some martial arts have an advantage in MMA and some don't is not a good one for the reasons I've posted. The rules don't actually favour any one set of martial arts. I know the rules inside out backwards and forwards including those for am, semi and pro with variations for different promotions. I use them when reffing and judging. You don't have to believe me by the way I can't force you to be right.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear. The argument that some martial arts have an advantage in MMA and some don't is not a good one for the reasons I've posted.



The reasons you posted revolved around the accusation of style bashing, which didn't occur. However thank you for finally giving your opinion on the topic.

My personal theory is that training methods are the cause behind some styles being almost completely absent from MMA. Despite their differences, Boxing, Kickboxing, Bjj, Wrestling, and some types of karate have pretty similar training methodology; i.e. Lots of full contact sparring, and an active and open competition environment.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> The reasons you posted revolved around the accusation of style bashing, which didn't occur. However thank you for finally giving your opinion on the topic.
> 
> My personal theory is that training methods are the cause behind some styles being almost completely absent from MMA. Despite their differences, Boxing, Kickboxing, Bjj, Wrestling, and some types of karate have pretty similar training methodology; i.e. Lots of full contact sparring, and an active and open competition environment.



Sweetie, I didn't give any reasons for style bashing, you've obviously misunderstood my post. It's nice that you have a personal theory though. I do think everyone should have at least onepreferably more.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> This thread began because a poster stated that Bjj and other grappling arts had an advantage in the MMA format. To date, no one has come up with a logical reasoning why that is. Ironically, Aikido is also a grappling art, yet for some reason, the rules of MMA don't give that style an advantage, according to some, it actually gives it a disadvantage.
> 
> There are some interesting statements being made, and I would simply like to hear some logical reasoning behind those statements.



I can't speak for Aikido or TMA in general but I can speak for Chinese MA (CMA) in general. Here are some "logical reason" for CMA. Old Chinese saying said, "&#19977;&#24180;&#25331;&#19981;&#22914;&#24403;&#24180;&#36324; (you can Google this online) - 3 years of striking art training cannot match against 1 year of wrestling art training". 

I include the following original Chinese text and the translation (not a good translation). But the main point is the "training method". 

When the Chinese striking art systems (such as the long fist system) still works on the 

- stance, 
- footwork,
- solo form (striking into the thin air), 

the Chinese wrestling art system (such as the Shuai-Chiao system) already works on

- distance, 
- timing,
- contact, 
- utilize opponent's body weight.

I'm sure when the "striking art" adapt the "throwing art" training method, that old Chinese saying won't be true any more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&#19977;&#24180;&#25331;&#19981;&#22914;&#24403;&#24180;&#36324;&#21527; (Is it true that 3 years of form training cannot match against 1 year of wrestling training)&#65311;

&#36825;&#20027;&#35201;&#36319;&#32451;&#20064;&#26041;&#24335;&#26377;&#20851;&#12290;&#20256;&#32479;&#27494;&#26415;&#25331;&#27861;&#30340;&#32451;&#20064;&#37325;&#35270;&#22522;&#30784;&#12289;&#35762;&#27714;&#25353;&#37096;&#23601;&#29677;&#65292;&#35201;&#20808;&#32451;&#26729;&#27493;&#65288;&#39532;&#27493;&#65289;&#12289;&#32908;&#21147;&#12289;&#26580;&#38887;&#24230;&#31561;&#22522;&#26412;&#21151;&#65292;&#28982;&#21518;&#32451;&#22522;&#26412;&#25331;&#12289;&#33050;&#21160;&#20316;&#65292;&#25509;&#30528;&#25165;&#32451;&#22871;&#36335;&#65292;&#22871;&#36335;&#21487;&#33021;&#36824;&#26377;&#22909;&#20960;&#22871;&#65292;&#36825;&#19968;&#31995;&#21015;&#32451;&#19979;&#26469;&#21487;&#33021;&#24050;&#32463;&#22909;&#20960;&#24180;&#20102;&#65292;&#23398;&#21592;&#36824;&#26159;&#36830;&#19968;&#28857;&#23545;&#25171;&#32463;&#39564;&#37117;&#27809;&#26377;&#32780;&#25684;&#36324;&#30340;&#22522;&#26412;&#21151;&#35757;&#32451;&#27604;&#36739;&#23569;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#37117;&#24456;&#26377;&#38024;&#23545;&#24615;&#65292;&#23398;&#21592;&#24448;&#24448;&#19968;&#24320;&#22987;&#23601;&#20250;&#24930;&#24930;&#25509;&#35302;&#23545;&#32451;&#65292;&#20174;&#23545;&#25932;&#20013;&#23398;&#20064;&#25484;&#25569;&#36317;&#31163;&#24863;&#12289;&#33410;&#22863;&#24863;&#31561;&#65307;&#22240;&#27492;&#23601;&#21516;&#26679;&#32451;&#20064;1-3&#24180;&#30340;&#23398;&#21592;&#26469;&#35762;&#65292;&#25684;&#36324;&#35201;&#27604;&#19968;&#33324;&#27494;&#26415;&#30340;&#23545;&#25171;&#32463;&#39564;&#22810;&#24471;&#22810;&#65292;&#21487;&#35828;&#27604;&#36739;&#23481;&#26131;&#36895;&#25104;

Mainly with the practice mode. Traditional martial arts fist method of practice attention based, and emphasizes step by step, to first practiced pile step (horse), and muscle force, and flexible degrees, basics, then practiced basic fist, and feet action, then only practiced routine, routine may also has several sets, this series practiced down may has good years has, students also is even point rallied experience are no and wrestling of basics training compared less, and are is has targeted, students often a began on will slowly contact on practiced, from enemy in the learning master distance sense, and rhythm, ; On the same students to practice 1-3, wrestling, much more experience than the average martial arts sparring, can be very easy to crash


----------



## jks9199

Why don't some styles choose to compete or simply translate their "too lethal" stuff to legit targets and then go in and compete?

Lots of people are focusing on particular techniques.  Why can't you just use technique X?  It seems like it would be in the rules.  Or I can't use technique Y because it's a small joint manipulation/prohibited target/whatever.  The thing is... the technique isn't the art or style.  The strategy and principles that underlie the technique is the art.  Putting that another way -- it's not WHAT you do, it's WHY you do what you do.  Look, there's just only so many ways to cause your fist to collide with someone's jaw, right?  I mean, you can argue vertical fist vs horizontal or turned fist, you can talk about short/direct or looping/long... but really, you're going to come down to a pretty common technique, right.  But the way you deliver it, the angles and the tactics that let you deliver it... those are a lot more variable.  So, some styles aren't going to adapt to the setting of a competition.  Maybe they're strategies are based on dumping the other guy on the ground, then running away.  Can't do that in a cage... and it's bad sportmanship anyway.  So, sure -- the individual techniques found in one style or another may well be usable in the ring -- but the whole package of that style?  Maybe not.  By analogy...  Tires for a Corvette and a Chevette aren't all that dissimilar -- but you're not going to use them interchangeably.  Or maybe a better analogy would be 9/16 inch bolt.  They're all the same... but, again, they're going end up looking very different on the Corvette compared the Chevette.  Or a Formula 1 car.  Somehow, I don't think that Chevette's going to do well on a Formula 1 track... and the race car is going to suck on my daily commute.


----------



## Tez3

jks9199 said:


> Why don't some styles choose to compete or simply translate their "too lethal" stuff to legit targets and then go in and compete?
> 
> Lots of people are focusing on particular techniques.  Why can't you just use technique X?  It seems like it would be in the rules.  Or I can't use technique Y because it's a small joint manipulation/prohibited target/whatever.  The thing is... the technique isn't the art or style.  The strategy and principles that underlie the technique is the art.  Putting that another way -- it's not WHAT you do, it's WHY you do what you do.  Look, there's just only so many ways to cause your fist to collide with someone's jaw, right?  I mean, you can argue vertical fist vs horizontal or turned fist, you can talk about short/direct or looping/long... but really, you're going to come down to a pretty common technique, right.  But the way you deliver it, the angles and the tactics that let you deliver it... those are a lot more variable.  So, some styles aren't going to adapt to the setting of a competition.  Maybe they're strategies are based on dumping the other guy on the ground, then running away.  Can't do that in a cage... and it's bad sportmanship anyway.  So, sure -- the individual techniques found in one style or another may well be usable in the ring -- but the whole package of that style?  Maybe not.  By analogy...  Tires for a Corvette and a Chevette aren't all that dissimilar -- but you're not going to use them interchangeably.  Or maybe a better analogy would be 9/16 inch bolt.  They're all the same... but, again, they're going end up looking very different on the Corvette compared the Chevette.  Or a Formula 1 car.  Somehow, I don't think that Chevette's going to do well on a Formula 1 track... and the race car is going to suck on my daily commute.




and that's why it's called Mixed Martial Arts lol and not 'Karate and TKD and wrestling and boxing and judo and BJJ and Muay Thai and......' we don't use the whole package, we use bits of this and bits of that ( I suppose we could call it Bitsa Martial Arts) we see  things we think we can use often with a tweak sometimes without. No fighter uses all of any style, it was tried in the early UFCs, it had novelty but didn't stick around long for a variety of reasons. 

The other thing people often don't think of is that a fighter knows who he will be fighting so will turn his training towards fighting that person so his techniques may change according to the skills and weaknesses of his opponents. 

Competing in an MMA fight is usually something that an individual choses to do, often away from their own style if they have one. Their own style may not have competition, it may have points only or not be suitable for competition, there's a lot of reasons a person choses to fight, this makes MMA an individualistic sport. You have to step over a line if you like, to train and compete. 

I had to smile when I read the bit   "_Maybe they're strategies are based on dumping the other guy on the ground, then running away.  Can't do that in a cage..."  _I actually saw that some years ago, one fighter throw a very poor punch at his opponent, looked at him then dived out of the ring and was off! There was a silence then everyone just howled with laughter, which on reflection afterwards was probably rather cruel. Poor lad, it's really not a recommended technique to try though.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> I think the point would be that an Aikidoka having a secondary or tertiary style isn't unheard of.
> 
> 
> 
> Whichever you would view as your primary style.
> 
> 
> 
> Every martial art competition has its own unique rule set. Competitive Bjj is way different than competitive Judo or Karate for example, yet both still compete in MMA competition.
> 
> Shodokan Aikido exists though, so the notion that competition goes against the philosophy of Aikido is false.
> 
> I can't understand how techniques like these;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't be used in a MMA environment.


Your logic is truly inspirational. 

Shodokan, a tiny offshoot of Aikido, exists against the express wishes of the founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba and as a result the rest of Aikidoka should also compete, even if they have no desire to compete. :hmm:

I might have thought the philosophy of Aikido was more this ..



> Originally posted by *K-man*
> The philosophy of Aikido is not to harm your opponent so, in that spirit, who is going to go off to learn Aikido, which takes years to learn, so they can fight in the ring? The simple answer is nobody so you are never likely to find Aikido represented in an MMA competition. If someone has the desire to fight and test themselves against others in the ring, they will go to learn a sport that is best suited to the competition they wish to compete in.



OK, how about this? Mutants exist so that makes them normal and the rest of the population should be like them.
:hmm:

Or, Idiots exist so that makes them normal and the rest of us are ... <fill this space>.



> Originally posted by *Hanzou*
> How does someone not understand a martial art? I've been doing martial arts for many years, and I know technical skill when I see it.



Perhaps doing martial arts for many years doesn't equip everyone with that skill. Perhaps training in the sandpit for many years doesn't mean you know anything about what is happening in the school across the road. Perhaps people standing too close can't see the whole picture. Lots of answers to your question. But the more important question might be why do *you* not understand a martial art when people have been telling you about their martial art for the past 33 pages?  


Or, Bigots exist. Are they normal?  Bigots just cannot see anyone else's point of view or even acknowledge that people have a right to an alternate point of view. 

Now to address the three videos that you were kind enough to share. I'm not even going to repost the original because I have posted it three times already. Three times you haven't read it, you have ignored it or you haven't understood it. 
(I'll post the page. You can find it if you care .. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...mas-have-more-difficulty-ring-octagon-22.html   Post #319)
In that post I described the finishing action for a number of the Aikido techniques. These are all illegal under MMA rules as I point out one by one.

Video number one. Ikkyo, number one technique. Simple in theory but it took me over seven years to learn to do it on a non compliant partner. I know I'm a slow learner and I obviously have nowhere near your ability.  Why did your video not show the whole of the basic technique? 

Here's one that does ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVdY3AwlH_w

As you will see there is a painful pin at the end but that alone is probably not enough in an adrenaline fuelled environment to cause submission. That is unless you lift the wrist and break the elbow. 

So because you are having difficulty understanding I will summarise. Firstly it is an incredibly difficult technique to perfect, for me the hardest of all the Aikido techniques. It normally finishes in a painful pin sufficient in a SD situation but nowhere near what would be required in an adrenalin fuelled MMA competition. The only possible way it could be used is to break the elbow.

Video number two. Another great technique, not so difficult to learn but again difficult to apply. It is one of my 'go to' techniques in knife defence and I do teach it to my more advance Krav guys. Problem is, as it is shown in your video it will never work and again your video doesn't show the take down and finish.

Here's one that does .. How to Do Sankyo | Aikido Lessons | Howcast

Again it finishes in a painful pin that if continued will damage the elbow or shoulder so as shown could be used in MMA. In a life or death situation it will never go to the pin. In Krav i don't teach the pin. The finishing technique, not always taught in Aikido classes is the strike to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face after the cut down. Even if you did go for the pin, in real life the knee placed beside the neck is a knee drop on to the neck. 

Again so it is clear to you I will summarise. This is a practical technique but again difficult to apply against non compliance. It offers numerous opportunities to use disabling strikes right through the technique, most of which would be illegal in competition.

Video number 3. Really? A blue belt training randori as an example of what you might see in the ring? And you claim that you understand martial arts? 

OK! Here's one that does show an escape .. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6l1PY_MHzvs

Obviously this is used before the choke has been fully implemented but there are other escapes as well. And yes this could be utilised in MMA as the guy demonstrating states.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Your logic is truly inspirational.
> 
> Shodokan, a tiny offshoot of Aikido, exists against the express wishes of the founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba and as a result the rest of Aikidoka should also compete, even if they have no desire to compete.




Shodokan is still Aikido though. So yes, there is a form of Aikido that believes in competition. That contradicts your point that competition goes against Aikido's philosophy.



> OK, how about this? Mutants exist so that makes them normal and the rest of the population should be like them.
> 
> Or, Idiots exist so that makes them normal and the rest of us are ... <fill this space>.



Where did I say that Shodokan Aikido is "normal"? I was simply pointing out that there is a competitive form of Aikido. So if an Aikido exponent were to emerge in MMA, he or she would more than likely emerge from that branch of Aikido.




> Video number one. Ikkyo, number one technique. Simple in theory but it took me over seven years to learn to do it on a non compliant partner. I know I'm a slow learner and I obviously have nowhere near your ability.  Why did your video not show the whole of the basic technique?
> 
> Here's one that does ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVdY3AwlH_w
> 
> As you will see there is a painful pin at the end but that alone is probably not enough in an adrenaline fuelled environment to cause submission. That is unless you lift the wrist and break the elbow.
> 
> So because you are having difficulty understanding I will summarise. Firstly it is an incredibly difficult technique to perfect, for me the hardest of all the Aikido techniques. It normally finishes in a painful pin sufficient in a SD situation but nowhere near what would be required in an adrenalin fuelled MMA competition. The only possible way it could be used is to break the elbow.



Nonsense. People submit to arm locks all the time in MMA. If you're capable of breaking the elbow from that position, the person will tap instead of getting their arm broke.



> Video number two. Another great technique, not so difficult to learn but again difficult to apply. It is one of my 'go to' techniques in knife defence and I do teach it to my more advance Krav guys. Problem is, as it is shown in your video it will never work and again your video doesn't show the take down and finish.
> 
> Here's one that does .. How to Do Sankyo | Aikido Lessons | Howcast
> 
> Again it finishes in a painful pin that if continued will damage the elbow or shoulder so as shown could be used in MMA. In a life or death situation it will never go to the pin. In Krav i don't teach the pin. The finishing technique, not always taught in Aikido classes is the strike to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face after the cut down. Even if you did go for the pin, in real life the knee placed beside the neck is a knee drop on to the neck.



So you admit that that technique could be used in MMA, so what exactly are you arguing about?

And yes, I agree that these techniques seem very difficult to apply, requiring a high amount of timing and luck to pull off.



> Video number 3. Really? A blue belt training randori as an example of what you might see in the ring? And you claim that you understand martial arts?
> 
> OK! Here's one that does show an escape .. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6l1PY_MHzvs
> 
> Obviously this is used before the choke has been fully implemented but there are other escapes as well. And yes this could be utilised in MMA as the guy demonstrating states.



Yeah, that was kind of my point; There's nothing demonstrated by any of your videos that would be illegal in MMA.


----------



## Tames D

This thread is about 450 posts longer than it needs to be...  :lfao:


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Shodokan is still Aikido though. So yes, there is a form of Aikido that believes in competition. That contradicts your point that competition goes against Aikido's philosophy.


And F1 is a particular way of driving a car. The fact that 99.999% of people don't drive that way proves that your average person could step straight into F1 without other training? I think your logic is interesting.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that Shodokan Aikido is "normal"? I was simply pointing out that there is a competitive form of Aikido. So if an Aikido exponent were to emerge in MMA, he or she would more than likely emerge from that branch of Aikido.


Um, no. If anyone was to emerge from any form of Aikido it probably wouldn't be Shodokan. Their competition is nothing like MMA as you would know if you had any knowledge of Aikido. Perhaps you could read about the form of competition you are saying you would expect to see in MMA. Yeah right! That's going to happen ...not!



Hanzou said:


> Nonsense. People submit to arm locks all the time in MMA. If you're capable of breaking the elbow from that position, the person will tap instead of getting their arm broke.


What's nonsense? You posted a video on ikkyo, not arm locks. The fact that you would make the inane comment on arm locks proves you don't even understand what you posted. For goodness sake, anyone can apply an arm bar if the situation arose. You didn't post an arm bar, you posted ikkyo, the hardest technique in Aikido to master and then you write it off as an arm lock. Why you post about arts of which you have no understanding continues to amaze. The frightening thing is that, like Sherman you seem to be posting stuff you know nothing about, yet you act as if you do. 




Hanzou said:


> So you admit that that technique could be used in MMA, so what exactly are you arguing about?


Hmm! Yes right. What am I arguing about? Well for starters you posted a video as an example of a technique that could be used in MMA. The way your video showed it would not work so in fact it couldn't be used in MMA. Your video only showed half the technique, so again what you posted you would never see in any fight. I posted another video demonstrating the technique taught properly and showed you what and where the finishing moves are, almost all of which are illegal in MMA and you say that the technique could be used in MMA. You have a funny way of understanding.  



Hanzou said:


> And yes, I agree that these techniques seem very difficult to apply, requiring a high amount of timing and luck to pull off.


None of the techniques require luck. It might come as a surprise to you but fights aren't choreographed. I teach that you work with what you are given by your opponent. To suggest that you can pull off any given move in a fight is a nonsense. The techniques are not difficult to apply in the right situation, *if you know how* to apply them. With your experience, I agree, none of them would work.

Yeah, that was kind of my point; There's nothing demonstrated by any of your videos that would be illegal in MMA.[/QUOTE]Obviously English is not your first language. What about the point by point analysis on the post I asked you to read. Are you really suggesting that any of those finishes are legal?


----------



## K-man

Tames D said:


> This thread is about 450 posts longer than it needs to be...  :lfao:


True, but some people have more difficulty understanding than others.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> And F1 is a particular way of driving a car. The fact that 99.999% of people don't drive that way proves that your average person could step straight into F1 without other training? I think your logic is interesting.



Which really has nothing to do with the quote you were responding to. The point is that there is competition in Aikido, thus competition does not contradict the philosophy of all forms of Aikido.



> Um, no. If anyone was to emerge from any form of Aikido it probably wouldn't be Shodokan. Their competition is nothing like MMA as you would know if you had any knowledge of Aikido. Perhaps you could read about the form of competition you are saying you would expect to see in MMA. Yeah right! That's going to happen ...not!



Bjj competition is nothing like MMA either. So that point's pretty irrelevant.



> What's nonsense? You posted a video on ikkyo, not arm locks. The fact that you would make the inane comment on arm locks proves you don't even understand what you posted. For goodness sake, anyone can apply an arm bar if the situation arose. You didn't post an arm bar, you posted ikkyo, the hardest technique in Aikido to master and then you write it off as an arm lock. Why you post about arts of which you have no understanding continues to amaze. The frightening thing is that, like Sherman you seem to be posting stuff you know nothing about, yet you act as if you do.



Um, I was talking about the video you posted, and your comments afterwards. Not the one I posted.

The nonsense is that you think that you need to break an elbow in order for someone in MMA to submit to an armlock or a pin. Meanwhile, people submit to armlocks all the time in MMA without needing to snap elbows at all.

Like I said, nonsense.



> Hmm! Yes right. What am I arguing about? Well for starters you posted a video as an example of a technique that could be used in MMA. The way your video showed it would not work so in fact it couldn't be used in MMA. Your video only showed half the technique, so again what you posted you would never see in any fight. I posted another video demonstrating the technique taught properly and showed you what and where the finishing moves are, almost all of which are illegal in MMA and you say that the technique could be used in MMA. You have a funny way of understanding.



I'm pretty sure I said that the moves shown in the vids I posted would work in MMA as well. The fact that you feel that those vids were lacking in technique and applicability is a different issue entirely. The point is that we're both agreeing that the technique being shown can work in a MMA environment. So again, what exactly are* you* arguing about?



> None of the techniques require luck. It might come as a surprise to you but fights aren't choreographed. I teach that you work with what you are given by your opponent. To suggest that you can pull off any given move in a fight is a nonsense. The techniques are not difficult to apply in the right situation, *if you know how* to apply them. With your experience, I agree, none of them would work.



The day I see those techniques applied on someone who is legitimately trying to beat down an Aikidoka, I'll agree with you. 



> Obviously English is not your first language.



Is that really necessary?



> What about the point by point analysis on the post I asked you to read. Are you really suggesting that any of those finishes are legal?



Again, the finishes shown in the *videos *are perfectly legal. The stuff you're talking about wasn't shown in either the videos I showed, or you showed.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> videos [/B]are perfectly legal. The stuff you're talking about wasn't shown in either the videos I showed, or you showed.


No I'm about of here. You won't accept or even acknowledge any other point of view. You don't state your experience and you post crap. I believe you are just a troll.
:s406:


----------



## jks9199

Wow, folks... Maybe it's just time to simply agree to disagree.  There's a whole lotta heat here, and since I'm involved and not moderating the thread, maybe folks can take this as a clue before someone has to take official action.


----------



## Tez3

Saying a technique will work in MMA means nothing at all. Apart from the legalities of it, there's also the fact of whether a fighter can master the technique or not. Is it worth a fighter's training time to learn a technique? Can she/he use it easily? Can it be used without your opponent being specifically in one position, can it be used from different positions? How instinctive is it, are there variations I can do quickly.....these are things we think about when looking at techniques, not what style they come from or whether the stylists are allowed to fight or don't have competitions. Look at the videos and ask yourself what will I gain in a fight if I can do these techniques? Does it work for ME? They are the only questions that matters.

TMA's don't have difficulties in MMA, they are MMA.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Steve said:


> LOL.  You're right.  Kman's argument was circular.  My mistake.  It remains a fallacious argument.  I'm getting the impression, however, that you and others think it was MY reasoning.  It was not.



I wasn't implying or asserting anything, merely correcting the use of terms.


----------



## Cirdan

Tez3 said:


> TMA's don't have difficulties in MMA, they are MMA.



That about sums it up, not only this thread but several others.


----------



## Hanzou

Cirdan said:


> That about sums it up, not only this thread but several others.



Actually it doesn't, because it is a verifiablly false statement.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Actually it doesn't, because it is a verifiablly false statement.



If you say so. I think we are all tired of the argument for this year, last year's TMA V MMA wasn't too bad, the year before was a shocker, 2005s was boring. Perhaps next years will be different, no I'm joking it won't. :toilclaw:


----------



## Tez3

Wise words.

&#8220;Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it&#8217;s yours.&#8221;
Carl Sagan


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Wise words.
> 
> &#8220;Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it&#8217;s yours.&#8221;
> Carl Sagan


Something we could all stand to remember.  Human nature, though, is that some here who need this reminder don't recognize it.  And some here who don't need this reminder will take it too much to heart.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Tez3 said:


> If you say so. I think we are all tired of the argument for this year, last year's TMA V MMA wasn't too bad, the year before was a shocker, 2005s was boring. Perhaps next years will be different, no I'm joking it won't. :toilclaw:



Same time next year then folks?


----------



## Cirdan

Hanzou said:


> Actually it doesn't, because it is a verifiablly false statement.



Let go of the dead horsie, it is in a better place now. You can dig the bones up for a little rant next year if you like, as Tez and Honk Kong Pooey suggest. Promise I`ll be here.


----------



## Hanzou

Cirdan said:


> Let go of the dead horsie, it is in a better place now. You can dig the bones up for a little rant next year if you like, as Tez and Honk Kong Pooey suggest. Promise I`ll be here.



Let me help you out; 

The statement that TMAs don't have difficulty in MMA because they are MMA is a false statement because MMA is made up almost entirely of modern martial arts and martial sports.


----------



## Tez3

Cirdan, I don't suppose you have Thor Hushovd's address by any chance? :boing2:Oh well I can dream, he is a bit young for me anyway. Loved the Artic Tour, I want a house up there even in the winter I reckon it would be good.

Not off topic just bored of the flogging the dead horse thing! anyway pro bike riders fight too lol two of them were fighting in the Vuelta, cycling uphill trading blows, perhaps a new twist for MMA....on bikes!


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Cirdan, I don't suppose you have Thor Hushovd's address by any chance? :boing2:Oh well I can dream, he is a bit young for me anyway. Loved the Artic Tour, I want a house up there even in the winter I reckon it would be good.
> 
> Not off topic just bored of the flogging the dead horse thing! anyway pro bike riders fight too lol two of them were fighting in the Vuelta, cycling uphill trading blows, perhaps a new twist for MMA....on bikes!



If you have no desire to discuss this topic, stop trolling in it. 

Thanks.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> If you have no desire to discuss this topic, stop trolling in it.
> 
> Thanks.



Dear boy, if anyone is trolling it is not I. The debate has run it's course...again. I was only half joking when I said the MMA v TMA argument turns up every year, it does. Sometimes it's that MMA is nasty and brutish and only 'TMA' is the right way, sometimes like this it's that 'TMAs' are pants and MMA is the future. Rarely does either side listen to anything other than what they believe to be true.

I'm sure you are a very good martial artist in your style however I do believe my MMA knowledge over the past 16 years or so may mean I have the edge when talking about it, I imagine you will disagree but so be it. I have done every job there is to do in MMA, from building cages and rings to reffing, cornering and judging. _More importantly_ I have trained and also coached fighters, I've had the benefit of training with some of the most experienced martial artists both TMA and MMA in the UK and we have explored the nuances and techniques of just about every style there is. I was asked to be a consultant of a BBC documentary on female fighters featuring Lisa Higo and Rosi Sexton which was fun, I've worked with other major promotions here as well as our own. Before I trained MMA and while I was, I also trained karate and TSD. I've watched MMA grow here since the early days when Lee Hasdell promoted the first MMA fight night.

If you want to nit pick over whether TMAs are old or new it would probably be best if you started another thread but do have a look at the archives before doing so, it's always worth seeing how many times a subject has been discussed.

If you refuse to see how much a fighter determines what techniques work rather than the style and really want to bash TMAs as being pretty useless in MMA then crack on but I'm betting you will end up  talking to yourself. Adieu mon ami.

PS oh and ask anyone, personal attacks are water off a duck's back to me. :boing2:


----------



## Cirdan

Tez3 said:


> Cirdan, I don't suppose you have Thor Hushovd's address by any chance? :boing2:Oh well I can dream, he is a bit young for me anyway. Loved the Artic Tour, I want a house up there even in the winter I reckon it would be good.
> 
> Not off topic just bored of the flogging the dead horse thing! anyway pro bike riders fight too lol two of them were fighting in the Vuelta, cycling uphill trading blows, perhaps a new twist for MMA....on bikes!



Sorry to tell you Tez, but Thor Hushovd lives in Monaco with his wife and child 

Anyway that fighting on bikes is a neat idea.. Extreme Bike Fighting, the ultimate evolution in martial arts! Both bashin` and bicyclin` are popular like never before so it should be an instant hit.



Hanzou said:


> If you have no desire to discuss this topic, stop trolling in it.



She`s not trolling, just British.


----------



## Steve

It's worse.   She is welsh.  

But it would be nice to post at least a little on topic.   If you guys think it's a dumb topic, you can just not respond.    


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Dear boy, if anyone is trolling it is not I. The debate has run it's course...again.


 
In your opinion. As I stated before, if you have no desire to discuss this topic any further, you shouldn't post in this thread with off-topic nonsense about who you want to date. That's called trolling.



> I was only half joking when I said the MMA v TMA argument turns up every year, it does. Sometimes it's that MMA is nasty and brutish and only 'TMA' is the right way, sometimes like this it's that 'TMAs' are pants and MMA is the future. Rarely does either side listen to anything other than what they believe to be true.



Except this wasn't a TMA vs MMA debate.



> I'm sure you are a very good martial artist in your style however I do believe my MMA knowledge over the past 16 years or so may mean I have the edge when talking about it, I imagine you will disagree but so be it. I have done every job there is to do in MMA, from building cages and rings to reffing, cornering and judging. _More importantly_ I have trained and also coached fighters, I've had the benefit of training with some of the most experienced martial artists both TMA and MMA in the UK and we have explored the nuances and techniques of just about every style there is. I was asked to be a consultant of a BBC documentary on female fighters featuring Lisa Higo and Rosi Sexton which was fun, I've worked with other major promotions here as well as our own. Before I trained MMA and while I was, I also trained karate and TSD. I've watched MMA grow here since the early days when Lee Hasdell promoted the first MMA fight night.



Thank you for complimenting my martial skills, and giving me your resume. That really has nothing to do with your attempts to derail this thread because you no longer find it interesting.



> If you want to nit pick over whether TMAs are old or new it would probably be best if you started another thread but do have a look at the archives before doing so, it's always worth seeing how many times a subject has been discussed.



That wasn't the topic of this thread either.



> If you refuse to see how much a fighter determines what techniques work rather than the style and really want to bash TMAs as being pretty useless in MMA then crack on but I'm betting you will end up  talking to yourself. Adieu mon ami.



And of course saying that some TMAs may not be suited for MMA isn't a bash.

You really do enjoy creating arguments that don't exist don't you?



> PS oh and ask anyone, personal attacks are water off a duck's back to me. :boing2:



I don't do personal attacks on the internet. Sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## Buka

Those guys fighting on the bikes leads to the obvious next question....

Who would fare better in a race bike slap fight, a  TMAist, an MMAist or an air guitarist?  Oh, crap, but what if they rode Schwinns?!


----------



## Tez3

Welsh! where did that come from. I was born in London, and live in Yorkshire!

Would really really like to live in Norway, I know some MMA lads in Trondheim too, they fought on a show here a couple of years back a credit to their country and MMA I might add.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Welsh! where did that come from. I was born in London, and live in Yorkshire!
> 
> Would really really like to live in Norway, I know some MMA lads in Trondheim too, they fought on a show here a couple of years back a credit to their country and MMA I might add.



Right.  I remember now.  Not welsh.  You're in Yorkshire.   That makes you... Scottish?   Lol.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199

Somehow, I don't think whether someone was derailing the topic, or accusations of trolling, or posting conduct is the topic either...

Maybe we can get back to the original topic regarding whether or not TMAs can work in the MMA competition setting, and why or why not?  I think I've made my opinion clear: the techniques might work, if they're trained in an appropriate manner, but the style's principles and strategies may not fit within the rules.


----------



## Tez3

jks9199 said:


> Somehow, I don't think whether someone was derailing the topic, or accusations of trolling, or posting conduct is the topic either...
> 
> Maybe we can get back to the original topic regarding whether or not TMAs can work in the MMA competition setting, and why or why not?




I think we felt a little lightening of the atmosphere was needed, people were getting a little frustrated as whatever was said it coming back to the same result, people getting frustrated. 

the title of the thread is contentious in itself, when it states 'why do TMAs have difficulty....it's not an exploration of the subject at all and people's comments reflected this, many tried to discuss but were being stonewalled so a time out was needed before mods got involved. The comments were getting personal as well, when people start chatting about other subjects it usually means it's over the dead body of the thread.


----------



## tshadowchaser

Hanzou said:


> In another thread, a poster informed me that Brazilian Jiujitsu and other grappling arts had a distinct advantage in the first UFC, which caused many TMA practitioners to get easily defeated in the early UFC competitions. Clearly this advantage has continued 20 years later, because TMA is still absent from the curriculum of many MMA practitioners, who choose Muay Thai kickboxing or Bjj over Wing Chun, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Aikido, or Shorin Ryu Karate.
> 
> Why is this the case? What makes some styles have such a distinct disadvantage in combat sports, while other styles tend to dominate?




I have watched this thread go around and around. So now I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
As to the question in the OP:
 have you ever seen a MMA fight that never went to the ground, one where someone was knocked out? where was the BJJ in that.?
If you listen to the announcers they always mention what experience the fighter has in BJJ even if its only a blue belt but do not always mention if they have other experience. Any time someone goes to the mat or is knocked down the subject  of BJJ comes up but they do not mention a style or experience when someone is hit with a kick or punch.
Most of the fighters have experience in other forms of martial art other than just BJJ unless they come from Brazil 

If you go back in time a ways you would find that many of what you call TMA had both throws kicks,punches, arm locks, chokes, and ground fighting in them.  Most of those old TMA's specialized in stand up fighting but do you truthfully think they walked away when someone when down or do you think maybe there was something they taught to finish the fight. 
Yes there are things in some of the Karta that is not taught to beginners or even in some schools but I have seen some of the most basic forms translated by putting someone on their back and doing the form and guess what there are locks throws and escapes in them.

what makes some styles have an advantage in combat sports.  Thats simple the word SPORT and the rules that govern that sport


----------



## Hanzou

tshadowchaser said:


> what makes some styles have an advantage in combat sports.  Thats simple the word SPORT and the rules that govern that sport



This argument has been made before, yet no one has ever been able to pinpoint exactly what set of rules prevents a style from doing what its designed to do.

So I ask again (and I'll add an example); What rules for example gives Bjj an advantage over traditional Japanese Jujutsu in a MMA/NHB environment?


----------



## Tames D

Tez3 said:


> *Welsh! where did that come from.* I was born in London, and live in Yorkshire!
> 
> Would really really like to live in Norway, I know some MMA lads in Trondheim too, they fought on a show here a couple of years back a credit to their country and MMA I might add.



Steve had you confused with a welsh witch


----------



## Tames D

Tames D said:


> Steve had you confused with a welsh witch



Tez - I'm not sure how this came across, but it was meant as a compliment. In reference to one of my favorite singers song.


----------



## jezr74

I've been thinking about this, because I think there is validity to many of the statements, just different perspectives. But one that stuck out to me was why MMA appears to be more popular to BJJ people, and a statement asking what edge is given to BJJ (Think Hanzou asked) in UFC. The problem is using "UFC" in the context is we start thinking of the UFC rule set that is fairly open.

Reading a few articles and some basic research into steps to fight in UFC, I saw a pattern in amateur rules, one being no hitting the face when in mount (think is right term), wouldn't this give a distinctive edge to ground grappling arts? And attract these practitioners more than others, and less from striking or "TMA's"? So it's not about difficulty, it's more about the path.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> I've been thinking about this, because I think there is validity to many of the statements, just different perspectives. But one that stuck out to me was why MMA appears to be more popular to BJJ people, and a statement asking what edge is given to BJJ (Think Hanzou asked) in UFC. The problem is using "UFC" in the context is we start thinking of the UFC rule set that is fairly open.
> 
> Reading a few articles and some basic research into steps to fight in UFC, I saw a pattern in amateur rules, one being no hitting the face when in mount (think is right term), wouldn't this give a distinctive edge to ground grappling arts? And attract these practitioners more than others, and less from striking or "TMA's"? So it's not about difficulty, it's more about the path.



There are plenty of opportunities for face hitting. There are leagues where it is not allowed like after shock. But you can easily find fights that allow it for first time fighters.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hBEOybZCU48
Our twelve week course ends in fights with GNP to the face.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9s57kHAD0A
And as a side note one of our guys who is a boxer won an after shock by busting someone's jaw. So striking still plays a part.


----------



## Hanzou

Yeah, no GnP would be kind of odd for MMA leagues.


----------



## Tez3

We do have promotions here who have no head shots in amateur fights, some have only head shots standing but with 'big gloves'. Some have head shots in all fights am, semi pro and pro. We have a lot of very small shows who will have different rules for different fights. it's the consequence of having no governing body, basically you can do what you like. The big promotions like Cagewarriors will follow the rules used in the UFC but for the little show that is held in the local working men's club well, who knows. 
It does cause a lot of debate. Most think that having MMA without head shots is pointless, others think that beginners have to start somewhere. It won't be settled until we have a governing body...which of course sets off another lot of heated discussions!


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, no GnP would be kind of odd for MMA leagues.




It depends who you want to attract. If you want the best then no. If you want a league where people can have a go with less risk then yes. Both have their merits.

By the way ground striking won't really favour the striker that much.


----------



## Steve

jezr74 said:


> I've been thinking about this, because I think there is validity to many of the statements, just different perspectives. But one that stuck out to me was why MMA appears to be more popular to BJJ people, and a statement asking what edge is given to BJJ (Think Hanzou asked) in UFC. The problem is using "UFC" in the context is we start thinking of the UFC rule set that is fairly open.
> 
> Reading a few articles and some basic research into steps to fight in UFC, I saw a pattern in amateur rules, one being no hitting the face when in mount (think is right term), wouldn't this give a distinctive edge to ground grappling arts? And attract these practitioners more than others, and less from striking or "TMA's"? So it's not about difficulty, it's more about the path.


the rules in MMA have evolved in very specific ways to benefit strikers.  It's not so much that grapplers had an unfair advantage, particularly once everyone began training in grappling.  Rather, it is because grappling is an art that the lay person doesn't really understand.  And because they don't understand it, they don't enjoy it.  I don't have a problem with it, really.  It's like when the NFL changes the rules to encourage more points scored.  It's more exciting to watch.

Some very general ways in which modern MMA favors grapplers and inhibits grappling include the referee's discretion to stand the fight up or reset in the middle from a clinch.  For a grappler, one advantage is the grind, and it's often a war of attrition.  Lay and pray isn't exciting to watch in MMA.  It's actively discouraged, but it's an indication of total control on the part of a solid grappler.  

The uniform itself...  no shirts, no pants.  Sweat is slippery.  Arm locks and leg locks are part and parcel within BJJ and other forms of grappling.  But in the UFC, they are increasingly rare because a little bit of friction helps secure the technique.  You'll see more armlocks in women's MMA than men's because women are more likely to wear a rashguard.  But, people once wore a gi as often as not.  they don't do that anymore, and it's an advantage to the strikers.

Scoring... even today, if you are attacking from the bottom, forcing your opponent to defend for an entire round, you risk losing that round.  Not because you were in any danger or took any damage at all. Just because the guy on top was on top.  

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be a good grappler.  It just means that the rules encourage striking, because striking is more exciting to watch and more accessible for the lay person to undrestand.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> the rules in MMA have evolved in very specific ways to benefit strikers.  It's not so much that grapplers had an unfair advantage, particularly once everyone began training in grappling.  Rather, it is because grappling is an art that the lay person doesn't really understand.  And because they don't understand it, they don't enjoy it.  I don't have a problem with it, really.  It's like when the NFL changes the rules to encourage more points scored.  It's more exciting to watch.
> 
> Some very general ways in which modern MMA favors grapplers and inhibits grappling include the referee's discretion to stand the fight up or reset in the middle from a clinch.  For a grappler, one advantage is the grind, and it's often a war of attrition.  Lay and pray isn't exciting to watch in MMA.  It's actively discouraged, but it's an indication of total control on the part of a solid grappler.
> 
> The uniform itself...  no shirts, no pants.  Sweat is slippery.  Arm locks and leg locks are part and parcel within BJJ and other forms of grappling.  But in the UFC, they are increasingly rare because a little bit of friction helps secure the technique.  You'll see more armlocks in women's MMA than men's because women are more likely to wear a rashguard.  But, people once wore a gi as often as not.  they don't do that anymore, and it's an advantage to the strikers.
> 
> Scoring... even today, if you are attacking from the bottom, forcing your opponent to defend for an entire round, you risk losing that round.  Not because you were in any danger or took any damage at all. Just because the guy on top was on top.
> 
> This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be a good grappler.  It just means that the rules encourage striking, because striking is more exciting to watch and more accessible for the lay person to undrestand.



So much truth to all that. Judging in MMA - here in Massachusetts, when MMA first got taken over by the state Athletic commission, the judges they were going to use were the judges they had always used - boxing judges. I couldn't come up with a worse idea if I spent all day on it. A group of us were called on to put on judging clinics and to explain grappling to the boxing judges. You have no idea how difficult that is. Fortunately, it's improved over time. But they don't put on clinics any more, even though they have more new judges. To the uniformed, the bottom game is a mystery. It's why I firmly believe all judges should be forced to train in both striking and grappling.

I think the "lay and pray" is getting less and less as the general transition game is getting better and better in MMA. I tend to lay and pray a lot, maybe because I'm better defensively on the ground than I am offensively.

I think the general public is getting more educated in watching MMA. Heck, it's everywhere on TV. I also think Joe Rogan is doing a fantastic job giving insight to both us (people who train) and to the public in general. Some may not like him, but if I was a congressman I'd start a bill that made him the only color commentator in the game - that's how good a job I think he's doing.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> I certainly agree that times have definitely changed, and you need a very well rounded toolset to win in MMA.  I was just merely pointing out that the semi-pure Bjj stylists still exist in MMA, and that Bjj is still the cornerstone of MMA.



Of course, and I didn't mean to imply that BJJ wasn't a staple in MMA. 

In your opinion...if Royce Gracie was to step back into the ring, how do you feel he would do against the fighters of today?


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> Has anyone ever stopped to consider that *some* instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?
> 
> This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.



That is a likely possibility.  As I've said, I enjoy competition, as it's certainly a good testing ground.  Of course, I don't feel that someone should be forced into competing.  If someone doesn't want to do it, then fine, don't do it.  However, if you're not going to compete, then you should be testing yourself in an alternative fashion.


----------



## MJS

Hanzou said:


> A seminar is different than in the cage. Again, Rousey was able to modify Judo because Judo's already existing training mechanism made it possible for that transition to take place. You just needed someone to be willing to modify it, and that modification simply required going from gi to no-gi. If you know how to throw a fully resisting opponent with a gi on, throwing someone without the gi is simply a matter of modifying your grips. We do the exact same thing in Bjj in no-gi competition. The fact that Judokas are now doing it is an awesome thing to see.



Yes, just like Lyoto Machida I'm sure, modified his TMA, for the cage. 



> I have nothing against Aikido, I just simply don't believe that Aikido works in the octagon for the exact reason Bas Rutten said it wouldn't work.



Umm...ok...so who cares if it works/doesn't work, in the octagon?  You said yourself, here, that not everyone trains for the same reasons.


----------



## MJS

drop bear said:


> Except that mmaers cross train in tma,s. They grade as high as any of the people who do not train mma. They are every bit the sub style.



Really?  And here I was thinking that the majority have started in TMA and transitioned to MMA.


----------



## drop bear

MJS said:


> Really?  And here I was thinking that the majority have started in TMA and transitioned to MMA.



Yes and no. There was not the opportunity to train mma as widely as there was to train tma. So yes the current crop have tma backgrounds. 

Six seven years ago. I walked into dominance in Melbourne. Which is a reputable gym and was told I could not train mma without having a background in jits or thai. Nowadays that is not the case. There are dedicated mma gyms you can train as soon as you walk in the door.

Then you can train in a tma if you want as well.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Of course, and I didn't mean to imply that BJJ wasn't a staple in MMA.
> 
> In your opinion...if Royce Gracie was to step back into the ring, how do you feel he would do against the fighters of today?



Well, he's pushing 50 I think.  So.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

MJS said:


> Of course, and I didn't mean to imply that BJJ wasn't a staple in MMA.
> 
> In your opinion...if Royce Gracie was to step back into the ring, how do you feel he would do against the fighters of today?



Definitely not as well as he did in the first UFCs. Mainly because everyone who does MMA practices Bjj on some level.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have rolled with Royce once when he was in his prime and he was phenomenal.  In his prime he would have an opportunity to compete.  However,
his lack really good striking skills would put him at a big disadvantage compared to today's athletes.  Not to mention the lack of a gi would change things
a bit for him as well.  Rules have changed as well and if not enough action is going on they would stand them back up.  Yet another thing Royce would have 
to deal with.  Yet, the biggest thing going against Royce would be the overall athleticism of today's athletes.  Compared to the athleticism in the 
past and the overall lack of ground skills that some mma fighters had in the past today's mma athletes are head and shoulders above.  Still, what Royce did
was incredible because he did it against guys of any size, shape and mostly against guy's that were far bigger and stronger than he was!  Those old UFC fights
were really cool because of that if you haven't watched them please do as they are still cool!  Royce is a legend and in real life a great guy!


----------



## Buka

Yes, that first UFC was something! And not one of those matches went one full 5 minute round. Most ended in under one minute.

My, how times have changed. And we get to watch it. It's been so much fun!


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have rolled with Royce once when he was in his prime and he was phenomenal.  In his prime he would have an opportunity to compete.  However,
> his lack really good striking skills would put him at a big disadvantage compared to today's athletes.  Not to mention the lack of a gi would change things
> a bit for him as well.  Rules have changed as well and if not enough action is going on they would stand them back up.  Yet another thing Royce would have
> to deal with.  Yet, the biggest thing going against Royce would be the overall athleticism of today's athletes.  Compared to the athleticism in the
> past and the overall lack of ground skills that some mma fighters had in the past today's mma athletes are head and shoulders above.  Still, what Royce did
> was incredible because he did it against guys of any size, shape and mostly against guy's that were far bigger and stronger than he was!  Those old UFC fights
> were really cool because of that if you haven't watched them please do as they are still cool!  Royce is a legend and in real life a great guy!



Rickson did the same thing in Vale Tudo as well.

I highly recommend watching the documentary "Choke" if you haven't already. You can watch it on YouTube.

It's really a great look inside the mind of a martial arts master.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yes "Choke" is a great dvd.  I would highly recommend it as well.


----------



## MJS

drop bear said:


> Yes and no. There was not the opportunity to train mma as widely as there was to train tma. So yes the current crop have tma backgrounds.
> 
> Six seven years ago. I walked into dominance in Melbourne. Which is a reputable gym and was told I could not train mma without having a background in jits or thai. Nowadays that is not the case. There are dedicated mma gyms you can train as soon as you walk in the door.
> 
> Then you can train in a tma if you want as well.



Oh, ok...cool!  See, you learn something new every day!


----------



## MJS

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have rolled with Royce once when he was in his prime and he was phenomenal.  In his prime he would have an opportunity to compete.  However,
> his lack really good striking skills would put him at a big disadvantage compared to today's athletes.  Not to mention the lack of a gi would change things
> a bit for him as well.  Rules have changed as well and if not enough action is going on they would stand them back up.  Yet another thing Royce would have
> to deal with.  Yet, the biggest thing going against Royce would be the overall athleticism of today's athletes.  Compared to the athleticism in the
> past and the overall lack of ground skills that some mma fighters had in the past today's mma athletes are head and shoulders above.  Still, what Royce did
> was incredible because he did it against guys of any size, shape and mostly against guy's that were far bigger and stronger than he was!  Those old UFC fights
> were really cool because of that if you haven't watched them please do as they are still cool!  Royce is a legend and in real life a great guy!



Thanks Brian!  This was pretty much where I was going with my questions, although I probably didn't word it right.  Anyways, yes, you summed it up very well.   I didn't want to imply that Royce wasn't a legend...he certainly was, and he, IMO, opened up the eyes of many, to the importance to learning the ground game.  Age aside, I was going more along the lines of the 1 dimensional fighter.  That's pretty much all you saw back in the day.  Today...you need to have a complete package.


----------



## Stonebrow

I was a wrestler, so consider my bias.  Wrestling requires a level of athleticism that isn't really matched by any other human activity.  We regularly had football players come out for the team who couldn't handle the preseason conditioning - and those were the easy part of the season.  By the end of the season we were doing 100 pushups for warmups, among other exercises.  We could easily burn off a pound in a single six minute wrestling match.  That's the equivalent of about 45 minutes as a lineman in a football game - in 6 minutes.

People lose MMA/UFC matches because their bodies are tired, not because they got punched hard.  TMA athletes aren't typically in the kind of shape grappling sports require.  Only grappling can prepare you for grappling.


----------



## K-man

Stonebrow said:


> I was a wrestler, so consider my bias.  Wrestling requires a level of athleticism that isn't really matched by any other human activity.  We regularly had football players come out for the team who couldn't handle the preseason conditioning - and those were the easy part of the season.  By the end of the season we were doing 100 pushups for warmups, among other exercises.  We could easily burn off a pound in a single six minute wrestling match.  That's the equivalent of about 45 minutes as a lineman in a football game - in 6 minutes.
> 
> People lose MMA/UFC matches because their bodies are tired, not because they got punched hard.  TMA athletes aren't typically in the kind of shape grappling sports require.  Only grappling can prepare you for grappling.


Firstly, welcome to MT.

You are exactly right when you talk of the exertion required to wrestle hard for six minutes. The point is many of us have no desire to roll around on the floor for six minutes. Those of us who consider we train TMAs do not train with that eventuality in mind. Of course the other thing with wrestling is, a 65 kilo guy is going to have no chance against a 120 kilo guy. So you bring in weight classes to even the contest. That doesn't happen in a reality based scenario. If we wanted to wrestle we would train to wrestle, not TMA.
:asian:


----------



## Stonebrow

I'm not trying to disparage martial arts.  I'm on a forum called Martial Talk for crying out loud... 

The question was why TMA aren't more successful at UFC style fights.  UFC fights are wrestling matches with punches.  TMA don't prepare a human body for that.

BTW, I was a 65 kilo guy and I practiced against the 120 kilo guys.  You just have to stay out from under them...  They make a much more impressive sound when they hit the ground.


----------



## K-man

Stonebrow said:


> I'm not trying to disparage martial arts.  *I'm on a forum called Martial Talk for crying out loud...
> *
> The question was why TMA aren't more *successful* at UFC style fights.  UFC fights are wrestling matches with punches.  TMA don't prepare a human body for that.
> 
> BTW, I was a 65 kilo guy and I practiced against the 120 kilo guys.  You just have to stay out from under them...  They make a much more impressive sound when they hit the ground.


Um .. yes, that's why I am discussing it with you, and after all the topic is "Why TMAs have *difficulty* in the ring", nothing to do with whether they are successful or not. And yes, you are right. TMAs don't prepare you for that. Hence my comment that if I wanted to wrestle I would train to wrestle. If I wanted to compete in MMA I would train for MMA. Did I say something wrong to deserve such a snappy response?


----------



## Tez3

Stonebrow said:


> I'm not trying to disparage martial arts.  I'm on a forum called Martial Talk for crying out loud...
> 
> The question was why TMA aren't more successful at UFC style fights.  UFC fights are wrestling matches with punches.  TMA don't prepare a human body for that.
> 
> BTW, I was a 65 kilo guy and I practiced against the 120 kilo guys.  You just have to stay out from under them...  They make a much more impressive sound when they hit the ground.




The UFC isn't MMA, the UFC is a for profit business, the style is MMA and in countries such as the UK where there is very little wrestling the base grappling styles are Judo and BJJ. This is true for a large part of the rest of the world. MMA isn't 'a wrestling match with punches at all', I've seen a good many fights which never went to the ground. An MMA fight is a match between two fighters who will have studied each others style and worked out tactics which they will believe work against their opponent ie a fighter who is predominately a striker will be taken down to the ground, a fighter who is predominately a 'grappler' will be kept standing if possible. It's been described as 'physical chess' for a reason. Basing a knowledge of MMA on one promotion albeit a large one is not ideal.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Firstly, welcome to MT.
> 
> You are exactly right when you talk of the exertion required to wrestle hard for six minutes. The point is many of us have no desire to roll around on the floor for six minutes. Those of us who consider we train TMAs do not train with that eventuality in mind. Of course the other thing with wrestling is, a 65 kilo guy is going to have no chance against a 120 kilo guy. So you bring in weight classes to even the contest. That doesn't happen in a reality based scenario. If we wanted to wrestle we would train to wrestle, not TMA.
> :asian:



That is kind of a real theory though. There were these mma scholarships and they demanded a wrestling background due to the work ethic required to to be any good at it.

I will see if I can find it.

A 65 kilo guy can't beat a 120 kilo guy if they have matched ability. Hence why the weight classes.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> The UFC isn't MMA, the UFC is a for profit business, the style is MMA and in countries such as the UK where there is very little wrestling the base grappling styles are Judo and BJJ. This is true for a large part of the rest of the world.



To be fair, Judo and Bjj are very similar to wrestling in terms of general style, and takes a lot of its moves from wrestling. In some circles, Judo and Bjj are considered forms of wrestling.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, Judo and Bjj are very similar to wrestling in terms of general style, and takes a lot of its moves from wrestling. In some circles, Judo and Bjj are considered forms of wrestling.



or wrestling takes a lot of it's moves from Judo and BJJ lol. I think most cultures have some form of wrestling. Some like Cornish wrestling might not be what people are used to though. Still MMA is still not wrestling with strikes! I have heard complaints before that MMA is kickboxing ruined by groundwork. We can't win really.


----------



## Stonebrow

It's hard to tell tone in a chat room!  I was mostly just excited to be having a discussion instead of reading one.  Thanks!


----------



## Tez3

Stonebrow said:


> It's hard to tell tone in a chat room!  I was mostly just excited to be having a discussion instead of reading one.  Thanks!



Do what I do, use the little smiley things or 'lol' if you don't want it to be taken as being stern, and French when you are being sarcastic lol. It is difficult though, having the same discussion on a Guiding site, some think people are being rude when they think they are being blunt etc. One lady writes short posts which some think are also rude but she has dyslexia so needs to get all info out in a short sentence.

Anyway I digress, my pet hate is when people think the UFC is MMA and think that whatever happens in the UFC is typical of MMA. Sadly that's becoming more and more untrue as the UFC bangs out shows every week with more and more unknowns (and ticket prices are extortionate) who are sticking to a certain routine which they think is what is wanted. Finding innovative fighters in the UFC is getting harder and harder as it seems they are coming off a production line these days.


----------



## Buka

Stonebrow said:


> It's hard to tell tone in a chat room!  I was mostly just excited to be having a discussion instead of reading one.  Thanks!



So true, brother. Tone is impossible online. Most of the heated conversations that have been on here wouldn't have ever happened in person, not even after a dozen beers. I mean, let's face it, if we didn't love fighting arts - would any of us be here? 
How do you think WE would do in the UFC? I'm not talking  about "well, if I got paid to train" or "if I was younger" - let's use  the make believe scenario that we can put ourselves into a the time  machine and go to the best time for us.....and make believe we all got  paid big bucks to train so we didn't have to worry about it. How would  we do? As wonderful as that would be, I don't think any of us would be  stupid enough to attempt an MMA fight without cross training in the  appropriate arts/style/gyms that would be needed to actually get our asses  into the octagon and survive, never mind win. I sure hope nobody would be that naive.

I do American Karate. We fight hard, we grapple, we do a lot of things and I'll continue to do it until I drop dead. If I fought in the UFC, I can see the headlines now -
*Politicians outraged over first death in UFC. American karate man loses life in first round due to stupidity. Friends say poor fella never had a clue.*
That doesn't mean what I do isn't a great form of training or a viable in self defense. It's just not suited for UFC fighting without other forms of training to supplement it.

One other thing, in my opinion, when asked - which has been a lot over the years, I've always said that the best in-shape athletes I've ever been around (just me, not anyone else) were wrestlers and gymnasts. Plenty of others, obviously, but those are the two that always impressed me most for over all fitness, strength and endurance of training.


----------



## drop bear

mook jong man said:


> Why aren't professionals using it in competition.
> Simples , they probably think it is a load of ***** like you do and can't be bothered spending years to perfect it.



That by the way is a terrible argument. Given that professionals are looking at every method they can to get an edge.


----------



## mook jong man

drop bear said:


> That by the way is a terrible argument. Given that professionals are looking at every method they can to get an edge.



Not really.
Why would they even bother to try it when you have MMA fan boys doing everything possible to disparage and mock the system.

All you have to do is take a look on the internet , you have these young smart arses who make it their lifes work to put **** on every Wing Chun video they see , uninformed people see that and think its all true what these morons say.

So why would any up and coming MMA person go against that trend and end up being ridiculed by their peer group to learn Wing Chun.
Honestly with the hatchet job these ball bags do on Wing Chun over the internet , its a bloody wonder Wing Chun schools get any new students at all , let alone MMA guys.


----------



## Tez3

Perhaps if the fan boys ever train any martial art let alone MMA they'd have a better understanding of what MMA is. The constant arguments about what martial art is better in MMA or what doesn't work are tired and pointless. It's MMA for crying out loud not karate v MT, or TKD v WC. It's what ever works for an individual fighter. More and more now people are coming into MMA without a base style to be taught how to fight in an MMA competition, they won't know or actually care what style a particular strike  comes from, the don't know what the throw are called because everything is either called 'works' or 'doesn't work'. 
As for Wing Chun, I know as least one fighter who has come from there, Sami Berik, he was very well respected, the only reason he didn't get 'on' in MMA is the same reason most here didn't at the time, because MMA was new and very small here. It was before things like TUF otherwise you would have seen him there I'm positive.
yes people do still come from traditional styles into MMA but more and more now they are coming into MMA as their first style, those who train are far  too busy to care about rubbishing other styles, they rather actually look to see what strikes and take downs they can make work for them. However the fan boys are always going to be a problem, MMA isn't the only sport to have them but they influence only themselves not those who actually train or are involved in MMA.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> Not really.
> Why would they even bother to try it when you have MMA fan boys doing everything possible to disparage and mock the system.
> 
> All you have to do is take a look on the internet , you have these young smart arses who make it their lifes work to put **** on every Wing Chun video they see , uninformed people see that and think its all true what these morons say.
> 
> So why would any up and coming MMA person go against that trend and end up being ridiculed by their peer group to learn Wing Chun.
> Honestly with the hatchet job these ball bags do on Wing Chun over the internet , its a bloody wonder Wing Chun schools get any new students at all , let alone MMA guys.


Because they're looking for any advantage.  I know MMA'ists who are game for anything.  Some do yoga.  Some do Tai Chi.  

What's sad here is that you think people are down on WC because of a hatchet job on the internet.  But you have an even more distorted view of MMA based upon nothing more than a relative few interactions on the internet.   That seems pretty close minded to me. 

If you were interested in getting new students, a very good way to do it would be to start working out with some local MMA'ists.  I'm not talking about learning MMA, because clearly that would be beneath you.  But, just get to know them in real life.  Do some sparring, some working out, exchange some actual words that aren't defensive.  It will surely be enlightening to you.  It could very well be enlightening to them.  If you could get past your issues, you might be surprised at how nice they are.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps if the fan boys ever train any martial art let alone MMA they'd have a better understanding of what MMA is. The constant arguments about what martial art is better in MMA or what doesn't work are tired and pointless. It's MMA for crying out loud not karate v MT, or TKD v WC. It's what ever works for an individual fighter. More and more now people are coming into MMA without a base style to be taught how to fight in an MMA competition, they won't know or actually care what style a particular strike  comes from, the don't know what the throw are called because everything is either called 'works' or 'doesn't work'.
> As for Wing Chun, I know as least one fighter who has come from there, Sami Berik, he was very well respected, the only reason he didn't get 'on' in MMA is the same reason most here didn't at the time, because MMA was new and very small here. It was before things like TUF otherwise you would have seen him there I'm positive.
> yes people do still come from traditional styles into MMA but more and more now they are coming into MMA as their first style, those who train are far  too busy to care about rubbishing other styles, they rather actually look to see what strikes and take downs they can make work for them. However the fan boys are always going to be a problem, MMA isn't the only sport to have them but they influence only themselves not those who actually train or are involved in MMA.


Exactly.   It's pretty clear that MMA has some overly enthusiastic fan boys.  it's also clear that Wing Chun has some fan boys, too.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Exactly.   It's pretty clear that MMA has some overly enthusiastic fan boys.  it's also clear that Wing Chun has some fan boys, too.



I tend to avoid all fanboys by not looking at martial arts videos online and not using any of the sites that encourage fanboys to air their 'knowledge'. You get enough idiots who come to fight nights shouting stupid things that show off their ignorance to a T.
I remember reading on a site I use ( Cagewarriors) a long thread just on the things shouted out by people in the crowd, some were 'clever funny' and others were just 'stupid funny'. A good read.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Not really.
> Why would they even bother to try it when you have MMA fan boys doing everything possible to disparage and mock the system.
> 
> All you have to do is take a look on the internet , you have these young smart arses who make it their lifes work to put **** on every Wing Chun video they see , uninformed people see that and think its all true what these morons say.
> 
> So why would any up and coming MMA person go against that trend and end up being ridiculed by their peer group to learn Wing Chun.
> Honestly with the hatchet job these ball bags do on Wing Chun over the internet , its a bloody wonder Wing Chun schools get any new students at all , let alone MMA guys.



The best way to get MMA fans to stop disparaging a system is by having it appear in MMA and perform well. For better or worse, MMA is the standard by which martial arts are judged.

 The problem a lot of TMAs have is that the Gracies completely changed what is considered legit martial arts 20 years ago, and some instructors and stylists still refuse to acknowledge that that change ever took place. 

Look at that Wing Chun thread over in the CMA section. There's people actively looking for some WC being used against a fully resisting opponent, or in a SD situation, and nothing can be found. That's a problem, because a lot of young people use Youtube to verify things that they don't know about.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> The best way to get MMA fans to stop disparaging a system is by having it appear in MMA and perform well. For better or worse, MMA is the standard by which martial arts are judged.
> 
> The problem a lot of TMAs have is that the Gracies completely changed what is considered legit martial arts 20 years ago, and some instructors and stylists still refuse to acknowledge that that change ever took place.
> 
> Look at that Wing Chun thread over in the CMA section. There's people actively looking for some WC being used against a fully resisting opponent, or in a SD situation, and nothing can be found. That's a problem, because a lot of young people use Youtube to verify things that they don't know about.



Who however is judging martial arts by MMA, only the fan boys again. The rest of the world doesn't care.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> The best way to get MMA fans to stop disparaging a system is by having it appear in MMA and perform well. For better or worse, MMA is the standard by which martial arts are judged.



Speaking as a BJJ/Muay Thai practitioner who loves MMA and learns a lot from watching it: no. MMA is *a* standard which *some *people judge martial arts by. As much as I love and learn from MMA, I recognize that a) there are techniques/tactics which work in certain other combative settings but not in MMA and b) there are techniques/tactics which work in MMA but not so well in certain other combative settings.  That's coming from an MMA fan. There are plenty of other people who are not MMA fans and don't judge anything by the MMA standard.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ/Muay Thai practitioner who loves MMA and learns a lot from watching it: no. MMA is *a* standard which *some *people judge martial arts by. As much as I love and learn from MMA, I recognize that a) there are techniques/tactics which work in certain other combative settings but not in MMA and b) there are techniques/tactics which work in MMA but not so well in certain other combative settings.  That's coming from an MMA fan. There are plenty of other people who are not MMA fans and don't judge anything by the MMA standard.



And you have how many years experience in MA Tony? Probably more than some people have been alive. 

I'm talking about the generation coming up now (15-25 year olds). They came of age right when Royce dominated the first UFC, and when MMA established itself as a legitimate sport. For that generation, MMA is martial arts, and the standard. Youtube is the library in which you go to in order to legitimize what you hear about.

I'm old enough to remember when a lot of people would laugh if you told them you took Karate or Kung Fu. They would say that it doesn't work, and proceed to mock karate/kung fu movements and make weird sounds. That sort of mocking doesn't happen with Bjj/MMA, because its legitimized through the modern information feeding tube.



Tez3 said:


> Who however is judging martial arts by MMA, only the fan boys again. The rest of the world doesn't care.



Clearly it does, or you wouldn't be seeing classical styles responding to it with their "anti-grappling" nonsense.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about the generation coming up now (15-25 year olds). They came of age right when Royce dominated the first UFC, and when MMA established itself as a legitimate sport. For that generation, MMA is martial arts, and the standard. Youtube is the library in which you go to in order to legitimize what you hear about.



I never thought of it in that way before. But, damn, that sure does seem to be the truth.


----------



## Tez3

However that 15-25 year old group is exactly the group that is coming into MMA without a background of any other art. In Europe though it was a long time before the UFC started making an impression, so this age group has actually grown up with home grown fighters and promotions. We probably didn't hear of the UFC until a lot later than Americans so our perceptions are going to be different. The first UFCs we had here were poorly attended as we had a couple of promotions then that did better. We'd had a couple of fighters in the earlier UFCs in America but it probably wasn't until Bisping fought that people here really started taking notice that a big publicity push by the UFC.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> And you have how many years experience in MA Tony? Probably more than some people have been alive.


 33 years at this point. Man, I ought to be a lot better than I am by now. 



Hanzou said:


> I'm talking about the generation coming up now (15-25 year olds). They came of age right when Royce dominated the first UFC, and when MMA established itself as a legitimate sport. For that generation, MMA is martial arts, and the standard. Youtube is the library in which you go to in order to legitimize what you hear about.



Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, as far as I know there are still plenty of 15-25 year olds training in martial arts which aren't represented in MMA. Obviously they aren't all judging their arts by what they see in the UFC.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> However that 15-25 year old group is exactly the group that is coming into MMA without a background of any other art. In Europe though it was a long time before the UFC started making an impression, so this age group has actually grown up with home grown fighters and promotions. We probably didn't hear of the UFC until a lot later than Americans so our perceptions are going to be different. The first UFCs we had here were poorly attended as we had a couple of promotions then that did better. We'd had a couple of fighters in the earlier UFCs in America but it probably wasn't until Bisping fought that people here really started taking notice that a big publicity push by the UFC.



Well that's kind of my point. We have 15 year olds doing MMA and participating in NHB competitions by the time they're 18. Its a different world now, and it's because what happened in the first UFC.

Im fine with admitting things may be a bit different in Europe, but considering that you also have MAs reacting to MMA there as well, I can't be totally off base. When I say reacting to MMA, I'm talking about styles that had no ground fighting to speak of 20 years ago now suddenly having ground fighting (oftentimes with laughable results) or some form of anti-grappling. Basically anything that will ease their student's fear of the crazed MMA guy rolling them on the concrete and choking them out.

This is occurring because MMA is a legitimate threat to TMA businesses, and its a legitimate threat because the younger generation is geared toward MMA more so than TMA.

Why? Because a 20 year old can go on YouTube and see some guy get choked out by Kron Gracie, knocked out by Chris Weidman, or thrown to the canvas by Ronda Rousey. What's the TMA equivalent? Point Karate? Form competitions? Board breaking? Some guy holding up a weight with his mouth?

A young person looking to kick *** or defend themselves simply isn't impressed by that stuff anymore.


----------



## Tez3

Hanzou said:


> Well that's kind of my point. We have 15 year olds doing MMA and participating in NHB competitions by the time they're 18. Its a different world now, and it's because what happened in the first UFC.
> 
> Im fine with admitting things may be a bit different in Europe, but considering that you also have MAs reacting to MMA there as well, I can't be totally off base. When I say reacting to MMA, I'm talking about styles that had no ground fighting to speak of 20 years ago now suddenly having ground fighting (oftentimes with laughable results) or some form of anti-grappling. Basically anything that will ease their student's fear of the crazed MMA guy rolling them on the concrete and choking them out.
> 
> This is occurring because MMA is a legitimate threat to TMA businesses, and its a legitimate threat because the younger generation is geared toward MMA more so than TMA.
> 
> Why? Because a 20 year old can go on YouTube and see some guy get choked out by Kron Gracie, knocked out by Chris Weidman, or thrown to the canvas by Ronda Rousey. What's the TMA equivalent? Point Karate? Form competitions? Board breaking? Some guy holding up a weight with his mouth?
> 
> A young person looking to kick *** or defend themselves simply isn't impressed by that stuff anymore.



but it has always been this way, we've had it when TKD was introduced here, when Bruce Lee came onto our screens, when kick boxing became fashionable, each new thing is disparaged by the 'old ones' and vice versa. Bruce Lee especially had youngsters declaiming that karate, etc was dead. Some karate schools added 'kick boxing' classes, some places said they teach JKD. It's nothing new. Sometime soon there will be something turn up and the MMA people and the TMA people will be on the same 'side' as it were. Most people don't really worry about it but concentrate on what we are doing. We still have enough 'old style' TMA people around who are well respected by everyone. WE have MMA people who still respect the styles they came from, there's nothing new under the sun.


----------



## drop bear

mook jong man said:


> Not really.
> Why would they even bother to try it when you have MMA fan boys doing everything possible to disparage and mock the system.
> 
> All you have to do is take a look on the internet , you have these young smart arses who make it their lifes work to put **** on every Wing Chun video they see , uninformed people see that and think its all true what these morons say.
> 
> So why would any up and coming MMA person go against that trend and end up being ridiculed by their peer group to learn Wing Chun.
> Honestly with the hatchet job these ball bags do on Wing Chun over the internet , its a bloody wonder Wing Chun schools get any new students at all , let alone MMA guys.



Blame Bruce Lee. He started it. 

OK let's have a look at this style bagging. We do an open mat every Saturday. We invite other styles to come in and spar. Chunners could come in clean house and silence the critics. This is common in mma and bjj.

That is our reputation on the line all the time. Which is fine because reputation is supposed to be put at risk. That is what resisted training is designed to do.

I don't believe chun does that and understandably gets a degree of mockery for it. You can't present yourself as an alternitive and not produce the goods.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ/Muay Thai practitioner who loves MMA and learns a lot from watching it: no. MMA is *a* standard which *some *people judge martial arts by. As much as I love and learn from MMA, I recognize that a) there are techniques/tactics which work in certain other combative settings but not in MMA and b) there are techniques/tactics which work in MMA but not so well in certain other combative settings.  That's coming from an MMA fan. There are plenty of other people who are not MMA fans and don't judge anything by the MMA standard.




Yeah that works until it falls off a cliff.

What standard do they judge it by? Cue anecdotal evidence.


----------



## mook jong man

drop bear said:


> Blame Bruce Lee. He started it.
> 
> OK let's have a look at this style bagging. We do an open mat every Saturday. We invite other styles to come in and spar. Chunners could come in clean house and silence the critics. This is common in mma and bjj.
> 
> That is our reputation on the line all the time. Which is fine because reputation is supposed to be put at risk. That is what resisted training is designed to do.
> 
> I don't believe chun does that and understandably gets a degree of mockery for it. You can't present yourself as an alternitive and not produce the goods.



Are you going to let the Wing Chun guys on the mats wearing normal shoes so they can smash your shins in with low heel kicks , because we don't train in bare feet.

Are you going to allow them to not wear gloves and strike to the neck , what about knee strikes into the bladder , how about having both your arms trapped as you cop a full body weight driven elbow strike down into your sternum.

Because that is how we roll , this stuff isn't meant for sport.

If you don't allow all that , then it is just an artificial game.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Are you going to let the Wing Chun guys on the mats wearing normal shoes so they can smash your shins in with low heel kicks , because we don't train in bare feet.
> 
> Are you going to allow them to not wear gloves and strike to the neck , what about knee strikes into the bladder , how about having both your arms trapped as you cop a full body weight driven elbow strike down into your sternum.
> 
> Because that is how we roll , this stuff isn't meant for sport.
> 
> If you don't allow all that , then it is just an artificial game.



Usually the only rules are no eye gouging. Beyond that, you shouldn't have a problem challenging a MMA or Gjj gym. They're usually pretty receptive to those sort of things. 

As a Kung Fu artist, they'd probably be extremely receptive, and interested in the challenge. Just be ready to get recorded and put on YouTube when its over.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Usually the only rules are no eye gouging. Beyond that, you shouldn't have a problem challenging a MMA or Gjj gym. They're usually pretty receptive to those sort of things.
> 
> As a Kung Fu artist, they'd probably be extremely receptive, and interested in the challenge. Just be ready to get recorded and be put on YouTube when its over.



Eye gouge would be the least of your problems , a strike to the neck can kill you.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Eye gouge would be the least of your problems , a strike to the neck can kill you.



A lot of strikes can potentially be fatal. However, strikes to the neck were legal in Vale Tudo and the first UFCs.

To my knowledge no one died from such a strike in those competitions.


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> A lot of strikes can potentially be fatal. However, strikes to the neck were legal in Vale Tudo and the first UFCs.
> 
> To my knowledge no one died from such a strike in those competitions.



Depends who is doing the striking to the neck and what expertise they have doesn't it.
That funny wooden man thing we train on , there is a reason for that , it can take strikes that would seriously injure a live human being.


----------



## drop bear

mook jong man said:


> Are you going to let the Wing Chun guys on the mats wearing normal shoes so they can smash your shins in with low heel kicks , because we don't train in bare feet.
> 
> Are you going to allow them to not wear gloves and strike to the neck , what about knee strikes into the bladder , how about having both your arms trapped as you cop a full body weight driven elbow strike down into your sternum.
> 
> Because that is how we roll , this stuff isn't meant for sport.
> 
> If you don't allow all that , then it is just an artificial game.



And see that works. MMA is not a death match. If you wanted to come in it would not be a street fight. Chances are you would not even get a full dose of hard mma. Because it is not about inviting people in and then bashing them.

But it falls off the cliff.

We don't see any actual death matches with full contact shin kicking.

Shin kicks that is going to be your super weapon?

Anyway. 

The mocking comes from this. You put your style on a par with mma. And can not compete on its terms. Or even vaguely on its terms.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> A lot of strikes can potentially be fatal. However, strikes to the neck were legal in Vale Tudo and the first UFCs.
> 
> To my knowledge no one died from such a strike in those competitions.



Mate of mine has a funny story about an arakan guy judo chopping some guy in a MMA match.


----------



## mook jong man

drop bear said:


> And see that works. MMA is not a death match. If you wanted to come in it would not be a street fight. Chances are you would not even get a full dose of hard mma. Because it is not about inviting people in and then bashing them.
> 
> But it falls off the cliff.
> 
> We don't see any actual death matches with full contact shin kicking.
> 
> Shin kicks that is going to be your super weapon?
> 
> Anyway.
> 
> The mocking comes from this. You put your style on a par with mma. And can not compete on its terms. Or even vaguely on its terms.



No a low heel kick to the shin does not kill you , but it will hurt like a ***** , momentarily halt your advance and stop you from getting into punching range and clinching range.

There is also the little matter of the chain punches that will be coming in at the rate of 7 to 8 a second directly after that , while you are trying to hobble around on one leg.

Get it through your heads , this stuff was not designed for sport.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Depends who is doing the striking to the neck and what expertise they have doesn't it.



Given its track record, it would appear that not many have the level of expertise necessary to disable, or severely injure someone with a neck strike. Hence why it's considered a low percentage technique.



> That funny wooden man thing we train on , there is a reason for that , it can take strikes that would seriously injure a live human being.



And we both know that Wing Chun isn't the only MA that possesses strikes that can injure people. The reality is that it's far easier to choke someone out than it is to kill them with a neck strike.


----------



## drop bear

mook jong man said:


> No a low heel kick to the shin does not kill you , but it will hurt like a ***** , momentarily halt your advance and stop you from getting into punching range and clinching range.
> 
> There is also the little matter of the chain punches that will be coming in at the rate of 7 to 8 a second directly after that , while you are trying to hobble around on one leg.
> 
> Get it through your heads , this stuff was not designed for sport.




And look I have no issue with anybody training for whatever reason they choose. But you can't compare martial arts unless you are willing to engage with them. 

Otherwise it is mouth boxing.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> Are you going to let the Wing Chun guys on the mats wearing normal shoes so they can smash your shins in with low heel kicks , because we don't train in bare feet.
> 
> Are you going to allow them to not wear gloves and strike to the neck , what about knee strikes into the bladder , how about having both your arms trapped as you cop a full body weight driven elbow strike down into your sternum.
> 
> Because that is how we roll , this stuff isn't meant for sport.
> 
> If you don't allow all that , then it is just an artificial game.


I'd spar with you in your shoes, if you could guarantee me that you didn't wear your shoes other than to train in.  The shoes thing isn't a safety issue.  It's a hygiene issue.  You don't wear shoes on the mats, and you don't walk around barefoot off the mats, particularly outside or in the bathrooms.  That's how staph infections, ringworm and impetigo occur.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I'd spar with you in your shoes, if you could guarantee me that you didn't wear your shoes other than to train in.  The shoes thing isn't a safety issue.  It's a hygiene issue.  You don't wear shoes on the mats, and you don't walk around barefoot off the mats, particularly outside or in the bathrooms.  That's how staph infections, ringworm and impetigo occur.




I was thinking that after it was posted. Because we have boxers that train In shoes. We have even been throwing on a GI and fighting  in that. Because our coach is fighting in a Kudo comp soon.

But regardless I am happy to spar either punching or wrestling. Which takes away huge advantages for me.I can see why everybody has to fight eyegouge and elbows.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> I'd spar with you in your shoes, ...



You don't want to spar against any CMA guy who has shoes on. 

I don't have a pair of shoes as shown in the following clip, but I do have a pair of shoes that has metal protection on the instep. It's very effective for the roundhouse kick. In CMA, the shoes is a weapon.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't want to spar against any CMA guy who has shoes on.
> 
> I don't have a pair of shoes as shown in the following clip, but I do have a pair of shoes that has metal protection on the instep. It's very effective for the roundhouse kick. In CMA, the shoes is a weapon.



When you say "any CMA guy" then you are presuming to speak for other people and not just for yourself.  I need to ask you to not do that.  I for one, am not so paranoid as to make a habit of wearing weaponized shoes.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> When you say "any CMA guy" then you are presuming to speak for other people and not just for yourself.  I need to ask you to not do that.  I for one, am not so paranoid as to make a habit of wearing weaponized shoes.


It was just a joke. Sometime it's fun to add some laugh into 41 pages of serious discussion.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> Are you going to let the Wing Chun guys on the mats wearing normal shoes so they can smash your shins in with low heel kicks , because we don't train in bare feet.
> 
> Are you going to allow them to not wear gloves and strike to the neck , what about knee strikes into the bladder , how about having both your arms trapped as you cop a full body weight driven elbow strike down into your sternum.
> 
> Because that is how we roll , this stuff isn't meant for sport.
> 
> If you don't allow all that , then it is just an artificial game.


So, you guys can train... what?  Maybe once a month?   Can't be more often than that, because you'd have to get out of the hospital after your training.  

How long does it take for your shattered shins to heal before you can train again?  How many people have you accidentally sent to the ER in training with your super deadly, un-gloved strikes to the neck?  How many of your training partners have you sent to the hosptial with a knee strike to his bladder or struck him in the sternum with your elbow?  Because, you're saying that's how you roll.  As you say, it's not an artificial game.  I don't believe it.  And if you DO roll like that, MMA isn't the reason you have no students.  It's that you guys are a bunch of lunatics.


----------



## mook jong man

Steve said:


> So, you guys can train... what?  Maybe once a month?   Can't be more often than that, because you'd have to get out of the hospital after your training.
> 
> How long does it take for your shattered shins to heal before you can train again?  How many people have you accidentally sent to the ER in training with your super deadly, un-gloved strikes to the neck?  How many of your training partners have you sent to the hosptial with a knee strike to his bladder or struck him in the sternum with your elbow?  Because, you're saying that's how you roll.  As you say, it's not an artificial game.  I don't believe it.  And if you DO roll like that, MMA isn't the reason you have no students.  It's that you guys are a bunch of lunatics.



There are ways to train reallistically  and still stay safe.
You can train low heel kicks on kick shields or against somebody with heavy leg protection on like cricket leg pads , or those plastic baseball leg guards , they work pretty well.
Strikes to the throat and neck can be trained on the wooden dummy , on focus mitts or kick shields , or on the partner by slightly modifying the strike and hitting the upper chest or pulling back the strike.

Knee strikes to the groin and bladder have to be trained on kick shields , or slowly on a partner wearing groin protection.
Biu jee elbow strikes can be practiced full power on focus mitts , or kick shields , if doing them on a partners sternum it's a good idea for the partner to be wearing a chest protector and the striker to seriously limit the amount of power they use.
When targeting the back of the neck , commonsense applies and you pull back the elbow strike just short of contact.

Training this way with heavy gear on , is certainly not conducted all the time , but occasionally you have to low heel kick a persons leg for real , at full speed and full power and the only way to safely do that is with serious leg protection on. 
One of the reasons that chi sau came about , is because it is a very safe way for Wing Chun people to spar.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> There are ways to train reallistically  and still stay safe.
> You can train low heel kicks on kick shields or against somebody with heavy leg protection on like cricket leg pads , or those plastic baseball leg guards , they work pretty well.
> Strikes to the throat and neck can be trained on the wooden dummy , on focus mitts or kick shields , or on the partner by slightly modifying the strike and hitting the upper chest or pulling back the strike.
> 
> Knee strikes to the groin and bladder have to be trained on kick shields , or slowly on a partner wearing groin protection.
> Biu jee elbow strikes can be practiced full power on focus mitts , or kick shields , if doing them on a partners sternum it's a good idea for the partner to be wearing a chest protector and the striker to seriously limit the amount of power they use.
> When targeting the back of the neck , commonsense applies and you pull back the elbow strike just short of contact.
> 
> Training this way with heavy gear on , is certainly not conducted all the time , but occasionally you have to low heel kick a persons leg for real , at full speed and full power and the only way to safely do that is with serious leg protection on.
> One of the reasons that chi sau came about , is because it is a very safe way for Wing Chun people to spar.


But you can't spar safely with an mma'ist?  Give me a break.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mook jong man

Steve said:


> But you can't spar safely with an mma'ist?  Give me a break.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh ok , so I'm just supposed to let somebody take me down without hitting them at full power  , so that they can choke me out and put it up on Youtube and make me look like an idiot.

Not bloody likely.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> Oh ok , so I'm just supposed to let somebody take me down without hitting them at full power  , so that they can choke me out and put it up on Youtube and make me look like an idiot.
> 
> Not bloody likely.


ah.  So it's ego.  That makes more sense.   Very destructive and petty reason, but at least understandable.   Have to put the ego aside at some point.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> A lot of strikes can potentially be fatal. However, strikes to the neck were legal in Vale Tudo and the first UFCs.
> 
> To my knowledge no one died from such a strike in those competitions.



I can't remember anyone attempting to use a neck strike in the first UFC's.


----------



## drop bear

mook jong man said:


> Oh ok , so I'm just supposed to let somebody take me down without hitting them at full power  , so that they can choke me out and put it up on Youtube and make me look like an idiot.
> 
> Not bloody likely.




Well yeah pretty much. That is what alive training is.sometimes you get caught and look silly. A sparring session is hardly going to be YouTubed though.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I can't remember anyone attempting to use a neck strike in the first UFC's.



You also don't see neck strikes in street altercations either. 

There's a good reason for that; the neck isn't an easy target to hit when you're dealing with a moving, attacking opponent.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> You also don't see neck strikes in street altercations either.
> 
> There's a good reason for that; the neck isn't an easy target to hit when you're dealing with a moving, attacking opponent.


That is total rubbish. In MMA you are not training to strike the neck. In Karate, Krav and Aikido we _are_ training to strike the neck. Obviously you don't always have the opportunity to just walk in and strike the neck any more than you would walk straight in and apply a rear naked choke. However once the target is available you hit it. If the target presents initially then you can hit it right off. Krav 360 defence teaches just that. The very first strike is to the neck. Once the attacker is bent over there are multiple strikes to the neck.

However as Youtube is the only way to prove a point. Stop this video at the moment of impact. The strike is to the neck!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7FoD-uiOU

Kaiten Nage in Aikido starts with a strike to the neck. The exact same move is taught in Krav and is practised in a Karate as Mawashi Uke. Again from Aikido, after applying a Sankyo lock the cut down exposes the neck for the strike. Exactly the same move is taught in Krav as a defence against a knife thrust where you turn under the arm and cut down. In Karate it is one of the applications at the beginning of Seiunchin kata.

In MMA I would have thought a rear naked choke was difficult to apply when you are dealing with a moving, attacking opponent too. One you are in the right position or the opportunity arises, then you can apply the choke. No different to the neck strike.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

IMO, the best way to "test" your skill is to go to

- boxing tournament to test your striking skill.
- TKD tournament to test your kicking skill.
- Shuai-Chiao/Judo/wrestling tournament to test your throwing skill.
- BJJ tournament to test your ground skill.
- kickboxing tournament to test your punching/kicking skill.
- Sanshou/Sanda tournament to test your punching/kicking/throwing skill.
- MMA tournament to test everything.

It doesn't matter how you train, if you take this "testing" approach, there will be no difference between TMA training and MMA training. All those "TMA vs. MMA" argument will have no meaning after that.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> That is total rubbish. In MMA you are not training to strike the neck. In Karate, Krav and Aikido we _are_ training to strike the neck. Obviously you don't always have the opportunity to just walk in and strike the neck any more than you would walk straight in and apply a rear naked choke. However once the target is available you hit it. If the target presents initially then you can hit it right off. Krav 360 defence teaches just that. The very first strike is to the neck.



Many Vale Tudo fighters and early UFC fighters were not MMA. I might have even seen a few neck strikes in early NHB bouts. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans really.



> However as Youtube is the only way to prove a point. Stop this video at the moment of impact. The strike is to the neck!
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3q7FoD-uiOU



Looked more like a forearm shot to the jaw, but okay.

Ive seen people get knocked out by a slap in the face. Doesn't change the fact that I wouldnt center my fighting ability on a face slap. I would center it around much higher percentage abilities.



> In MMA I would have thought a rear naked choke was difficult to apply when you are dealing with a moving, attacking opponent too. One you are in the right position or the opportunity arises, then you can apply the choke. No different to the neck strike.



Actually it's quite different. The RNC is a much higher percentage move than a strike to the neck.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> You also don't see neck strikes in street altercations either.
> 
> There's a good reason for that; the neck isn't an easy target to hit when you're dealing with a moving, attacking opponent.



It works sort of. The chopping action opens you up to a hook. While being blocked in a conventional sense.

But if you get judo chopped it defiantly sucks. I don't actually think it is against the rules either.

You can do it in Thai grapples.


----------



## jezr74

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the best way to "test" your skill is to go to
> 
> - boxing tournament to test your striking skill.
> - TKD tournament to test your kicking skill.
> - Shuai-Chiao/Judo/wrestling tournament to test your throwing skill.
> - BJJ tournament to test your ground skill.
> - kickboxing tournament to test your punching/kicking skill.
> - Sanshou/Sanda tournament to test your punching/kicking/throwing skill.
> - MMA tournament to test everything.
> 
> It doesn't matter how you train, if you take this "testing" approach, there will be no difference between TMA training and MMA training. All those "TMA vs. MMA" argument will have no meaning after that.



Could you put capoeira in that list? If the final test is in an octagon as a form of validation, would you say it's suited even in the limitations of the octagon?


----------



## jezr74

As far as I know, aren't all of the styles a mixture of styles. Why is "MMA" considered mixed and not other styles? 

If I look up any style, they have adapted and changed over time, teacher, culture etc.

Is the defining characteristic of MMA sport?


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> As far as I know, aren't all of the styles a mixture of styles. Why is "MMA" considered mixed and not other styles?
> 
> If I look up any style, they have adapted and changed over time, teacher, culture etc.
> 
> Is the defining characteristic of MMA sport?




Rule set.

So it is invented backwards. They have the competition and develop the martial art to cope with it.

Like kick boxing that went from a platform for karate and tkd to its own system.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX2Y0oHiWI


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> Rule set.
> 
> So it is invented backwards. They have the competition and develop the martial art to cope with it.
> 
> Like kick boxing that went from a platform for karate and tkd to its own system.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX2Y0oHiWI



Makes sense and I agree, so it's not a question that TMAs have more difficulty, it's just that TMA's may not have a lot to offer to the MMA rule set? 

That could equally apply to any martial art, modern or traditional. 

Looking at you own background, are their aspects or techniques from all MA styles that you would not bother with? Including, BJJ? The only reason I mention BJJ is because it is referred to a lot in this thread and the context *I* get is all of it is techniques is usable in MMA rule set. Is there some aspects that are not?

I'm not knocking MMA or BJJ or Traditional MA, just trying to understand the middle ground in this thread instead of the absolutes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jezr74 said:


> Could you put capoeira in that list? If the final test is in an octagon as a form of validation, would you say it's suited even in the limitations of the octagon?



I know nothing about capoeira. Are there any capoeira tournament? Which category should it consist?


----------



## jezr74

KFW, when you send your guys into MMA fights for testing, what do they come back to you with? Do they find it more difficult?


----------



## jezr74

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I know nothing about capoeira. Are there any capoeira tournament? Which category should it consist?



Well that's kinda my point, from what I understand of Capoeira, it needs space and area to flow (jenga?). The confides of a cage is not a good place for it to be tested if that's how the form works. Does that mean they have more difficulty in a cage, or that MMA fighters have difficulty using Capoeira in their rule set?


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> Well that's kinda my point, from what I understand of Capoeira, it needs space and area to flow (jenga?). The confides of a cage is not a good place for it to be tested if that's how the form works. Does that mean they have more difficulty in a cage, or that MMA fighters have difficulty using Capoeira in their rule set?



It is really taxing to do and leaves a lot of openings that a fighter can take advantage of. The movements are too big.

There should be no issue with the cage. Generally a roda is pretty small.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgHTJ760GBQ&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> It is really taxing to do and leaves a lot of openings that a fighter can take advantage of. The movements are too big.
> 
> There should be no issue with the cage. Generally a roda is pretty small.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgHTJ760GBQ&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google




Quite a good clip, interesting to see the different skill levels, about halfway through, the level steps right up with one of the guys looking like a standout.

Personally, I'd still would not want a cage around me as the usable space would be limited, I'd rather spin into a couple of fleshy guys than get my toes caught on steel mesh and split.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jezr74 said:


> KFW, when you send your guys into MMA fights for testing, what do they come back to you with? Do they find it more difficult?



Something work well, such as 

- head lock against double neck ties.
- elbow cracking against under hook.
- big fist against head punch.
- ...

Something need to be modified, such as 

- don't give your back to your opponent unless you have a good control on his arm.
- change all body spin into a 90 degree sharp turn.
- crash your opponent's structure first before taking him down.
- ...


----------



## jezr74

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Something work well, such as
> 
> - head lock against double neck ties.
> - elbow cracking against under hook.
> - big fist against head punch.
> - ...
> 
> Something need to be modified, such as
> 
> - don't give your back to your opponent unless you have a good control on his arm.
> - change all body spin into a 90 degree sharp turn.
> - crash your opponent's structure first before taking him down.
> - ...



Do you look at new techniques\principles and incorporate into your teaching where you think it will give value?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jezr74 said:


> Do you look at new techniques\principles and incorporate into your teaching where you think it will give value?


The art of Chinese wrestling is so old. It's very difficult to find or invent anything new. Because different sport rule set, one may have to pay attention on certain moves more than others.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> Quite a good clip, interesting to see the different skill levels, about halfway through, the level steps right up with one of the guys looking like a standout.
> 
> Personally, I'd still would not want a cage around me as the usable space would be limited, I'd rather spin into a couple of fleshy guys than get my toes caught on steel mesh and split.



Spinning kicks and in general flash moves are defiantly on the increase in the cage though. There are elements of capoeira that do present in the cage either coincidentally or intentionally.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncPS_pmFAWM


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Actually it's quite different. The RNC is a much higher percentage move than a strike to the neck.



But a lot slower and leaves you in a more vulnerable position even when you apply it on someone (multiple attackers, weapons and all) and more likely to go wrong when you fail to slap it on properly, only able to do one at a time. How many knockout neck strikes can be done in the time it takes to do one RNC to unconsciousness?

To an MMA fighter the RNC may be a high percentage move but how long does it take on average in an MMA fight to successfully apply one?


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You also don't see neck strikes in street altercations either.
> 
> There's a good reason for that; the neck isn't an easy target to hit when you're dealing with a moving, attacking opponent.



Yes there is a good reason, but not the one you think it is. It is because most street altercations are between relatively untrained combatants.

Generally people have to have stopped moving before the RNC is applied to them.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Yes there is a good reason, but not the one you think it is. It is because most street altercations are between relatively untrained combatants
> 
> Generally people have to have stopped moving before the RNC is applied to them.



Yet you see head kicks and spinning kick. Which I would have considered more specialised.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> But a lot slower and leaves you in a more vulnerable position even when you apply it on someone (multiple attackers, weapons and all) and more likely to go wrong when you fail to slap it on properly, only able to do one at a time. How many knockout neck strikes can be done in the time it takes to do one RNC to unconsciousness?



If I'm in position to do a RNC, most of those considerations have already been dealt with. The RNC is a finishing move, not an opening attack, unless you're coming up behind someone and trying to choke them from behind.

As for failing to slap it on properly, that's what training is for, and part of the genius of randori in Judo and Bjj. I get to apply RNCs at full power, and I only need to restrain myself if my partner is in danger of passing out. Thus, I get to gauge the effectiveness of my ability to pull off an RNC on a variety of people of different shapes and sizes who are fully resisting my efforts to put them into the choke.

Can I always get the RNC on? No. However, I'm willing to bet that my ability to pull off an effective RNC exceeds your ability to knock someone out with a strike to the neck. Why? Because I've actually done it several times on fully resisting opponents, and I had to work to get them into that position, and to get them to tap out.



> To an MMA fighter the RNC may be a high percentage move but how long does it take on average in an MMA fight to successfully apply one?



It isn't just a high percentage move for MMA fighters. It's a high percentage move in grappling period. Most people know that if someone gets a RNC on you, you're pretty much done for unless you can fight your way out of it. The RNC is the main reason no one wants to give up their back when they're rolling, because its perfect to set up the RNC. Hence why its not really fair to use MMA fighters as an example for how long it takes to apply the choke, because any MMA fighter worth their salt has training to defend against it.

Your average martial artist or person on the street doesn't.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> Im fine with admitting things may be a bit different in Europe, but considering that you also have MAs reacting to MMA there as well, I can't be totally off base. When I say reacting to MMA, I'm talking about styles that had no ground fighting to speak of 20 years ago now suddenly having ground fighting (oftentimes with laughable results) or some form of anti-grappling. Basically anything that will ease their student's fear of the crazed MMA guy rolling them on the concrete and choking them out.



I don't mean to be taking what you said in your whole post out of context, but I wanted to address the above quoted part. 

I agree. But I look at it with a more "glass half full" approach. A lot of guys here study stand up arts that have some ground fighting component to them. They are very fortunate, I was not so lucky. Neither were 90% of the other guys/schools/competitors that I always interacted and fought with 25 years ago. A whole lot of stand up schools here in New England didn't have squat when it came to ground fighting. (may seem like a long time to some, it's the blink of an eye to us old guys) But most of them have some ground basics now. And it's only going to get better. Yes, a few I've seen are close to laughable, but they'll eventually get there, or probably end up closing down. 

I think some of them added ground as a marketing ploy, I think others might have done it to appease a younger student base who sees it on TV, but I think a lot of them are doing it because they finally woke up. And some, with  good instruction, realized that they could actually learn the basics of this and become better Martial Artists themselves, and become far better, well rounded instructors.

I credit the explosive interest in BJJ for this, and the UFC, and the Gracies in particular. Because of those influences, they have made a lot of stand-up schools better places to train, and made students and teachers better suited to deal with real world self defense. And twenty years from now it's going to be a whole lot better than it is now. Especially when the young students nowadays, get older and start teaching. I find this a beautiful thing.
'


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Many Vale Tudo fighters and early UFC fighters were not MMA. I might have even seen a few neck strikes in early NHB bouts. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans really.
> 
> Looked more like a forearm shot to the jaw, but okay.
> 
> Ive seen people get knocked out by a slap in the face. Doesn't change the fact that I wouldnt center my fighting ability on a face slap. I would center it around much higher percentage abilities.
> 
> Actually it's quite different. The RNC is a much higher percentage move than a strike to the neck.


So a forearm strike to the side or back of the neck is the same as a slap to the face? I would suggest to you that the reason they are banned from MMA is because they are too dangerous to allow in sport. 



RTKDCMB said:


> Generally people have to have stopped moving before the RNC is applied to them.


And in the situation where the strike to the back of the neck is the finishing move the person is not moving either.



Hanzou said:


> If I'm in position to do a RNC, most of those considerations have already been dealt with. The RNC is a finishing move, not an opening attack, unless you're coming up behind someone and trying to choke them from behind.


A strike to the neck can be an opening move, an intermediate move or a finishing move. For an opening move there obviously must be an opportunity to use it just as you need opportunity to apply a RNC. 



Hanzou said:


> As for failing to slap it on properly, that's what training is for, and part of the genius of randori in Judo and Bjj. I get to apply RNCs at full power, and I only need to restrain myself if my partner is in danger of passing out. Thus, I get to gauge the effectiveness of my ability to pull off an RNC on a variety of people of different shapes and sizes who are fully resisting my efforts to put them into the choke.


So what is our training for? I get to train my strikes at full power too. Just not delivered to the neck. 



Hanzou said:


> Can I always get the RNC on? No. However, I'm willing to bet that my ability to pull off an effective RNC exceeds your ability to knock someone out with a strike to the neck. Why? Because I've actually done it several times on fully resisting opponents, and I had to work to get them into that position, and to get them to tap out.



What crap! RNC is part and parcel of most martial arts and is very effective if using it is appropriate. Even with experience it takes several seconds to get into position and three or four seconds to apply. I can knock you out with a blow to the back of the neck in a fraction of a second and I'm willing to bet that if I use full force you will likely never walk again. And before you ask, no I haven't done it just as I have never shot anyone in the head. I don't have to do either to know how effective they are.



Hanzou said:


> It isn't just a high percentage move for MMA fighters. It's a high percentage move in grappling period. Most people know that if someone gets a RNC on you, you're pretty much done for unless you can fight your way out of it. The RNC is the main reason no one wants to give up their back when they're rolling, because its perfect to set up the RNC. Hence why its not really fair to use MMA fighters as an example for how long it takes to apply the choke, because any MMA fighter worth their salt has training to defend against it.
> 
> Your average martial artist or person on the street doesn't.


You Have a very inflated image of your ability and an incredible disregard for the ability of all of the rest of us. We train RNC too. It is a high percentage move when you are in a position to utilise it. For me it is more useful if I need a shield. RNC is not a destination for me. It is an opportunity, like all my techniques. As to your average martial artist not training against RNC? More crap. We train against chokes constantly. 

As to not wanting to give up you back. How is that different for non MMA fighters? We don't want to give up our backs either. Not only that but our training is the same trying to get to the rear when that is an option.

Get a life! There's more out there than MMA.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So a forearm strike to the side or back of the neck is the same as a slap to the face? I would suggest to you that the reason they are banned from MMA is because they are too dangerous to allow in sport.



Well actually I just found out that strikes to the side of the neck are legal in MMA.

So there you go.



> So what is our training for? I get to train my strikes at full power too. Just not delivered to the neck.



Which isn't the same as actually striking the neck over and over again in a training environment against a resisting opponent.



> What crap! RNC is part and parcel of most martial arts and is very effective if using it is appropriate. Even with experience it takes several seconds to get into position and three or four seconds to apply. I can knock you out with a blow to the back of the neck in a fraction of a second and I'm willing to bet that if I use full force you will likely never walk again. And before you ask, no I haven't done it just as I have never shot anyone in the head. I don't have to do either to know how effective they are.



Well I have choked people out with the RNC, and I've choked many more people to the point where they feel helpless and tap out. So there's a difference there.



> You Have a very inflated image of your ability and an incredible disregard for the ability of all of the rest of us. We train RNC too. It is a high percentage move when you are in a position to utilise it. For me it is more useful if I need a shield. RNC is not a destination for me. It is an opportunity, like all my techniques. As to your average martial artist not training against RNC? More crap. We train against chokes constantly.



Well then you guys wouldn't be your average martial artists now would you?



> As to not wanting to give up you back. How is that different for non MMA fighters? We don't want to give up our backs either. Not only that but our training is the same trying to get to the rear when that is an option.



You guys are training with professional grapplers and/or Bjj black belts to learn how to avoid getting your back taken/and or taking the back? I'm impressed.



> Get a life! There's more out there than MMA.



Of course. However, that's the topic of this discussion.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Well actually I just found out that strikes to the side of the neck are legal in MMA.
> 
> So there you go.


Strikes to the side of the neck are low percenters unless you get lucky. Strikes to the front can easily collapse the trachea and the main one for us, the back of the neck is not allowed. However technically nothing is 'banned' in MMA. Illegal strikes are considered foul so that opens up the opportunity to cheat as there is no automatic disqualification even if you hurt your opponent with an illegal strike. However, I would suggest legal action would certainly follow injury caused by an illegal strike.
Three Reasons Why You Should Always Cheat in an MMA Fight | Cagepotato




Hanzou said:


> Which isn't the same as actually striking the neck over and over again in a training environment against a resisting opponent.


By the time I'm striking the neck there is little resistance.




Hanzou said:


> Well I have choked people out with the RNC, and I've choked many more people to the point where they feel helpless and tap out. So there's a difference there.



And so have I. But, I have never hit anyone full force on the back of the neck.  Who's further up the wall? 



Hanzou said:


> Well then you guys wouldn't be your average martial artists now would you?


Perhaps not, but I don't go round trying to compare. What is 'your average martial artist'? I would claim that all our training is reality based and good solid training. I would suggest there are plenty of others here who might claim the same.



Hanzou said:


> You guys are training with professional grapplers and/or Bjj black belts to learn how to avoid getting your back taken/and or taking the back? I'm impressed.


No, not professional grapplers but BJJ black belts, certainly. One of my main training partners is a BJJ black belt.



Hanzou said:


> Of course. However, that's the topic of this discussion.


You could have fooled me. Even this discussion has been hijacked back to how good MMA is. The topic was "why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon" and the answer is "they don't care as they are not training for the ring/octagon".


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Strikes to the side of the neck are low percenters unless you get lucky. Strikes to the front can easily collapse the trachea and the main one for us, the back of the neck is not allowed. However technically nothing is 'banned' in MMA. Illegal strikes are considered foul so that opens up the opportunity to cheat as there is no automatic disqualification even if you hurt your opponent with an illegal strike. However, I would suggest legal action would certainly follow injury caused by an illegal strike.
> Three Reasons Why You Should Always Cheat in an MMA Fight | Cagepotato
> 
> 
> 
> By the time I'm striking the neck there is little resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so have I. But, I have never hit anyone full force on the back of the neck.  Who's further up the wall?
> 
> Perhaps not, but I don't go round trying to compare. What is 'your average martial artist'? I would claim that all our training is reality based and good solid training. I would suggest there are plenty of others here who might claim the same.
> 
> No, not professional grapplers but BJJ black belts, certainly. One of my main training partners is a BJJ black belt.
> 
> 
> You could have fooled me. Even this discussion has been hijacked back to how good MMA is. The topic was "why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon" and the answer is "they don't care as they are not training for the ring/octagon".



That doesn't pan out so much though. Sports fighters don't train for the street but they seem to make out all right. So their has to be some sort of skill overlap there.

If it is going to work with rules with a ref with padding and with the other guy training hard for the sole purpose of stopping you. It is a pretty safe bet it is going to work without those limitations.


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Strikes to the side of the neck are low percenters unless you get lucky. Strikes to the front can easily collapse the trachea and the main one for us, the back of the neck is not allowed. However technically nothing is 'banned' in MMA. Illegal strikes are considered foul so that opens up the opportunity to cheat as there is no automatic disqualification even if you hurt your opponent with an illegal strike. However, I would suggest legal action would certainly follow injury caused by an illegal strike.
> Three Reasons Why You Should Always Cheat in an MMA Fight | Cagepotato



Strikes to the neck are low percenters period. That's the point.




> By the time I'm striking the neck there is little resistance.



So if it never reaches the point of little to no resistance you're not using the strike?



> And so have I. But, I have never hit anyone full force on the back of the neck.  Who's further up the wall?



The point is that if you've never actually done it, you really don't know what it takes to make it actually work, or what the results can be. I've RNC'd people of various shapes, sizes, and levels of resistance. Some have been completely choked out to the point that they passed out (didn't tap), others tapped quickly, and still others tapped after significant resistance. Again, there's a difference there, and its a big one.



> Perhaps not, but I don't go round trying to compare. What is 'your average martial artist'? I would claim that all our training is reality based and good solid training. I would suggest there are plenty of others here who might claim the same.








That would be your average martial artist.



> No, not professional grapplers but BJJ black belts, certainly. One of my main training partners is a BJJ black belt.



Why am I not surprised?



> You could have fooled me. Even this discussion has been hijacked back to how good MMA is. The topic was "why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon" and the answer is "they don't care as they are not training for the ring/octagon".



Well actually this particular discussion was about Mook using his neck strike of death in a sparring competition with a grappler. You decided to hop in and discuss how awesome neck strikes really are, and somehow we ended up talking about how all inclusive your training is (again).

What tangled webs we weave....


----------



## drop bear

I have been hit full force in the back of the neck and it can give you flashes so possibly knock you out if lucky. The issue is getting that shot. You sort of have to be scrambling around on the ground in front of them. And well you can get nailed with a lot of stuff there.

As far as the side goes it is usually pretty well protected. I would probably judo chop the temple or behind the ear. Both are harder to cover.

Temple would be the money shot to be honest.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Strikes to the neck are low percenters period. That's the point.



So I'll reference a Krav site and perhaps you could tell me the things you disagree with.
Asia Krav Maga

In particular ... 



> *Back of the neck*: A powerful blow can cause whiplash, concussion, or even a broken neck or death.
> 
> *Back of the ears and base of skull*: A moderate blow to the back of the ear or the base of the skull can cause unconsciousness by jarring the effect on the back of the brain. However, a powerful blow can cause a concussion or brain haemorrhage and death.





Hanzou said:


> So if it never reaches the point of little to no resistance you're not using the strike?


What are you on about? I am saying that after you have used certain techniques which leave the neck exposed the strike to the back of the neck is the finishing move. It seems to be an issue to you that TMAs train effective techniques.



Hanzou said:


> The point is that if you've never actually done it, you really don't know what it takes to make it actually work, or what the results can be. I've RNC'd people of various shapes, sizes, and levels of resistance. Some have been completely choked out to the point that they passed out (didn't tap), others tapped quickly, and still others tapped after significant resistance. Again, there's a difference there, and its a big one.


And I said I have also applied RNCs the same way. So what? 



Hanzou said:


> That would be your average martial artist.



:BSmeter:




Hanzou said:


> Why am I not surprised?


I don't know. Did you think that these guys don't train with us ordinary folk?



Hanzou said:


> Well actually this particular discussion was about Mook using his neck strike of death in a sparring competition with a grappler. You decided to hop in and discuss how awesome neck strikes really are, and somehow we ended up talking about how all inclusive your training is (again).
> 
> What tangled webs we weave....


Yes, I think neck strikes are effective. I haven't posted for some time but your posts are getting so far out of line that people might even start to believe your crap. Nothing to do with my training, but yes, I believe it is inclusive. Not only that, but I would welcome any visitors to check it out, and that is not a challenge.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Strikes to the neck are low percenters period. That's the point.



To you maybe.



Hanzou said:


> That would be your average martial artist.



No that would be your way, way, way below average martial artist.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Yet you see head kicks and spinning kick. Which I would have considered more specialised.



I would be willing to bet that those who did those in street fights mostly come from a sporting background.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> However, I'm willing to bet that my ability to pull off an effective RNC exceeds your ability to knock someone out with a strike to the neck.



And you would lose.


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> That doesn't pan out so much though. Sports fighters don't train for the street but they seem to make out all right. So their has to be some sort of skill overlap there.
> 
> If it is going to work with rules with a ref with padding and with the other guy training hard for the sole purpose of stopping you. It is a pretty safe bet it is going to work without those limitations.


I don't have any issue with that. I have always acknowledged the skill of MMA competitors. Obviously the techniques will be equally effective on the street. All I am trying to say is that the techniques that I teach which are specifically for the street and worse are at least as effective. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously write off every martial art that doesn't have competitors in the ring.
:asian:


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> That doesn't pan out so much though. Sports fighters don't train for the street but they seem to make out all right. So their has to be some sort of skill overlap there.
> 
> If it is going to work with rules with a ref with padding and with the other guy training hard for the sole purpose of stopping you. It is a pretty safe bet it is going to work without those limitations.



That depends how you define "works".  Perform a triangle choke in the ring and the guy taps, perform it in the street and his mates use your head as a football.  Triangle choke still "works", and it's a great technique for MMA, but it's almost suicidal for SD.  Conversely many techniques which are great for MMA won't "work" in the ring as they are not designed to.

Of course there are cross over skills (a good punch is always a good punch) but many of the techniques and skills you need for success in one are of no use (or can actually be the compete opposite) of what you need for success in the other. 

It's not the technique or ther skill that decides if it "works" is the context in which you are using it.


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> That depends how you define "works".  Perform a triangle choke in the ring and the guy taps, perform it in the street and his mates use your head as a football.  Triangle choke still "works", and it's a great technique for MMA, but it's almost suicidal for SD.  Conversely many techniques which are great for MMA won't "work" in the ring as they are not designed to.
> 
> Of course there are cross over skills (a good punch is always a good punch) but many of the techniques and skills you need for success in one are of no use (or can actually be the compete opposite) of what you need for success in the other.
> 
> It's not the technique or ther skill that decides if it "works" is the context in which you are using it.












Two examples of triangle chokes being used in a street fight.

And a female naval officer used the triangle to stop a would be rapist in Dubai;

Female US Navy Sailor Puts Rapist To Sleep With Triangle Choke In Dubai | Bjj Eastern Europe

The choke works regardless, and its an excellent choke that can be applied from the guard position. "His mates will use your head as a football" is a pretty lame excuse.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> And you would lose.



Like I said in an earlier post, I've successfully applied the RNC several times, and I've caused quite a few people to pass out because they didn't tap. BTW, I've also tapped to the RNC and several other chokes in my time in Bjj, so I'm not some super human. That's just the life of a Bjj exponent. Sometimes you get to choke, and oftentimes you're the one getting choked. 

Just curious; How many people have you knocked out with a neck strike in practice or in an altercation?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> So I'll reference a Krav site and perhaps you could tell me the things you disagree with.
> Asia Krav Maga



What am I supposed to be looking at exactly? I saw the videos, and while the takedown counters did look rather cool, since I've never seen them done at full speed and power I can't gauge their effectiveness.

I do know that there's far simpler ways to counter a rear hold and a DLT, so I'm wondering why the instructor feels the need to do such a fancy move.

I also notice that their e-mail is Hapkido@.... So I guess they used to be a Hapkido school, and now they're a Krav school.

Interesting. Makes you wonder what exactly precipitated that change. 



> In particular ...



Just because its possible doesn't mean that you'll be able to pull it off. Especially if you've never actually done it before. A punch in the jaw has the possibility to knock someone out cold. Doesn't mean that *I'll *be able to knock someone out if I punch them in that location, since I've never done it before.



> What are you on about? I am saying that after you have used certain techniques which leave the neck exposed the strike to the back of the neck is the finishing move. It seems to be an issue to you that TMAs train effective techniques.



I'm just making sure I understand what you're saying. I don't want to take you the wrong way and get you upset. That's never a good thing.



> And I said I have also applied RNCs the same way. So what?



How exactly are you applying them? Are you actually sparring at full contact and speed and applying them as part of your "game", or are you doing one-step drills where you take turns applying it before moving on to the next technique? Didn't you once tell me that you guys don't spar?



> Yes, I think neck strikes are effective. I haven't posted for some time but your posts are getting so far out of line that people might even start to believe your crap. Nothing to do with my training, but yes, I believe it is inclusive. Not only that, but I would welcome any visitors to check it out, and that is not a challenge.



Which one? The Krav Maga school, or the Okinawan Karate school? Or do you do both of these arts out of one location?


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

K-man said:


> I cannot believe that anyone can seriously write off every martial art that doesn't have competitors in the ring.
> :asian:



Why can you still not believe that? They've been doing it consistently for 40+ pages now.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Just curious; How many people have you knocked out with a neck strike in practice or in an altercation?



As a general rule I don't go around knocking people out with neck strikes in training, I like students to keep coming back. I don't need to actually knock lots of people out with a neck strike to know if it can be done, anybody who has held a pad for me for a knife hand strike would not doubt its effectiveness and power. I have however knocked someone out with a spinning heel kick at their black belt grading and I barely touched him with it, I had to pull it a little when I saw it was going to hit him.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> As a general rule I don't go around knocking people out with neck strikes in training, I like students to keep coming back. I don't need to actually knock lots of people out with a neck strike to know if it can be done, anybody who has held a pad for me for a knife hand strike would not doubt its effectiveness and power. I have however knocked someone out with a spinning heel kick at their black belt grading and I barely touched him with it, I had to pull it a little when I saw it was going to hit him.



Well that's my point. I've choked out people with the RNC, and I've used the RNC to choke people to the point of giving up (tapping out), all within full resistance and with people of different sizes, body types, and weights.

You, on the other hand, have NEVER knocked out *anyone* with a neck strike. And even in training you're doing it against someone standing there holding a pad to their neck. Not moving, not blocking, not giving you any resistance of any kind.

You really can't see the difference?


----------



## mook jong man

Hanzou said:


> Well that's my point. I've choked out people with the RNC, and I've used the RNC to choke people to the point of giving up (tapping out), all within full resistance and with people of different sizes, body types, and weights.
> 
> You, on the other hand, have NEVER knocked out *anyone* with a neck strike. And even in training you're doing it against someone standing there holding a pad to their neck. Not moving, not blocking, not giving you any resistance of any kind.
> 
> You really can't see the difference?



Let's have closer look at this full resistance thing you keep talking about shall we.
Is it really full resistance , you are not training against people trying to trap your hands and punch you , you are not training against people trying to kick you , you are not training against people trying to knee strike you or elbow strike you.

You are basically training against people trying to grapple with you , basically people playing the same game as you are.


----------



## Hanzou

mook jong man said:


> Let's have closer look at this full resistance thing you keep talking about shall we.
> Is it really full resistance , you are not training against people trying to trap your hands and punch you , you are not training against people trying to kick you , you are not training against people trying to knee strike you or elbow strike you.



You learn pretty quickly in Bjj that attempting to punch and kick in an inferior position is a quick way to get yourself in an even worse situation. However, we do get street people who come in and attempt that stuff, and they don't last very long.

The point is; if I'm grappling with another grappler who is highly trained, and I can get their back and pull off an RNC to the point that they're tapping or going to never-never land, all while they're squirming, flailing, and attempting to get out of the choke with all their might, I've performed that choke sucessfully under full resistance. That becomes even easier against someone who isn't trained, because they don't know the defenses in order to stop me from getting to their back or applying the choke.




> You are basically training against people trying to grapple with you , basically people playing the same game as you are.



When two people grapple or hit the ground, both are scrambling for superior positioning. That situation doesn't leave a lot of room for kicking and punching. It even happens when two Wing Chun masters fight;






Looks like a lot of people play our "game".


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> You, on the other hand, have NEVER knocked out *anyone* with a neck strike. And even in training you're doing it against someone standing there holding a pad to their neck. Not moving, not blocking, not giving you any resistance of any kind.
> 
> You really can't see the difference?



I have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike *while they were holding a pad* no, I would be doing a very lousy job at doing pad work if I did. 

Sometimes the pads are moving and no one in any of our classes would be stupid enough to hold a pad to their neck during striking practice, that would be an accident waiting to happen. When you are doing pad work the pad holder would not be blocking as that would defeat the purpose of doing pad work, they are however moving, blocking, striking back and resisting in sparring.


----------



## drop bear

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Why can you still not believe that? They've been doing it consistently for 40+ pages now.



Well if there is some evidence of successful self defence that would work as well. Some sort of real sample that maybe we could look at what consistently works.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

I have no doubt a RNC will work.  Why because I have choked people out and like Hanzou said above I have been choked out once as well.

I do however have the distinction in that I have knocked a lot of people out when competing way back in the day with temple shots, jaw line strikes and I have also hit a few people with neck shots on the brachial also resulting in the person falling down and effectively being unable to move. (though thankfully I have never hit anyone in the adams apple)  Pressure testing is important.  Yet, I do not need to hit someone in the eye in training to know what the result will be.  I have also seen enough eye strikes in competition (particularly mma) to know the result. (fetal position typically)  I did once about thirty years ago during a tournament in Traverse City get fingered in the eye by someone's thumb from a ridge hand.  Let me tell you that was one of the most painful injuries I have ever gone through.  Immediate stoppage during competition.  Trip to the hospital after the tournament.  Two weeks with an eye patch all from a minor corneal scratch.  Lots of pain pills and that was brutal.


----------



## Buka

I'm a big proponent for punching to the neck  (or elbowing), right at the carotid sinus or brachial nerve. I have had  great success with it for many years. Both in training, competition and  real world encounters. My strikes tend to drift higher, rather than  lower (if they drift) and that usually gives me the jaw when I hit  higher than I aimed. I've knocked out more folks, or put them on queer  street, with a neck shot than with a jaw shot. But there's many of both.

We  actively train this. I have my guys familiarize themselves with this by  self examination in their mirror at home - every time they shave or  clean up. Two fingers held together - poke yourself in the carotid. It  will take a few pokes, but you'll find it. After repeated practice with  this you'll find it first time, every time. Then you start looking at  the carotid when you speak with someone. Not the whole time, obviously,  but you do it every time you face someone - or observe them from the  side. It becomes a fighter's habit, a subconscious thing that nobody  notices. Pays off, too, or at least that's been our experience.

I  know all of that may sound odd, but it works quite well. I also trained  my officers like that in DT because brachial stuns/strikes were big  back in the day. Not sure if they still are.

However, I  have never done a neck strike to a downed person, or attempted it as  part of ground and pound, so I have absolutely no idea if it's viable in  those case or even advisable. But it sure works sweet in stand up. 

I  don't want to give the wrong impression here, we don't spar each other  trying to knock each other out. Not at all. But some of the guys who are  well seasoned tend to go a little harder with each other, especially in  ring training at times. (Ammonia capsules always at the ready)

As  for the RNC. It just don't get any better than that, it just don't. I  don't care how strong, how crazy or what kind of drugs they have raging  through their system, when it's nap time.....everybody goes to sleep.  Right quick, too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

This is the one of CMA ways to apply RNC. It's called "beggar carry dog". It was used as an assassin technique in the ancient time to attack someone from behind. It can be executed quietly without making any sound. 

- You use a rope (or neck choke) on your opponent's neck,
- put his weight on your back, 
- drag him backward, 
- until he is ...

As far as I know, there is no counters for it.


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> What am I supposed to be looking at exactly? I saw the videos, and while the takedown counters did look rather cool, since I've never seen them done at full speed and power I can't gauge their effectiveness.
> 
> I do know that there's far simpler ways to counter a rear hold and a DLT, so I'm wondering why the instructor feels the need to do such a fancy move.


I actually copied and pasted two vital targets for you to comment on. I was referring to the other targets which were on the page I linked to see if you disagreed. I couldn't watch the videos on an ipad so can't comment.



Hanzou said:


> I also notice that their e-mail is Hapkido@.... So I guess they used to be a Hapkido school, and now they're a Krav school.
> 
> Interesting. Makes you wonder what exactly precipitated that change.


Or maybe as they say on the site they are just sharing the location. It's not always a conspiracy.   

And the instructor sounds legit to me ...


> Chief Instructor Master Lim Beng Kit is a Certified Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Krav Maga Instructor. Master Lim has been involved in martial arts and fighting systems for the past 20 years. He received his Krav Maga Instructor Diploma from Krav Maga Top Expert, Boaz Aviram, and actively promotes Authentic IDF Krav Maga in Asia.
> He was awarded &#8220;Krav Maga Instructor of the year 2009&#8221; by Martial Arts Health and fitness Association of Emden, Germany. Master Lim is a qualified First Aider and is certified in Sports Coaching. He received his Cert III in Sports Coaching from the International College of Kenshusei, Australia.







Hanzou said:


> Just because its possible doesn't mean that you'll be able to pull it off. Especially if you've never actually done it before. A punch in the jaw has the possibility to knock someone out cold. Doesn't mean that *I'll *be able to knock someone out if I punch them in that location, since I've never done it before.



Oh please! So at least you are now acknowledging that the techniques are legitimate. So I suppose we are now back to ensuring effective training to make them work. Cool ... that's a start.



Hanzou said:


> I'm just making sure I understand what you're saying. I don't want to take you the wrong way and get you upset. That's never a good thing.


True. I can get quite argumentative when people feed me BS.   Just stop rubbishing every other style and every other martial artist and we might even get to be friends. 



Hanzou said:


> How exactly are you applying them? Are you actually sparring at full contact and speed and applying them as part of your "game", or are you doing one-step drills where you take turns applying it before moving on to the next technique? Didn't you once tell me that you guys don't spar?


Hmm! You really don't read things do you? I said we don't spar in the conventional sense, ie like tournament sparring. I told you we trained against full resistance but you didn't accept that as valid. So no, we don't have any one step drills as such.

As to RNC. I teach how to apply it first, but in training you have to be able to achieve the position to apply it. I would think it was a bit like your training really in that respect but obviously not as effective as yours because we don't want to fight in the ring. 



Hanzou said:


> Which one? The Krav Maga school, or the Okinawan Karate school? Or do you do both of these arts out of one location?


We do both different nights or you might like to check out how effective Aikido can be. We teach all three in the one location. Anyone is welcome to attend classes. I would certainly join the Aikido class if you were going to be there.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> I don't have any issue with that. I have always acknowledged the skill of MMA competitors. Obviously the techniques will be equally effective on the street. All I am trying to say is that the techniques that I teach which are specifically for the street and worse are at least as effective. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously write off every martial art that doesn't have competitors in the ring.
> :asian:



You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.


----------



## K-man

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Why can you still not believe that? They've been doing it consistently for 40+ pages now.


Apparently I'm a bit slow, but it's obvious I'm not alone!


----------



## K-man

drop bear said:


> You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.


Mate, I am 66 years old. What would it prove if I went in the ring? I finished with that years back. I'm more concerned with teaching people who want to develop some personal protection skills and learn an authentic and effective martial art along the way. 

If someone came to me wanting to fight in the ring, I have a number of friends who will train them and two mates who could promote them. What I teach is not designed for the ring so I don't attract students who want to fight in the ring.
:asian:

Just as an aside. When I do demonstrate a technique against a resisting opponent I usually pick the biggest, strongest guy to demonstrate on. That way the guys can see that it is effective.


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> You have to fight someone somewhere to really know. It is like a fitness trainer that is fat. It may not be the most PC method of identifying knowledge but as a simple rule of thumb it is pretty good.



Is this really true? I think it's more to being marketable, has really has no bearing on their knowledge or ability. It's just about selling yourself. If you in a professional service, you might might wear a suit and tie but it doesn't make you smarter or give you knowledge you didn't have before.

Using a move in a fight is statistically insignificant to assessing it's ability. Using it in 1000's of fights and tracking it's effectiveness might serve better. Or sparring can give a good insight since it's not practical to fabricate a live fight for that purpose.


----------



## Steve

mook jong man said:


> Let's have closer look at this full resistance thing you keep talking about shall we.
> Is it really full resistance , you are not training against people trying to trap your hands and punch you , you are not training against people trying to kick you , you are not training against people trying to knee strike you or elbow strike you.
> 
> You are basically training against people trying to grapple with you , basically people playing the same game as you are.



Stop it.  I'm trying to pull out of this endless loop here, but statements like this are killing me.You've already said you never train at full resistance, and acknowledged that it would kill or maim your partners.  If you are asserting that Hanzou does not train against full resistance, You are also not training against people who are trying to kick you.   You are training against people who are simulating a kick, elbow strike or knee.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Stop it.  I'm trying to pull out of this endless loop here, but statements like this are killing me.You've already said you never train at full resistance, and acknowledged that it would kill or maim your partners.  If you are asserting that Hanzou does not train against full resistance, You are also not training against people who are trying to kick you.   You are training against people who are simulating a kick, elbow strike or knee.


I agree with your sentiment. Perhaps it is a matter of terminology to some extent. When I talk of full resistance I mean someone is trying as hard as they can to stop you performing a technique. That could be a choke, a takedown, a joint lock etc. If I was thinking of full intensity I would be thinking of a street fight. So sparring at training would be possibly at full resistance but low intensity. Professional competition would be high intensity but still not really trying to cause permanent harm. When it comes to people trying to hit you it depends on the level of training. Only at reasonably high levels of training can you work at that high level of intensity unless you are wearing protective gear and even then you still can't necessarily use full power in your strikes. There is too much black and white in this thread. In reality it is somewhere in between.
:asian:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

K-man said:


> When I talk of *full resistance* I mean someone is trying as hard as they can to stop you performing a technique. That could be a ... a takedown, ...



I'm always interested in the definition of "full resistance". If you try to use "hip throw" to throw your opponent forward, his "full resistance" should be to sink his body down so it will be harder for you to apply your "hip throw" on him. 

If you 

- borrow his sinking force, 
- sink with him, and 
- take him down backward, 

his "full resistance" can be used to against your 1st throw, but it can help you to execute your 2nd throw, will you still call that "full resistance"? When you pull your opponent, your opponent's "full resistance" should be to resist against your pulling. That means his body will go backward. It will definitely help you to push him back after that.






 The term "fully resistance" should not be just "trying as hard as you can to stop your opponent from performing his technique". This kind of thinking may be too "conservative". Your "full resistance" should also include 

- yield into your opponent's force,
 - borrow his force, and
 - add your force on top of it to against him.

IMO, "resistance" does not equal to "force against force". It should also include "yield" as shown in the following clip - you opponent spins, you spin with him (not resist against him).


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> I have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike *while they were holding a pad* no, I would be doing a very lousy job at doing pad work if I did.
> 
> Sometimes the pads are moving and no one in any of our classes would be stupid enough to hold a pad to their neck during striking practice, that would be an accident waiting to happen. When you are doing pad work the pad holder would not be blocking as that would defeat the purpose of doing pad work, they are however moving, blocking, striking back and resisting in sparring.



Back to my point; You have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike, and I'm willing to bet that you've never actually hit someone on the side of the neck at full force without pads. Would that assumption be correct?

So how do you figure that your ability to do something that you've never actually done exceeds or equals my ability to do something I've done many, many times?


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> I actually copied and pasted two vital targets for you to comment on. I was referring to the other targets which were on the page I linked to see if you disagreed. I couldn't watch the videos on an ipad so can't comment.



The link took me to their homepage. Care to relink?



> Or maybe as they say on the site they are just sharing the location. It's not always a conspiracy.



Fair point..... 

Maybe. :rpo:




> Oh please! So at least you are now acknowledging that the techniques are legitimate. So I suppose we are now back to ensuring effective training to make them work. Cool ... that's a start.



Where did I say that they weren't legitimate? I said that they're very low percentage moves, and that low percentage is compounded by the fact that you guys aren't actually hitting people in their necks and killing people, or knocking them out.




> True. I can get quite argumentative when people feed me BS.   Just stop rubbishing every other style and every other martial artist and we might even get to be friends.



I don't know why you think I'm trashing/rubbishing every other style. I'm simply pointing out that saying you're counter against a trained grappler is a strike to the neck (that you actually have never done in a live environment against a fully resisting opponent) is a pretty hilarious statement.



> Hmm! You really don't read things do you? I said we don't spar in the conventional sense, ie like tournament sparring. I told you we trained against full resistance but you didn't accept that as valid. So no, we don't have any one step drills as such.



Could you post an example of a MA school doing something similar to what you guys do? That information would be very helpful.



> As to RNC. I teach how to apply it first, but in training you have to be able to achieve the position to apply it. I would think it was a bit like your training really in that respect but obviously not as effective as yours because we don't want to fight in the ring.



If you guys are training under a Bjj BB, I'm sure you're doing just fine.



> We do both different nights or you might like to check out how effective Aikido can be. We teach all three in the one location. Anyone is welcome to attend classes. I would certainly join the Aikido class if you were going to be there.



If I'm ever on that side of the world I'll definitely stop by.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> Is this really true? I think it's more to being marketable, has really has no bearing on their knowledge or ability. It's just about selling yourself. If you in a professional service, you might might wear a suit and tie but it doesn't make you smarter or give you knowledge you didn't have before.
> 
> Using a move in a fight is statistically insignificant to assessing it's ability. Using it in 1000's of fights and tracking it's effectiveness might serve better. Or sparring can give a good insight since it's not practical to fabricate a live fight for that purpose.



But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.


----------



## drop bear

K-man said:


> Mate, I am 66 years old. What would it prove if I went in the ring? I finished with that years back. I'm more concerned with teaching people who want to develop some personal protection skills and learn an authentic and effective martial art along the way.
> 
> If someone came to me wanting to fight in the ring, I have a number of friends who will train them and two mates who could promote them. What I teach is not designed for the ring so I don't attract students who want to fight in the ring.
> :asian:
> 
> Just as an aside. When I do demonstrate a technique against a resisting opponent I usually pick the biggest, strongest guy to demonstrate on. That way the guys can see that it is effective.



Then you would have considerable personal protection experience?

Used this stuff refined it somewhere? Chopped a bunch of guys in the neck. Knocked a few of them out. Compared that to the RNC to see which one is better for which situation.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.



Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.

The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm always interested in the definition of "full resistance". If you try to use "hip throw" to throw your opponent forward, his "full resistance" should be to sink his body down so it will be harder for you to apply your "hip throw" on him.
> 
> If you
> 
> - borrow his sinking force,
> - sink with him, and
> - take him down backward,
> 
> his "full resistance" can be used to against your 1st throw, but it can help you to execute your 2nd throw, will you still call that "full resistance"? When you pull your opponent, your opponent's "full resistance" should be to resist against your pulling. That means his body will go backward. It will definitely help you to push him back after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "fully resistance" should not be just "trying as hard as you can to stop your opponent from performing his technique". This kind of thinking may be too "conservative". Your "full resistance" should also include
> 
> - yield into your opponent's force,
> - borrow his force, and
> - add your force on top of it to against him.
> 
> IMO, "resistance" does not equal to "force against force". It should also include "yield" as shown in the following clip - you opponent spins, you spin with him (not resist against him).



Non compliant. So they try to throw you try to counter. Not they throw you flop over like a fish. 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gFzNkA9-BwU


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.
> 
> The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.



Well it is the bulk of information that is the boon. The thousands of fights that we can look up and test ideas from. That we can take ideas from martial arts and play with them to see if they work. Or see how to make them not work. MMA may not be the perfect method for this. But it is the best method so far.

I think people forget mma is made up mostly from other styles.


----------



## jezr74

Hanzou said:


> The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.



That would be a false dichotomy, there are other alternative experience. Maybe a LEO, Bouncer, Military, text book study the body, psychology etc. skill levels will vary.


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> Well it is the bulk of information that is the boon. The thousands of fights that we can look up and test ideas from. That we can take ideas from martial arts and play with them to see if they work. Or see how to make them not work. MMA may not be the perfect method for this. But it is the best method so far.
> 
> I think people forget mma is made up mostly from other styles.



I think it's one of many tools to test and work out what works best for an individual within the environment. If it can work outside, it is still based on experience and speculation. Even in this thread people are talking probability. You don't do that normally with facts, what might work once in RL may not work a second time. So it goes' back to statistics and probability (speculation), your right though it's good to have a fair amount of data accumulating from these fights, even if just to help make good decisions.


----------



## Hanzou

jezr74 said:


> That would be a false dichotomy, there are other alternative experience. Maybe a LEO, Bouncer, Military, text book study the body, psychology etc. skill levels will vary.



The key word is consistent. Those avenues aren't very consistent, because oftentimes they don't involve martial arts or even unarmed combat.


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> But that would be judging things off live training and competitive matches. It is the only place we can get that sort of consistent information.





Hanzou said:


> Quite true. The alternative is myths and legends about Karate masters killing bulls with reverse punches, or Kung Fu masters who defeated scores of foreign fighters.
> 
> The first UFC for example was the real deal, and it is a verifiable and provable record.





Hanzou said:


> The key word is consistent. Those avenues aren't very consistent, because oftentimes they don't involve martial arts or even unarmed combat.



I would have thought most of those professions are trained. And trained to respond to certain situations in a precise manner consistently, a bouncer would use methods to de-escalate and constraint. That would be fairly consistent with their door policy. So within the policy they would have certain moves and technique that work well for that situation. Arm control etc.. anecdotal most bouncers I know are MAists, or naturally big and strong

I see law enforcement apprehending criminals all the time (news, on the street, outside bars etc), and I'd even go as far to say it's very consistent manner they use, in some cases almost to script. They are fine examples of RL situations in my opinion.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> I would have thought most of those professions are trained. And trained to respond to certain situations in a precise manner consistently, a bouncer would use methods to de-escalate and constraint. That would be fairly consistent with their door policy. So within the policy they would have certain moves and technique that work well for that situation. Arm control etc.. anecdotal most bouncers I know are MAists, or naturally big and strong
> 
> I see law enforcement apprehending criminals all the time (news, on the street, outside bars etc), and I'd even go as far to say it's very consistent manner they use, in some cases almost to script. They are fine examples of RL situations in my opinion.



And from there we say. OK. Let's see these real life examples so we can get a gist of what will work within context. Then take that to the lab and try to re create that effect consistently. See if we can refine that Take it back out to real life and test it out there.

But are we actually doing that?

Ask a bouncer what their industry training is like? Generally it is pretty unrealistic.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> I think it's one of many tools to test and work out what works best for an individual within the environment. If it can work outside, it is still based on experience and speculation. Even in this thread people are talking probability. You don't do that normally with facts, what might work once in RL may not work a second time. So it goes' back to statistics and probability (speculation), your right though it's good to have a fair amount of data accumulating from these fights, even if just to help make good decisions.



Yeah but you are suggesting going off the data. And I don't think people do that. I did a thread here once about flying kicks for the street. I found five examples on YouTube of them working to at least achieve a result. The consensus is flying kicks wont work because of a whole bunch of preconceived ideas. Not the data.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/114032-flying-kicks-streets.html

There is a consensus that instep or oblique kicking works in the street. I cannot find a street example of this kick working. The only example I could find was John Jones which is discounted because the ring is not a street. The one guy who can actually make that kick work is not the guy anybody looks at to how to set this kick up.



There is a lot of false data running around in martial arts and there are not that many people going out there and testing it.

Mma has a habit of being test monkies. Does ninja move xyz have validity? Let's get a guy try it a few times with the intent of stopping it. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.

And as to why some elements of tmas can not represent well in mma. They fail in the testing stage. And mma testing is ruthless. It upsets people.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Back to my point; You have never knocked anyone out with a neck strike, and I'm willing to bet that you've never actually hit someone on the side of the neck at full force without pads. Would that assumption be correct?
> 
> So how do you figure that your ability to do something that you've never actually done exceeds or equals my ability to do something I've done many, many times?



That is like saying that no one can tell if shooting someone in the head with a gun will kill them or not just because they have never actually shot someone in the head before.

You do not have to hit actually hit someone in the neck with a full power strike to know if it will will be effective when you have seen and felt the power on pads and have applied it in sparring, which I have done hundreds and even thousands of times. *Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?*


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> That is like saying that no one can tell if shooting someone in the head with a gun will kill them or not just because they have never actually shot someone in the head before.
> 
> You do not have to hit actually hit someone in the neck with a full power strike to know if it will will be effective when you have seen and felt the power on pads and have applied it in sparring, which I have done hundreds and even thousands of times. *Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?*



Lol. It would be like relying on never having an accurate account of a head shot death


OK. Let's use a bjj example. So that i can insult all styles equally. The single arm guard pass. Kind of works was a go to move for ages.  but testing found it is too easily countered and runs the risk of a triangle choke.

Oh but I have single armed passed people all the time and don't get caught. The. The other guy needs to do better triangles.

Feeling good on the pads by the way does not translate to effective against resistance. You know what feels good on the pads? Gigantic bomb shots. They feel awsome on a pad. No reason to throw anything else.

Don't work so well against a guy who is hitting back. Because if he is good he will beat you up due to telegraphing.

Look we are talking what works in a mma context. That means against a trained fighter. Which negates a lot of moves working.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> Feeling good on the pads by the way does not translate to effective against resistance. You know what feels good on the pads? Gigantic bomb shots. They feel awsome on a pad. No reason to throw anything else.
> 
> Don't work so well against a guy who is hitting back. Because if he is good he will beat you up due to telegraphing.



Gigantic bomb shots are very telegraphic, relatively uncontrolled, inaccurate, imprecise, inefficient and unfocussed. Knife hand strikes, when properly trained, are none of those things that is the reason to throw something else.


----------



## jezr74

drop bear said:


> And from there we say. OK. Let's see these real life examples so we can get a gist of what will work within context. Then take that to the lab and try to re create that effect consistently. See if we can refine that Take it back out to real life and test it out there.
> 
> But are we actually doing that?
> 
> Ask a bouncer what their industry training is like? Generally it is pretty unrealistic.




Or the bouncer that is a student takes it back to the dojo and works on it with others and adjusts then back to his night job to use when needed.

Not sure I understand, you don't think people in industries that require physical, often violent interaction with people don't try and improve on what they do?




drop bear said:


> Yeah but you are suggesting going off the data. And I don't think people do that. I did a thread here once about flying kicks for the street. I found five examples on YouTube of them working to at least achieve a result. The consensus is flying kicks wont work because of a whole bunch of preconceived ideas. Not the data.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/90-general-self-defense/114032-flying-kicks-streets.html
> 
> There is a consensus that instep or oblique kicking works in the street. I cannot find a street example of this kick working. The only example I could find was John Jones which is discounted because the ring is not a street. The one guy who can actually make that kick work is not the guy anybody looks at to how to set this kick up.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of false data running around in martial arts and there are not that many people going out there and testing it.
> 
> Mma has a habit of being test monkies. Does ninja move xyz have validity? Let's get a guy try it a few times with the intent of stopping it. If it doesn't work it doesn't work.
> 
> And as to why some elements of tmas can not represent well in mma. They fail in the testing stage. And mma testing is ruthless. It upsets people.




Nope, I think the data can give people a direction on probability\speculation. It's even the core basis of this topic put forward. It's being speculated that TMA's have more difficulty in the octogon, based on no actual evidence. Using speculation and no real data, aside from data mining and some really statistically insignificant youtube clips.

I think people use experience of what works for them, unless a real study was made to determine this, anything else will be prone to confirmation bias and circular arguments, since it's all really speculative.


----------



## Steve

jezr74 said:


> That would be a false dichotomy, there are other alternative experience. Maybe a LEO, Bouncer, Military, text book study the body, psychology etc. skill levels will vary.



As often as not, people Are not learning from a proper expert.  Rather, they are learning from someone who has never used any of the techniques in a real world application.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jezr74

Steve said:


> As often as not, people Are not learning from a proper expert.  Rather, they are learning from someone who has never used any of the techniques in a real world application.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's true, but its just another factor in the mix.


----------



## Steve

jezr74 said:


> That's true, but its just another factor in the mix.



Ymmv, but it's s big one for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That is like saying that no one can tell if shooting someone in the head with a gun will kill them or not just because they have never actually shot someone in the head before.



Actually its more like saying that we can't tell if *you* can shoot an advancing, moving target in the head because you've never shot a real gun before.

I don't doubt that someone could be seriously hurt or knocked out from a neck strike. What I doubt is that someone who has never actually struck someone in the neck at full force, or knocked someone unconscious could reliably perform such a movement under duress. 



> You do not have to hit actually hit someone in the neck with a full power strike to know if it will will be effective when you have seen and felt the power on pads and have applied it in sparring, which I have done hundreds and even thousands of times. *Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?*



How exactly have you applied it in sparring? Unless you've used the strike at full force on the desired target, and the target in turn was knocked unconscious or killed you haven't really applied it in sparring.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Actually its more like saying that we can't tell if *you* can shoot an advancing, moving target in the head because you've never shot a real gun before.
> 
> I don't doubt that someone could be seriously hurt or knocked out from a neck strike. What I doubt is that someone who has never actually struck someone in the neck at full force, or knocked someone unconscious could reliably perform such a movement under duress.



That whole if you don't compete or do full contact sparring then you won't be able to apply your training under duress argument is a falsehood.



Hanzou said:


> How exactly have you applied it in sparring? Unless you've used the strike at full force on the desired target, and the target in turn was knocked unconscious or killed you haven't really applied it in sparring.


----------



## Steve

RTKDCMB said:


> That whole if you don't compete or do full contact sparring then you won't be able to apply your training under duress argument is a falsehood.


I agree.  But I also think that the further away from someone who has actually walked the talk, the lower your chances of learning something practical.    Just because my instructor can do something doesn't mean I can.  And if I don't know for sure that I can do it, I'm damn sure not competent to teach others.  

We've got experts here on this forum arguing vehemently that they are competent to teach others when they can't even know for sure that they can do it themselves.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I agree.  But I also think that the further away from someone who has actually walked the talk, the lower your chances of learning something practical.    Just because my instructor can do something doesn't mean I can.  And if I don't know for sure that I can do it, I'm damn sure not competent to teach others.
> 
> We've got experts here on this forum arguing vehemently that they are competent to teach others when they can't even know for sure that they can do it themselves.


If you were talking about taking a knife off someone, expert or not, you are in a lot of trouble. Even if you have done it before, you got lucky. There are no guarantees you will survive your next encounter.

If you are talking about hitting someone on the back of the neck with the forearm while they are bending over, which was my original finishing technique, then I would say even an MMA person who doesn't train to do it could pull it off. The bit about moving targets etc is BS added to confuse.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That whole if you don't compete or do full contact sparring then you won't be able to apply your training under duress argument is a falsehood.



That isn't what I said. I said that you've never really done the technique on a fully resisting target, so that pushes your technique into a very low percentile of effectiveness in a situation of duress.

You definitely have a chance of knocking someone out with a neck strike, but its a very low chance. Almost in the range of a lucky shot. However, its certainly not on the level of chance that a grappler has of applying a choke on you. The adrenaline dump and other factors definitely contribute to it, but the main factor is that you've never actually hit someone in the neck at full force and knocked them out or killed them. Conversely, the grappler HAS choked out fully resisting opponents of various shapes and sizes, so they have some experience in what is required to strangle someone.

Like I said, it is possible to knock someone out with a neck strike, just like its possible to knock someone out by slapping them in the face. Would I depend on either to save me if some guy wants to do bad things to me? Probably not * because I've never knocked someone out with a neck strike or a slap in the face before.*


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> That isn't what I said. I said that you've never really done the technique on a fully resisting target, so that pushes your technique into a very low percentile of effectiveness in a situation of duress.
> 
> You definitely have a chance of knocking someone out with a neck strike, but its a very low chance. Almost in the range of a lucky shot. However, its certainly not on the level of chance that a grappler has of applying a choke on you. The adrenaline dump and other factors definitely contribute to it, but the main factor is that you've never actually hit someone in the neck at full force and knocked them out or killed them. Conversely, the grappler HAS choked out fully resisting opponents of various shapes and sizes, so they have some experience in what is required to strangle someone.



That is just your opinion, you think it is a very low percentage  technique, has a very low chance and constitutes a 'lucky shot' because you don't train with it. Where I come from it is a basic technique taught from white belt. That whole the training goes  out the window in a real fight is complete rubbish. The last fight I got into I had no trouble choosing what moves to use and did not experience any rush of adrenalin. None of the instructors and students who have gotten in to real fights have forgotten their training. You think that just because you have seen traditional martial artists in the early UFC just come out swinging wildly that that is the way it always happens, you are wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> That is just your opinion, you think it is a very low percentage  technique, has a very low chance and constitutes a 'lucky shot' because you don't train with it.



It actually isn't my opinion, its a fact. Its one of the reasons Jigaro Kano removed striking from randori, and placed it in kata in Judo. You simply cannot train strikes at full speed and power without significant protection. You almost never see neck striking in general karate sparring. So you guys aren't even using it in sparring practice. How do you really expect to use that ability in a fight, much less be able to knock someone out with it?

Again, I said that you being able to knock someone out with that strike would constitute a lucky shot because you've never actually KO'd someone with a neck strike. You could probably perform the technique in a fight, that doesn't mean its going to give you the result that you desire. Just like you shooting a gun hoping to hit your target in the head. Since you've never actually shot a gun before, there's a very good chance you're going to completely miss your target. However, there's a very small chance that you'll hit your target right between the eyes. 

Hence, the "lucky shot".



> Where I come from it is a basic technique taught from white belt.



Which means little if you've never actually applied it.

EDIT: Quick question; Are you guys part of the same organization that is "no contact"?


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> It actually isn't my opinion, its a fact. Its one of the reasons Jigaro Kano removed striking from randori, and placed it in kata in Judo. You simply cannot train strikes at full speed and power without significant protection. You almost never see neck striking in general karate sparring. So you guys aren't even using it in sparring practice. How do you really expect to use that ability in a fight, much less be able to knock someone out with it?
> 
> Again, I said that you being able to knock someone out with that strike would constitute a lucky shot because you've never actually KO'd someone with a neck strike. You could probably perform the technique in a fight, that doesn't mean its going to give you the result that you desire. Just like you shooting a gun hoping to hit your target in the head. Since you've never actually shot a gun before, there's a very good chance you're going to completely miss your target. However, there's a very small chance that you'll hit your target right between the eyes.


Sorry, it is only your opinion, and a very shallow one at that. But at least you now acknowledge that our punches and strikes can be effective. Why don't you see neck striking in karate sparring? Exactly the same as you don't see RNCs in karate sparring. You might see an occasional Shuto thrown in but basically, without the clinching component you won't have the opportunity for forearm strikes to the back of the neck any more than you can apply the choke. Another reason is that the type of sparring you are calling 'karate sparring' is to prepare you for karate tournaments. A neck strike that connects would see you disqualified in point sparring. In our training we practise it all the time and I'm sure, before you say our training is not typical, that many other schools train in a similar way. Stop bagging other styles! 

Your analogy of the gun is just as facile. I don't know any police or military personnel who shoot people in training. If you have a gun you handle the gun and you fire the gun on the range. Then when you have the situation where you have to use the gun there is a high probability its use will be effective, adrenalin effect accepted.

The RNC is equally likely to fail if the person trying to apply it had just read it in a book and never trained it. In the situation with the neck shot, we train to achieve the position for the neck shot the same as you train to achieve the position to apply a RNC. The only reason I raised forearm strikes to the back of the neck is because they are illegal in MMA but a big part of our training. I suppose they are illegal only because they are low percentage, nothing to do with potential harm.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> You simply cannot train strikes at full speed and power without significant protection ...



I have considered this issue for a long time. If you can't punch on your opponent's head, your sparring will not be realistic. If you do, you may lost your sparring partner next day. The following replacement are what I like to use to replace the "full powerful head punch".

If you can apply:

1. "&#23553;(Feng) &#8211; throat blocking"- palm push on your opponent's neck,
2. "&#25273;(Mo) - eyebrow wiping"  - palm push on top of your opponent's forehead.
3. "&#25176;(Tuo) &#8211; chin pushing"- palm push under your opponent's chin,
4.  "&#25664;(Wu) &#8211; face covering"  - palm push on your opponent's whole face,

 you can stop your opponent's forward momentum and also inform him that you can punch on his face with full force if you have to. IMO, this can be the next best training for "full speed and power head punch".


----------



## Hanzou

K-man said:


> Sorry, it is only your opinion, and a very shallow one at that. But at least you now acknowledge that our punches and strikes can be effective. Why don't you see neck striking in karate sparring? Exactly the same as you don't see RNCs in karate sparring. You might see an occasional Shuto thrown in but basically, without the clinching component you won't have the opportunity for forearm strikes to the back of the neck any more than you can apply the choke.



Which makes your ability to perform such abilities in a dangerous situation highly unlikely.



> Another reason is that the type of sparring you are calling 'karate sparring' is to prepare you for karate tournaments. A neck strike that connects would see you disqualified in point sparring. In our training we practise it all the time and I'm sure, before you say our training is not typical, that many other schools train in a similar way. Stop bagging other styles!



Are you hitting each other at full speed and power in the neck area?



> Your analogy of the gun is just as facile. I don't know any police or military personnel who shoot people in training. If you have a gun you handle the gun and you fire the gun on the range. Then when you have the situation where you have to use the gun there is a high probability its use will be effective, adrenalin effect accepted.



The difference being that if you've never actually used the strike on a person in practice, its the equivalent of having never fired the gun in practice.



> The RNC is equally likely to fail if the person trying to apply it had just read it in a book and never trained it. In the situation with the neck shot, we train to achieve the position for the neck shot the same as you train to achieve the position to apply a RNC.



The only way you're training the neck strikes the way I'm training the RNC is if you're blasting your training partners with blows to their necks at full speed, knocking them out, or killing them. If you guys aren't doing that, it isn't the same.



> The only reason I raised forearm strikes to the back of the neck is because they are illegal in MMA but a big part of our training. I suppose they are illegal only because they are low percentage, nothing to do with potential harm.



That technique would be higher percentage for a professional fighter. Just like their RNC is a higher percentage than my RNC. A professional fighter trains more intensely than your typical martial artist does. That's simply a fact.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> Actually its more like saying that we can't tell if *you* can shoot an advancing, moving target in the head because you've never shot a real gun before.
> 
> I don't doubt that someone could be seriously hurt or knocked out from a neck strike. What I doubt is that someone who has never actually struck someone in the neck at full force, or knocked someone unconscious could reliably perform such a movement under duress.
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly have you applied it in sparring? Unless you've used the strike at full force on the desired target, and the target in turn was knocked unconscious or killed you haven't really applied it in sparring.



This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root.  It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me.   so now I can do x."   That's just not true.  It's dangerously deluded, considering the subject matter is self defense.   Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."

The technique may be perfectly sound, bit that doesn't mean you can do it.  Maybe you can, but you don't know until you actually do it.  And even if you can, that doesn't mean you're competent to teach someone else.   




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Hanzou said:


> Which makes your ability to perform such abilities in a dangerous situation highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you hitting each other at full speed and power in the neck area?
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that if you've never actually used the strike on a person in practice, its the equivalent of having never fired the gun in practice.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way you're training the neck strikes the way I'm training the RNC is if you're blasting your training partners with blows to their necks at full speed, knocking them out, or killing them. If you guys aren't doing that, it isn't the same.
> 
> 
> 
> That technique would be higher percentage for a professional fighter. Just like their RNC is a higher percentage than my RNC. A professional fighter trains more intensely than your typical martial artist does. That's simply a fact.


:BSmeter:


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root.  It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me.   so now I can do x."   That's just not true.  It's dangerously deluded, considering the subject matter is self defense.   Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."
> 
> The technique may be perfectly sound, bit that doesn't mean you can do it.  Maybe you can, but you don't know until you actually do it.  And even if you can, that doesn't mean you're competent to teach someone else.


And apart from "MMA is great,the rest is s#|t", how is this not bagging other styles and what has it to do with the OP? Your comments keep feeding this nonsense even though I believe you know it is wrong.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> And apart from "MMA is great,the rest is s#|t", how is this not bagging other styles and what has it to do with the OP? Your comments keep feeding this nonsense even though I believe you know it is wrong.


Unless it's clearly otherwise, I presume that the technique is solid.   How is that bagging on a style?  

I can disagree with you without it being bashing. Hanzou can ride the line sometimes, but my opinion is that, in general, he just has an opinion that is different from your own.   That isn't inherently bashing.  It's just simply disagreement.  But once again, if you think it is bashing from me or anyone else, use the rtm function.  That's what it is for.  

For what it's worth, I haven't seen Mma is great and everything else is crap.  I see some good points on both sides, and a few people on both sides who occasionally get a little punchy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> *This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root*.  It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me.   so now I can do x."   *That's just not true.  It's dangerously deluded*, considering the subject matter is self defense.   Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."


Unless my grasp of English is so tenuous to be useless you have just stated that TMAs have a basic flaw from the base level. You have stated that anyone who has not actually been taught a technique by someone who has used a technique is dangerously deluded. That would be the majority of TMAs world wide. And yes, you are not bashing a style. You are bashing all  TMAs.

i would have thought that would put you right up there with Hanzou 'riding the line'.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> Unless my grasp of English is so tenuous to be useless you have just stated that TMAs have a basic flaw from the base level. You have stated that anyone who has not actually been taught a technique by someone who has used a technique is dangerously deluded. That would be the majority of TMAs world wide. And yes, you are not bashing a style. You are bashing all  TMAs.
> 
> i would have thought that would put you right up there with Hanzou 'riding the line'.



Thinking that you can do something because your teacher can do it is deluded.   And if you then go on to teach others, they are even further removed from functional expertise.  I think it's pretty clear, and I think not bashing a style.  But, if you are saying that the majority of tma in the world choose to teach this way, it's really you who is bashing them.  Not me.  

It's not unique to tma.  It is said that the difference between a purple belt and a black belt in bjj is that a black belt has done the same techniques thousands of times more than a purple belt.   They know the same stuff.  The difference is experience.  Can I defend myself from a group of ninja Ina dark alley?  Doubtful.  But I can likely stay in my feet in a fight, and I can likely get Back to my feet if taken down.  Because I personally have done that hundreds, if not thousands of times.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Thinking that you can do something because your teacher can do it is deluded.   And if you then go on to teach others, they are even further removed from functional expertise.  I think it's pretty clear, and I think not bashing a style.  But, if you are saying that the majority of tma in the world choose to teach this way, it's really you who is bashing them.  Not me.


*Thinking* you can do something because your teacher can do it *is* deluded. But that is not what you posted. If you have been properly taught a technique, and the stress is on properly, there is a high probability it will work if and when the need arises. Thinking that if I strike you full force with my forearm to the base of your skull you will not be seriously injured is also deluded. 

Martial arts are taught in many different ways by many different teachers. How they choose to teach is up to them. Some of them post here on MT because they feel they can ask questions and get sensible answers without them or their systems being put down. I might disagree with some of the methodology but unless I am specifically asked to comment then I will keep that opinion to myself rather than needlessly upsetting countless people who value their training for what it means to them. Every so often on MT we get one trick ponies who know better than all others. Sometimes they change their style and become valued members. Sometimes they get banned and sometimes they just move on. 

This is thread is a classic case of that. Everyone who has put a contrary opinion has been attacked and almost every style had in one way or other been put down. The irony of this is that I might agree in principle with some of the criticisms but the way they are voiced forces me to come down on the side of the side being attacked. You keep saying if I think it is going too far hit the RTM button. I might just do that!


----------



## Steve

Well thank you then for giving me an opportunity to be more clear and not presuming the worst.  

If you are being taught something by someone who has no practical experience, neither of you really knows anything about probability of efficacy.  

Edit:  I wonder why you insist on making things worse instead of using the RTM function as its intended.  Calling someone out publicly and accusing him (or me for that matter ) of style bashing or otherwise violating the tos doesn't help anything.  and your needling of Hanzou even when you admit to agreeing with him makes things worse, not better.  I don't know what you think I'm suggesting.  The RTM is there so that you can avoid adding to the issue.  That's what it's for.  Use it.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Hanzou

So saying that someone who has never KO'd someone with a technique has almost no chance of knocking out someone in a fight with said technique equates to style bashing?

Hilarious.


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> Well thank you then for giving me an opportunity to be more clear and not presuming the worst.
> 
> If you are being taught something by someone who has no practical experience, neither of you really knows anything about probability of efficacy.
> 
> Edit:  I wonder why you insist on making things worse instead of using the RTM function as its intended.  Calling someone out publicly and accusing him (or me for that matter ) of style bashing or otherwise violating the tos doesn't help anything.  and your needling of Hanzou even when you admit to agreeing with him makes things worse, not better.  I don't know what you think I'm suggesting.  The RTM is there so that you can avoid adding to the issue.  That's what it's for.  Use it.


For whatever reason the mods have chosen to allow this thread to continue. I think it's an absolute disgrace and offensive to most people posting on MT. I didn't say I agree with all Hanzou is claiming. I disagree with probably 90 percent of it. Whenever he makes a reasonable point it is invariable that he will add a caustic comment that counters it's validity. I will continue to challenge what I perceive to be attacks on other styles and other martial artists. If I wanted to read that drivel I could just shift over to Bullshido where this type of chest thumping is the norm. If you agree with all Hanzou is saying, fine go for it. If not then perhaps you could help put an end to it. After all, it was you that said Hanzou is riding the line.


----------



## Steve

K-man said:


> For whatever reason the mods have chosen to allow this thread to continue. I think it's an absolute disgrace and offensive to most people posting on MT. I didn't say I agree with all Hanzou is claiming. I disagree with probably 90 percent of it. Whenever he makes a reasonable point it is invariable that he will add a caustic comment that counters it's validity. I will continue to challenge what I perceive to be attacks on other styles and other martial artists. If I wanted to read that drivel I could just shift over to Bullshido where this type of chest thumping is the norm. If you agree with all Hanzou is saying, fine go for it. If not then perhaps you could help put an end to it. After all, it was you that said Hanzou is riding the line.



I don't think there's anyone here I agree with completely, either, and wasn't trying to suggest otherwise.  

I would once again urge you to use the rtm function if you think someone is violating the rules.  That's what it's for.  Riding the line isn't crossing it.  I think you're riding the line, too.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> So saying that someone who has never KO'd someone with a technique has almost no chance of knocking out someone in a fight with said technique equates to style bashing?
> 
> Hilarious.



To be clear, I think if you're being taught by a bona fide expert with a lot of functional experience, and the training is fundamentally sound, you're probably in good shape.  

A good teacher will facilitate the transition to application.   The issue is when that student never makes the transition to application, but decides to teach others anyway.  And that person decide to teach others.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> It actually isn't my opinion, its a fact. Its one of the reasons Jigaro Kano removed striking from randori, and placed it in kata in Judo.



It is a fact that it is a low percentage strike for YOU. Judo is not primarily a striking art. 



Hanzou said:


> You simply cannot train strikes at full speed and power without significant protection.



With pad work and non-contact sparring you really can.



Hanzou said:


> You almost never see neck striking in general karate sparring. So you guys aren't even using it in sparring practice. How do you really expect to use that ability in a fight, much less be able to knock someone out with it?



In case you haven't noticed, we are not Karate.



Hanzou said:


> Again, I said that you being able to knock someone out with that strike would constitute a lucky shot because you've never actually KO'd someone with a neck strike.



No that is simply a consequence of skill, knowledge, technique and power developed through proper training.



Hanzou said:


> Which means little if you've never actually applied it.



No it means that it is a technique that is well developed from the beginning which greatly increases it's effectiveness as a strike.



Hanzou said:


> EDIT: Quick question; Are you guys part of the same organization that is "no contact"?



Yes and here is my thread on the subject:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...isconceptions-about-non-contact-sparring.html


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> This is the traditional martial arts fallacy at its root.  It's, "My sifu or sensei can do x, and he taught me.   so now I can do x."   That's just not true.  It's dangerously deluded, considering the subject matter is self defense.   Truthfully, more often than not, it's really, "my insttuctor's instructor's instructor could do these things, and he taught that guy who taught this guy, and they told me that now I can do that thing, but I've never actually had to do it... But it's cool to be an instructor and I hope someday I can open my own school."
> 
> The technique may be perfectly sound, bit that doesn't mean you can do it.  Maybe you can, but you don't know until you actually do it.  And even if you can, that doesn't mean you're competent to teach someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD




And against who?

A lot of the stuff I do is a bit more effort but harder to shut down. Like that one armed guard pass. It is popular because it is easy. Now the question is do you need to have the complexities if you are not training for competition. Rear naked choke is used because it is higher percentage than a standing sleeper.

But if the guy is a Goober it may not be necessary to go to the extra effort.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I agree.  But I also think that the further away from someone who has actually walked the talk, the lower your chances of learning something practical.    Just because my instructor can do something doesn't mean I can.  And if I don't know for sure that I can do it, I'm damn sure not competent to teach others.
> 
> We've got experts here on this forum arguing vehemently that they are competent to teach others when they can't even know for sure that they can do it themselves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Anecdotally people who fight full contact get a huge boost in their ability immediately after. Because fighting is faster and more intense. Suddenly training becomes a bit slow.


----------



## drop bear

RTKDCMB said:


> Gigantic bomb shots are very telegraphic, relatively uncontrolled, inaccurate, imprecise, inefficient and unfocussed. Knife hand strikes, when properly trained, are none of those things that is the reason to throw something else.




No they are not. I murder the pads with them. And make high scores on the punch machine at the pub.


----------



## drop bear

jezr74 said:


> Or the bouncer that is a student takes it back to the dojo and works on it with others and adjusts then back to his night job to use when needed.
> 
> Not sure I understand, you don't think people in industries that require physical, often violent interaction with people don't try and improve on what they do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I think the data can give people a direction on probability\speculation. It's even the core basis of this topic put forward. It's being speculated that TMA's have more difficulty in the octogon, based on no actual evidence. Using speculation and no real data, aside from data mining and some really statistically insignificant youtube clips.
> 
> I think people use experience of what works for them, unless a real study was made to determine this, anything else will be prone to confirmation bias and circular arguments, since it's all really speculative.



Bouncers really don't spend that much time on refining their techniques. We have a dedicated human weapon class once a year. And it is pretty crap. Taught by a guy who has done a two week course. I would not exactly call that dedicated training.

defensive tactics baton handcuffs instructor course australia nationally recognised

And they are trying to sell it as a better alternative than dedicated training.

As far as tma. You would look at the percentages of success in mma. So it is not that much speculation. And to be honest you are looking at tma elements rather than tma itself.

So let's combine these ideas and suggest standing arm locks don't submit many people in a mma setting.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> It is a fact that it is a low percentage strike for YOU. Judo is not primarily a striking art.



Its low percentage in general. Especially if you personally have never KO'd anyone with it before.

Also there's a good reason why Judo isn't a striking art.



> With pad work and non-contact sparring you really can.



Yes, and develop deficiency in technique and ability because of it. Hitting a pad isn't the same as hitting flesh and bone. Non-contact sparring isn't the same as getting blasted in the face by a kick, or slicing your hand open on someone's teeth.



> In case you haven't noticed, we are not Karate.



Your style comes from Karate.



> No that is simply a consequence of skill, knowledge, technique and power developed through proper training.



Skill, knowledge, technique, and power can't developed if you're not actually doing the technique.



> No it means that it is a technique that is well developed from the beginning which greatly increases it's effectiveness as a strike.



How can a technique be well developed when you've never applied it towards its intended purpose? It's like me armbarring a mannequin and believing that I can actually armbar a living resisting person with no problems. The only way you can truly develop a technique is by actually doing the technique on a resisting opponent trying to do the same to you. Why? Because you need to develop your own technique, your own timing, your own modifications, and your own style.




> Yes and here is my thread on the subject:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...isconceptions-about-non-contact-sparring.html



Oh boy.....


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


>



I should probably just shut up. But I find that hard to do in light of that article. I'm searching my memory banks, but that might be the worst article concerning martial arts I've ever read.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I think one reason that these sorts of discussions generate so much argument is because of the natural human tendency to dislike uncertainty. As martial artists, we devote ridiculous amounts of time and energy to our training. (Probably over 7000 hours of my life so far in my case.) We'd like to feel that all this work should have some sort of guaranteed payoff in ensuring that we can defend ourselves.

The problem is that there are no guarantees. The world of violence is huge and varied. What works in one situation might not be useful in another. No one is expert in all of it. Given the constraints of legality, morality, and practicality - no one _can _be expert in all of it. This tends to be an uncomfortable truth for those of us who have devoted so much of our lives to training in the martial arts.

I'm going to pick on Mook for a minute, even though (based on footage he has posted) I believe that he is a skilled martial artist who could probably handle himself well in many fight situations.

Mook chooses to believe that Wing Chun practitioners hit faster and harder than everyone else - to the point where they can't safely fight full contact without the serious risk of killing or crippling their opponents. He believes this even though plenty of Wing Chunners over the years have taken part in challenge matches, street fights, and even MMA matches without ever killing or crippling anyone. To an outsider, his certainty on this matter resembles a matter of religious faith - needing no proof and immune to disproof. I suspect this is because he (like all of us) doesn't like the uncertainty that comes with not knowing for sure.

I'm going to pick on Hanzou for a minute, even though he is a fellow BJJer and I agree with many of his ideas concerning effective training practices.

Hanzou chooses to believe that MMA is the ultimate test of what works or doesn't work in any violent encounter, even though many real-world violent situations have very different circumstances from what happens in the cage and those differences can greatly affect the techniques, strategies, and tactics which will be effective. I suspect this is because MMA provides something knowable. You can watch a bunch of MMA fights and end up with a pretty confident assessment of what will or won't work without all that pesky uncertainty.

My personal approach is to gather as much knowledge as possible from every source. I watch MMA, kickboxing, and grappling matches. I watch the Dog Brothers do full-contact matches with weapons. I watch videos of street fights and street assaults. I read accounts of different sorts of violent encounters and crimes. I listen to police officers, prison guards, and bouncers talk about their experiences. I spar under all sorts of different rulesets. I do scenario training with various rules and scenarios. I try to analyze how what works changes and what stays the same under different rules and circumstances and extrapolate to figure out what might work under different circumstances. I note what sorts of situations are well-documented with lots of examples and which are not. I accept that my understanding of the less-documented situations is always going to be uncertain and provisional. I accept that everything I think I know is subject to disproof at a later time. It's not as reassuring as thinking that I have full understanding of what works and what doesn't, but it's more reality-based.

(Note - the link at the start of this comment leads to a blog post I wrote a while back about uncertainty.)


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> Its low percentage in general. Especially if you personally have never KO'd anyone with it before.



You do realize that other styles have different skill sets to what you do and what is high percentage for one art is low percentage in another right?



Hanzou said:


> Also there's a good reason why Judo isn't a striking art.



Probably because they chose to be a grappling art.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, and develop deficiency in technique and ability because of it.



Still just your ill informed opinion based on lack of knowledge and insight. Not supported by reality.



Hanzou said:


> Hitting a pad isn't the same as hitting flesh and bone. Non-contact  sparring isn't the same as getting blasted in the face by a kick, or  slicing your hand open on someone's teeth.



Obviously, and sporting competitions are not the same as a self defense situation. In non-contact  sparring I can practice some things you can't do any other way.



Hanzou said:


> Your style comes from Karate.



Yet strangely not Karate. 



Hanzou said:


> Skill, knowledge, technique, and power can't developed if you're not actually doing the technique.
> 
> How can a technique be well developed when you've never applied it towards its intended purpose?



We are actually doing the technique but differently than you do it. How  do you apply kicks to the groin, neck strikes, elbows to the spine and  back of the head if you can't throw them? I can.



Hanzou said:


> It's like me armbarring a mannequin and believing that I can actually armbar a living resisting person with no problems.



No it is not, because the mannequin is not moving, in sparring the person you are sparring is also sparring you.



Hanzou said:


> The only way you can truly develop a technique is by actually doing the technique on a resisting opponent trying to do the same to you. Why? Because you need to develop your own technique, your own timing, your own modifications, and your own style.



And none of that can not be done with non-contact sparring. My opponent is trying to get through my defences and prevent me from doing the same..


----------



## RTKDCMB

Buka said:


> I should probably just shut up.



Why start now. 



Buka said:


> I'm searching my memory banks, but that might be the worst article concerning martial arts I've ever read.



Well I didn't write it.


----------



## RTKDCMB

drop bear said:


> No they are not. I murder the pads with them. And make high scores on the punch machine at the pub.



Yeah, ok.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hanzou chooses to believe that MMA is the ultimate test of what works or doesn't work in any violent encounter, even though many real-world violent situations have very different circumstances from what happens in the cage and those differences can greatly affect the techniques, strategies, and tactics which will be effective. I suspect this is because MMA provides something knowable. You can watch a bunch of MMA fights and end up with a pretty confident assessment of what will or won't work without all that pesky uncertainty.




Well actually I don't feel that MMA is the ultimate test of what works and doesn't work. I definitely feel that it is a test of what works in general, but it certainly isn't the end all be all of martial arts. 

However, one of the reasons I began Bjj was because of its prevalence in MMA, and how other styles reacted to it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hanzou said:


> Well actually I don't feel that MMA is the ultimate test of what works and doesn't work. I definitely feel that it is a test of what works in general, but it certainly isn't the end all be all of martial arts.
> 
> However, one of the reasons I began Bjj was because of its prevalence in MMA, and how other styles reacted to it.



In that case, I apologize for misrepresenting your views. It did seem that was the direction you were going.

I have no problem with the idea of MMA as *a* test of certain aspects of what works under certain conditions.


----------



## Hanzou

RTKDCMB said:


> You do realize that other styles have different skill sets to what you do and what is high percentage for one art is low percentage in another right?



I've seen people from your organization train and spar. I have yet to see any of them even attempt to perform a neck strike on their partner.



> Probably because they chose to be a grappling art.



Because Kano realized you couldn't perform strikes at full power and speed safely in a training environment without restricting them in some way.



> Still just your ill informed opinion based on lack of knowledge and insight. Not supported by reality.



How exactly is the notion of hitting something and getting hit by something makes you more used to hitting something and getting hit by something not jive with reality? That's exactly how Muay Thai, Boxers, Bjjers, Judokas, etc train, and they do pretty well for themselves.



> Obviously, and sporting competitions are not the same as a self defense situation. In non-contact  sparring I can practice some things you can't do any other way.



I love the notion that since someone is doing a martial sport they're unable to apply that athleticism or ability in a dangerous situation. You really think a professional boxer couldn't knock out some idiot in a bar? You really don't think a wrestler could supplex someone into the concrete? You really don't think a MMA practitioner couldn't choke out someone trying to rape her?

In  fact, would argue that the martial athlete is MORE capable of performing their abilities and techniques than a martial artist would be.



> Yet strangely not Karate.



But you do acknowledge that TKD is simply Japanese karate with more kicking right?



> No it is not, because the mannequin is not moving, in sparring the person you are sparring is also sparring you.



And also not giving you any resistance, just like the mannequin.



> And none of that can not be done with non-contact sparring. My opponent is trying to get through my defences and prevent me from doing the same..



And its still not the same as you hitting him, and him hitting you. That changes the entire dynamic of your sparring session.


----------



## Raymond

This thread is nearly 50 pages so obviously I didn't read most of it but just to reply to the thread title with my $0.02.

First you should examine what is considered a traditional art?  Once you get past that debate, then you can go further.

If any martial art lacks efficacy in MMA, then the reason would solely be in the training methods of the person doing it.  If you never practice your techniques with a fully resisting opponent in a live manner, and are not familiar with the strategies that other people from other backgrounds might try against you then you are going to not be unsuccessful.  Also, some arts specifically have philosophies that discourage ruled competition or aggression, so obviously those arts will not have practitioners in MMA.  MMA is a sport with rules and those rules can favor certain fighting strategies sometimes.  If you don't take your art and train it in context of the rules you are competing under, than what are you doing?

I like MMA and have watched for a long time, I train with an MMA club and have trained with many pro MMA fighters (but I am not myself). However, I do not view success in MMA to be the sole yardstick to measure an art's worth.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Hanzou said:


> I've seen people from your organization train and spar. I have yet to see any of them even attempt to perform a neck strike on their partner.



And I have trained and sparred with countless people from my organization and have seen and performed hundreds of them, but then you know more than me don't you?

Take the following video:






1:51 -  reverse knife hand to the neck, 2:06 spinning knife hand to the throat, there's 2 right there.



Hanzou said:


> Because Kano realized you couldn't perform strikes at full power and speed safely in a training environment without restricting them in some way.



So all the boxers, kick boxers and MMA fighters are restricting their strikes in some way, but I thought they were training with full resistance? Look what Judo chose to do or not to do is irrelevant, other arts chose differently. To perform martial arts safely you have to restrict something and you can either sacrifice speed and power, what techniques you can use, what targets you can strike for or you can wear padding, or you can do what we do in my art and restrict the contact thereby enabling you to use full speed and power safely.



Hanzou said:


> How exactly is the notion of hitting something and getting hit by something makes you more used to hitting something and getting hit by something not jive with reality? That's exactly how Muay Thai, Boxers, Bjjers, Judokas, etc train, and they do pretty well for themselves.
> 
> I love the notion that since someone is doing a martial sport they're unable to apply that athleticism or ability in a dangerous situation. You really think a professional boxer couldn't knock out some idiot in a bar? You really don't think a wrestler could supplex someone into the concrete? You really don't think a MMA practitioner couldn't choke out someone trying to rape her?
> 
> In  fact, would argue that the martial athlete is MORE capable of performing their abilities and techniques than a martial artist would be.



And where exactly did I say that?



Hanzou said:


> But you do acknowledge that TKD is simply Japanese karate with more kicking right?



If I wanted to use a straw man argument with little understanding of TKD then yes.



Hanzou said:


> And also not giving you any resistance, just like the mannequin.



If you think that full contact sparring and competitions is the only form of resistance and that non-contact sparring is a complete lack of resistance then you do not understand that term very well.



Hanzou said:


> And its still not the same as you hitting him, and him hitting you. That changes the entire dynamic of your sparring session.



Which is a very good reason to work on your defenses so  you don't get hit. Whenever we get hit we adapt, we don't stop for 5 minutes after a slight tap on the groin , we don't get separated by a referee  when we get too close or stop between rounds and reset, that changes the dynamic too.


----------

