Art effectiveness

[MJS]

We saw in the initial UFCs few, if any rules. Hair pulling was allowed. Blows to the back of the head, neck and spine were allowed. Knees, elbows and kicks were allowed at all positions. In UFC 1, the ref could only stop the fight if a competitor was unconscious, submitted or his corner threw in the towel. They were brutal.

Agreed, and I would chalk that up to those that think that if they do those shots, it'll work some magic. As I said in another post in this thread, its an accumulation of hits, not just one deadly shot.

Again, if you watch early UFCs, you'll see plenty of downward elbows with little to no effect.

I can't recall every UFC that I've seen, and I've been watching since the beginning, but I have to wonder about the positioning of the person doing this tech. Were they in a poor position or were they executing a good sprawl, such as we saw in that Fight Quest Kajukenbo episode, and we saw Jimmy crumble. Now, for the record, I'm not bashing Jimmy or Doug. I give those guys a ton of credit for busting their *** in training and for taking a beating on those shows, but in thise case, I think Z is just pointing out that if applied correctly, the shot can be very effective.

 

[dnovice]

Why do you think, zDom? I'm guessing because you think they're fight stoppers or perhaps too deadly for MMA. I personally think that it's because they lead to short careers for guys who are trying to make a living doing what they do. It's a subtle, but very distinct difference, IMO.

We saw in the initial UFCs few, if any rules. Hair pulling was allowed. Blows to the back of the head, neck and spine were allowed. Knees, elbows and kicks were allowed at all positions. In UFC 1, the ref could only stop the fight if a competitor was unconscious, submitted or his corner threw in the towel. They were brutal.

We also saw that, while these techniques are definitely vicious and are potentially dangerous, they very rarely end a fight. There was a particular situation that is chronicled in the Rickson Gracie documentary, Choke (which I recommend highly to anyone interested in fighting). One of the competitors, Yuki Nakai, was gouged and eventually lost vision in that eye. In spite of this, he beat the guy who gouged him (a dutch savatte guy, IIRC), beat another guy and went on to fight Rickson in the finals.

The rules are there to protect the fighters, absolutely. But, IMO, it's more to protect the fighters long term health and careers than to protect them from a single, particularly dangerous technique. Nakai, the guy I mentioned above, had to retire as a result of this injury. It didn't stop him from fighting that night, but certainly ended his promising career.Again, if you watch early UFCs, you'll see plenty of downward elbows with little to no effect. I agree that MMA is a sport. I'm not sure that I agree that "dangerous" and "effective" are synonymous.

SteveBJJ,

that was eloquently written. I agree with you the most part. Like you said the rules are there ensure a long career for the athletes. I think its both what you say and to also protect the life of the MA'st.

In Emergency Medical Service courses you learn that there are two vital functions the body can't do without Breathing and blood circulation. To attack either of these areas can be lethal if the RIGHT amount of force is applied. A proper strike to the throat can result in damage to the wind pipe, which will lead to eventual death if not treated. Sure the person can keep on fighting, death isn't spontaneous, but if not treated within a time window the result can be disasterous.

There are no magic techniques... but there are dangerous ones.

 

[zDom]

but in thise case, I think Z is just pointing out that if applied correctly, the shot can be very effective.

Yep.

More specifically, what I'm getting at is:

because that downward elbow to the spine/back of the neck is illegal

(as it SHOULD be! the kind of injuries this would cause are just not worth it for a game)

those playing the MMA game have begun to think of the shoot as a wonderful technique that "works" because it is "effective in the ring."

But someone focused on self defense (as we are in hapkido) needs to keep in mind that the shoot has inherent risks: exposing the spine and back of the neck!

So, it's GREAT "in the ring" (because nobody is ALLOWED to take that shot to the spine/back of the neck!) but not AS great outside the ring.

Still a viable technique, but something you need to THINK about outside the ring. And people FIGHT like they TRAIN — and in that particular case, it went BADLY for him.

And I'm not saying MMA players are the only ones who may be training bad habits for self defense by focusing on their game. Judo players "turtling up"? Bad idea. TKD guys sparring with hands down, falling down to do spinning kicks? Terrible idea. Boxers hugging into a clinch? Bad. Wrestlers leaving themselves open for strike? Bad. The list goes on and on.

Those who focus on self defense can play games to hone parts of fighting skill keeping in mind that no one game covers ALL of what happens in a fight.

But playing those games certainly can improve your chance of successful self defense if you are mindful of their limitations and do not train yourself to win the games at the cost of deeply ingraining bad habits for self defense.


But on the OTHER hand, not playing games and convincing yourself you can depend on "one-shot wonder techniques" that are "too dangerous to use in competition" is ALSO dangerous for self defense,

because you can't count on ANY one technique to be a magic "one shot" technique.

I've seen people shrug off shots to the thoat, pokes to the eye, kicks to the knee — name it, someone has tried it and failed.

But then, these techniques DO work..sometimes. I've also seen accidental strikes to the throat or eye or groin or whatever that ENDED the game — and presumably WOULD have ended the fight, or at least rendered the receiver completely vulnerable for a finishing strike/combination. Even a simple punch to the face can kill. It happens.

SO in a nutshell, I am not going to bank MY safety on something because it works "in the ring"

or

because it is "too dangerous to use in the ring."

I am going to train hard, defend myself with a variety of techniques as they present opportunity, if forced to —

train for the worst (NOTHING seems to stop this guy!!), hope for the best (Wow! that punch dropped him!).

(shrug)

 

[MJS]

Yep.

More specifically, what I'm getting at is:

because that downward elbow to the spine/back of the neck is illegal

(as it SHOULD be! the kind of injuries this would cause are just not worth it for a game)

those playing the MMA game have begun to think of the shoot as a wonderful technique that "works" because it is "effective in the ring."

But someone focused on self defense (as we are in hapkido) needs to keep in mind that the shoot has inherent risks: exposing the spine and back of the neck!

So, it's GREAT "in the ring" (because nobody is ALLOWED to take that shot to the spine/back of the neck!) but not AS great outside the ring.

Still a viable technique, but something you need to THINK about outside the ring. And people FIGHT like they TRAIN — and in that particular case, it went BADLY for him.

And I'm not saying MMA players are the only ones who may be training bad habits for self defense by focusing on their game. Judo players "turtling up"? Bad idea. TKD guys sparring with hands down, falling down to do spinning kicks? Terrible idea. Boxers hugging into a clinch? Bad. Wrestlers leaving themselves open for strike? Bad. The list goes on and on.

Those who focus on self defense can play games to hone parts of fighting skill keeping in mind that no one game covers ALL of what happens in a fight.

But playing those games certainly can improve your chance of successful self defense if you are mindful of their limitations and do not train yourself to win the games at the cost of deeply ingraining bad habits for self defense.


But on the OTHER hand, not playing games and convincing yourself you can depend on "one-shot wonder techniques" that are "too dangerous to use in competition" is ALSO dangerous for self defense,

because you can't count on ANY one technique to be a magic "one shot" technique.

I've seen people shrug off shots to the thoat, pokes to the eye, kicks to the knee — name it, someone has tried it and failed.

But then, these techniques DO work..sometimes. I've also seen accidental strikes to the throat or eye or groin or whatever that ENDED the game — and presumably WOULD have ended the fight, or at least rendered the receiver completely vulnerable for a finishing strike/combination. Even a simple punch to the face can kill. It happens.

SO in a nutshell, I am not going to bank MY safety on something because it works "in the ring"

or

because it is "too dangerous to use in the ring."

I am going to train hard, defend myself with a variety of techniques as they present opportunity, if forced to —

train for the worst (NOTHING seems to stop this guy!!), hope for the best (Wow! that punch dropped him!).

(shrug)

This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. IMO, way too many times, people, and not necessarily anyone on this forum, tend to assume that because this or that isn't done in the ring, or because this or that doesnt work for persons a, b, c and d, that its a bad move. Those are the people, who again, are going on the success of others, to base the success of a move for them. Why? I don't care about the others, I care about what works for me.

 

[Steve]

Agreed, and I would chalk that up to those that think that if they do those shots, it'll work some magic. As I said in another post in this thread, its an accumulation of hits, not just one deadly shot.

I can't recall every UFC that I've seen, and I've been watching since the beginning, but I have to wonder about the positioning of the person doing this tech. Were they in a poor position or were they executing a good sprawl, such as we saw in that Fight Quest Kajukenbo episode, and we saw Jimmy crumble. Now, for the record, I'm not bashing Jimmy or Doug. I give those guys a ton of credit for busting their *** in training and for taking a beating on those shows, but in thise case, I think Z is just pointing out that if applied correctly, the shot can be very effective.

I agree 100% that it's often the accumulation of hits. Kicks to the thigh accumulate to the point that the leg cramps and no longer supports the fighter's weight. Shots to the midsection accumulate, etc.

On the other hand, one shot to the jaw in exactly the right spot will end a fight. Same, I am sure, with blows to the back of the head or any other vulnerable spot. I don't think we disagree, MJS.

 

[Steve]

SteveBJJ,

that was eloquently written. I agree with you the most part. Like you said the rules are there ensure a long career for the athletes. I think its both what you say and to also protect the life of the MA'st.

Of course, no one wants anyone to die in the ring.

In Emergency Medical Service courses you learn that there are two vital functions the body can't do without Breathing and blood circulation. To attack either of these areas can be lethal if the RIGHT amount of force is applied. A proper strike to the throat can result in damage to the wind pipe, which will lead to eventual death if not treated. Sure the person can keep on fighting, death isn't spontaneous, but if not treated within a time window the result can be disasterous.

There are no magic techniques... but there are dangerous ones.

I'm guessing that you work in emergency medicine. Have you considered that your perspective might be a little skewed? Now, I'm strictly going from a human nature position here. Whenever someone works very closely in a field, it's hard to maintain a sense of perspective. For example, I have many friends who work with animal rescues. They have become a little cynical regarding most people and their behavior toward their pets. Same goes with my friends who are cops, who are very nice guys, but their frequent exposure to the worst elements of our society have skewed their perspective.

While it could be argued that your expertise gives you unique insight into the fragility of the human body, if all you see is the damage, your perspective might be skewed.

Let me try to be a little more concrete. Blows to the neck suck, and to be sure, they are potentially very dangerous. But people get hit in the throat all the time and don't die, whether accidentally or not. I was telling a friend the other day about my short baseball career. I was 12, played 3rd base and my coach wanted me to play with the high school aged kids. I was a head shorter than the smallest of them and while I had the skills, it was too fast for me. I ended up getting hit in the throat by a fast ground ball up the 3rd base line and it really, really sucked. I used that as an excuse to quit playing baseball, but the point is, I didn't die. I had a bruised throat, had trouble swallowing for a few days and then got better. Most people do.

Again, the techniques are potentially very dangerous. I'm not arguing that. Look at Natasha Richardson. People fall and crack their noggins hard all the time without more than a bump and a headache. Some, however, are very unlucky.

Ultimately, with regards to rules, it's as much about perception as it is about statistical probability of death or serious injury. Keep them as safe as possible while preserving the intent and spirit of the sport.

Yep.

More specifically, what I'm getting at is:

because that downward elbow to the spine/back of the neck is illegal

(as it SHOULD be! the kind of injuries this would cause are just not worth it for a game)

those playing the MMA game have begun to think of the shoot as a wonderful technique that "works" because it is "effective in the ring."

But someone focused on self defense (as we are in hapkido) needs to keep in mind that the shoot has inherent risks: exposing the spine and back of the neck!

So, it's GREAT "in the ring" (because nobody is ALLOWED to take that shot to the spine/back of the neck!) but not AS great outside the ring.

I understand this argument, and agree with it to an extent. At the same time, as I said before, a shot opens up the attacker to a well timed knee, as well. This is a legal move, but seldom works because the window of opportunity is very small. Does this mean it can't work? Absolutely not, and we've seen fights end when someone dives into an opponent's knee. What I'm saying is, it works far less often than it doesn't work.

Still a viable technique, but something you need to THINK about outside the ring. And people FIGHT like they TRAIN — and in that particular case, it went BADLY for him.

And I'm not saying MMA players are the only ones who may be training bad habits for self defense by focusing on their game. Judo players "turtling up"? Bad idea. TKD guys sparring with hands down, falling down to do spinning kicks? Terrible idea. Boxers hugging into a clinch? Bad. Wrestlers leaving themselves open for strike? Bad. The list goes on and on.

Those who focus on self defense can play games to hone parts of fighting skill keeping in mind that no one game covers ALL of what happens in a fight.

But playing those games certainly can improve your chance of successful self defense if you are mindful of their limitations and do not train yourself to win the games at the cost of deeply ingraining bad habits for self defense.


But on the OTHER hand, not playing games and convincing yourself you can depend on "one-shot wonder techniques" that are "too dangerous to use in competition" is ALSO dangerous for self defense,

because you can't count on ANY one technique to be a magic "one shot" technique.

I've seen people shrug off shots to the thoat, pokes to the eye, kicks to the knee — name it, someone has tried it and failed.

But then, these techniques DO work..sometimes. I've also seen accidental strikes to the throat or eye or groin or whatever that ENDED the game — and presumably WOULD have ended the fight, or at least rendered the receiver completely vulnerable for a finishing strike/combination. Even a simple punch to the face can kill. It happens.

SO in a nutshell, I am not going to bank MY safety on something because it works "in the ring"

or

because it is "too dangerous to use in the ring."

I am going to train hard, defend myself with a variety of techniques as they present opportunity, if forced to —

train for the worst (NOTHING seems to stop this guy!!), hope for the best (Wow! that punch dropped him!).

(shrug)

And I want to be clear that I largely agree with this. I am strictly reacting to your assertion that certain techniques are illegal from competition strictly because they are too deadly. Once again, there is a difference between unnecessarily risky and too deadly. And again, the rules are often as much about the perception of safety as they are about actual safety.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. IMO, way too many times, people, and not necessarily anyone on this forum, tend to assume that because this or that isn't done in the ring, or because this or that doesnt work for persons a, b, c and d, that its a bad move. Those are the people, who again, are going on the success of others, to base the success of a move for them. Why? I don't care about the others, I care about what works for me.

No arguments from me here.

Edit to add this. I think I'm reacting to something I heard on the radio the other day. It was a book written about our fears, and the author pointed out that we are often most afraid of the things that pose no legitimate statistical risk to our lives. For example, more people die in a car than by being attacked by a shark. Not sure if this makes sense or not, but there ya go!

 

[zDom]

And I want to be clear that I largely agree with this. I am strictly reacting to your assertion that certain techniques are illegal from competition strictly because they are too deadly.

Nah, this is not what I asserted, or if I did it was mistakenly/ill stated.

I AGREE with you that the illegal techniques are too risky, not worth the risk to participants — not "too deadly."

 

[Steve]

Nah, this is not what I asserted, or if I did it was mistakenly/ill stated.

I AGREE with you that the illegal techniques are too risky, not worth the risk to participants — not "too deadly."

Oh sure. NOW what are we going to talk about???

I guess I could pick nits and suggest that it's more about perception of risk than statistical likelihood of risk...

In a related aside, have you guys heard arguments for installing seat belts in school buses? I was all for it when initially asked. I couldn't fathom why kids weren't required to wear seat belts on a school bus. But then I started looking into how many kids were actually killed or injured in accidents involving a school bus and the numbers are insignificant. It's more about the perception of danger than the actual danger. Often in sports, particularly combat sports, this is the case.

 

[BLACK LION]

Even in a social-moral-legal setting based on rules of engagement one can still target. There would be no contrast in my training for a social or asocial engagement. However... I just have to target areas inside the rules which there are plenty that work in both settings. knees to the Diaphragm-elbows to the brachial plexus or trapezius-leg strikes to the saphenous nerves on the inner thigh and nerves on outer thigh- forearms to the side of the head and neck... etc. there are no rules that say I cant use my body weight behind my strikes and project through the target... there are a few buttons you cant press but there are many you can....
You can be tactical regardless of the setting...it all depends on the integrity of your training and practice.

You do what you train... no matter the setting or engagement... its up to you to determine the intensity of your attack and focus on the targets that apply...

 

[Tez3]

Oh sure. NOW what are we going to talk about???

I guess I could pick nits and suggest that it's more about perception of risk than statistical likelihood of risk...

In a related aside, have you guys heard arguments for installing seat belts in school buses? I was all for it when initially asked. I couldn't fathom why kids weren't required to wear seat belts on a school bus. But then I started looking into how many kids were actually killed or injured in accidents involving a school bus and the numbers are insignificant. It's more about the perception of danger than the actual danger. Often in sports, particularly combat sports, this is the case.

Oooh that was a tad tactless Steve! Even one child saved by everyone wearing seatbelts is one child's family saved for the anguish of a young life lost. Yes all children should put seat belts on school buses, where children are concerned it's belts and braces plus anything else! Fighting between consenting adults is something different.

 

[Steve]

Oooh that was a tad tactless Steve! Even one child saved by everyone wearing seatbelts is one child's family saved for the anguish of a young life lost. Yes all children should put seat belts on school buses, where children are concerned it's belts and braces plus anything else! Fighting between consenting adults is something different.

Come on, Tez. Should we dress the kids in bubblewrap suits and put them in helmets, too? Please. Or perhaps we can just put the kids in padded rooms until they reach the age of consent...

The chance of a child being killed in a bus is insignificant, as I said. That doesn't mean that the life of a child is insignificant. I can't believe you're serious.

 

[dnovice]

Of course, no one wants anyone to die in the ring. I'm guessing that you work in emergency medicine.

Not now. I used to.

Have you considered that your perspective might be a little skewed? Now, I'm strictly going from a human nature position here. Whenever someone works very closely in a field, it's hard to maintain a sense of perspective. For example, I have many friends who work with animal rescues. They have become a little cynical regarding most people and their behavior toward their pets. Same goes with my friends who are cops, who are very nice guys, but their frequent exposure to the worst elements of our society have skewed their perspective.

haha. I wish that were the case. Its quite the contrary. An emergency medical worker comes into contact with sick people as well as many people that exagerate their sickness. The ones that exagerate or even lie for insurance or monetary purposes are sufficient enough to make us analyze the situation critically and not overreact. So no, my view isn't skewed. Trust me... you might see an injury and think its serious, but when i see it I'll know its not.

While it could be argued that your expertise gives you unique insight into the fragility of the human body, if all you see is the damage, your perspective might be skewed.

nope.

Let me try to be a little more concrete. Blows to the neck suck, and to be sure, they are potentially very dangerous. But people get hit in the throat all the time and don't die, whether accidentally or not. I was telling a friend the other day about my short baseball career. I was 12, played 3rd base and my coach wanted me to play with the high school aged kids. I was a head shorter than the smallest of them and while I had the skills, it was too fast for me. I ended up getting hit in the throat by a fast ground ball up the 3rd base line and it really, really sucked. I used that as an excuse to quit playing baseball, but the point is, I didn't die. I had a bruised throat, had trouble swallowing for a few days and then got better. Most people do.

Right! now if you were hit in the throat not once but two or three times with that same baseball in the exact same spot (I'm assuming you got hit in the trachea). You would probably have been in more distress/ just a tad bit worse of than being sore.

Ultimately, with regards to rules, it's as much about perception as it is about statistical probability of death or serious injury. Keep them as safe as possible while preserving the intent and spirit of the sport.

Agreed. This becomes a factor when it is too expensive to undertake corrections/restrictions to protect life. (as in the seat belt argument mentioned in a post on this thread.) However, if there is no monetary gain or loss in instituting a restriction the statistical probability of death or not death isn't of importance. What is important is human life.

Although, I know there are no magic techniques, I believe there are dangerous (deadly techniques.) These techniques might take a while to yeild said purpose, however that doesn't diminish it's lethality (lol if thats a word. probably not too lazy to look it up.)

 

[manhattan1]

When i started with Bujinkan, before my FMA/Eskrima days when i was still in Denmark, i did try out (shortly) something called Full Contact Ninjutsu its run by a org. called Shadow Warrior headed by Brinley Morgan 15 dan. Bujinkan (former SAS).....
Shadow Warrior in Danmark was lead by Flemming Wenzel and he was my instructor at the time....

The reason for its name (full contact Ninjutsu), was that we did apply every technique with so much force that we always knew it worked.....
Remember in Bujinkan there is a lot of dirty fighting, Kyusho hitting and such....
When we did make locks on each other, we would make them so hard it would feel like the arm would snap and burn all the way up, this kind of lock we would hold for around 30 sec. to make the muscle more limber.....
When my instructor called me up in front of the class to show a technique, he would hit after the big muscle on the side of the neck (a Kyusho point) with so much force i nearly got K.O.ed every time......
This was also the idea to go to the line every time (without cross it), they called this kind of special training Ukemi, the ability to take pain and at the same time you would also learn that these techniques do work......
I later did change from Shadow Warrior to a regular Bujinkan, where my teacher was Jim Karstensen 4 dan. (RIP).

Now a days i mix many of the things i did learn from Bujinkan with my FMA/Eskrima and i found Bujinkan has many similarities to Villasin Balintawak, both GM. John Villasin and i can see many of these similarities.....
That background gives me many good techniques i can mix into "the play" within Villasin Balintawak.....

Sincerly yours,

Jan Jensen
Cebu City
http://www.fma-arnis.dk

 

[thetruth]

The reason for its name (full contact Ninjutsu), was that we did apply every technique with so much force that we always knew it worked.....
Remember in Bujinkan there is a lot of dirty fighting, Kyusho hitting and such....
When we did make locks on each other, we would make them so hard it would feel like the arm would snap and burn all the way up, this kind of lock we would hold for around 30 sec. to make the muscle more limber.....
When my instructor called me up in front of the class to show a technique, he would hit after the big muscle on the side of the neck (a Kyusho point) with so much force i nearly got K.O.ed every time......

How many injuries occured in that school. Given the differences in flexibility locking people up like that seems a touch risky. Also repetitive hard hits to the neck can do some long term damage too.

Just curious
Cheers
Sam

 

[manhattan1]

How many injuries occured in that school. Given the differences in flexibility locking people up like that seems a touch risky. Also repetitive hard hits to the neck can do some long term damage too.

Just curious
Cheers
Sam

I dont know the number, but injuries did happen like a guy with broken collar bone and such. This is also the reason i did not keep training with these guys, but did find a other instructor.....
The risk of injuries was to big......

Sincerly yours,

Jan Jensen
Cebu City
http://www.fma-arnis.dk

 

[BLACK LION]

My good friend trains at the Bunjinkan associaton here is San Diego and they actually split the school downt he middle becuase one instructor was very agressive in how he trained others and demonstrated techniques... he has damged a nerve in another instructors leg and also crushed the windpipe of the same instructor in a demonstration... they had to shove a tube down his throat and take him to the hosp. The instructor this happened to instructs differently in the fact that he is carefull not to damage his students or instructors...the other instructor is not so careful... They teach in 2 separate locations under the same Bunjinkan assoc. Ukemi is part of the training... but if you have injured students and instructors then there wont be much training...

 

[zDom]

Ukemi is part of the training... but if you have injured students and instructors then there wont be much training...

Yep. What is the point of training to defend yourself from injury that MIGHT happen IF you are attacked when you ARE receving injuries during that training?

You have to look at cost:benefit, IMO.

 

[jks9199]

My good friend trains at the Bunjinkan associaton here is San Diego and they actually split the school downt he middle becuase one instructor was very agressive in how he trained others and demonstrated techniques... he has damged a nerve in another instructors leg and also crushed the windpipe of the same instructor in a demonstration... they had to shove a tube down his throat and take him to the hosp. The instructor this happened to instructs differently in the fact that he is carefull not to damage his students or instructors...the other instructor is not so careful... They teach in 2 separate locations under the same Bunjinkan assoc. Ukemi is part of the training... but if you have injured students and instructors then there wont be much training...

Getting hurt can happen as part of training. But there's a difference between getting hurt and doing serious harm to a training partner. You've got to balance your training so that you are prepared and experienced at dealing with being hurt as well as understanding what the techniques can do, and actually being broken up.

 

[manhattan1]

Ukemi is part of the training... but if you have injured students and instructors then there wont be much training...

I agree....

Sincerly yours,

Jan Jensen
Cebu City
http://www.fma-arnis.dk

 

[Tez3]

Come on, Tez. Should we dress the kids in bubblewrap suits and put them in helmets, too? Please. Or perhaps we can just put the kids in padded rooms until they reach the age of consent...

The chance of a child being killed in a bus is insignificant, as I said. That doesn't mean that the life of a child is insignificant. I can't believe you're serious.

You are over reacting, all they need to do is put a seatbelt on! if you can save the life of one child even by just wearing a seatbelt surely it's worth it?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...nnesota_School_Bus_Crash_Four_Children_Killed