Animal MacYoung on the MAs

[gusano]

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

 

[Shu2jack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

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

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

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

Remember the story of the lion and the skunk?

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

The lion ignores him.

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

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

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

"Why would I bother?"

 

[tmanifold]

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

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

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

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

Tony

 

[hedgehogey]

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

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

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

 

[tmanifold]

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

Well, as long as we are talking about simple, I have three basic standards:

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

All wrong.

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

Quote:
Why is grappling effective?
In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if
an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the
Crusades. The premise of the book was that these aliens had become extremely
adept at long-range, artillery-type warfare. They were shocked and confused
when the knights, instead of hanging back and attempting to do battle at a
distance, charged them and overwhelmed their positions. This simple, savage
strategy worked only because the aliens had lost the ability to effectively
fight at close quarters.>>>


He talks about "REAL STR33TFIGHTING" and his main arguement comes from a SCIFI
BOOK? OMG! WTF! BBQ!

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

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

So you're telling me bare knuckle boxers didn't grapple? Despite the fact that
we've seen plenty of pictures of it? Despite the existence of throws in BKB?
Despite the fact that groundfighting was illegal in many BKB matches? Have you
even read the history of wrestling and jiujitsu vs boxing challenge matches?
They go back to the turn of the century. Read those.

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

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

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

Why yes. That's why they're called sport jiujitsu matches. However, a sport
jiujitsu competitor will still kick your ***, macyoung.

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

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

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

Second, they are both experienced grapplers.

Third, neither has ever beaten a gracie.

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

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

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

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

Second of all, any grunt or jarhead can tell you they spend plenty of time
crawling on their bellies.

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

To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand
where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).

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

All wrong.

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

Quote:
In otherwords, in a sporting event.

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

Jargon.

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

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

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

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

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

More sppppoooooookiiiineeeessss.

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

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

This is also one of the problems with not knowing what the hell you're talking
about.

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

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

Tony

Ps. That is how you rip an article

 

[gusano]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gusano]

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

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

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

 

[tmanifold]

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

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

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

 

[tmanifold]

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

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

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

 

[gusano]

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

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

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

 

[Shu2jack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[gusano]

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

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

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

Look, we even agree on something!

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

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

Sports fighting just teaches you how to fight.

We agree again.

 

[Phil Elmore]

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

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

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

 

[Shu2jack]

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

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

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

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

 

[hedgehogey]

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

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

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

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

Next:

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

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

Next:

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

So what's his point then?

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

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

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

Next:

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

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

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

Next:

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

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

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

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

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

What.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next

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

HAHAHA "this is combat. Real combat.".

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

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

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

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

All of which is irrelevant to hand to hand fighting.

 

[loki09789]

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

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

 

[mcjon77]

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

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

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

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

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


Jon