JKD vs. MMA

[ap Oweyn]

Hello Everyone,

Bruce Lee is considered the Father of MMA because he advocated a number things that would later make up his JKD. Some of these things were borrowed by MMA practitioners.

As Tez pointed out, there are some flaws in this idea. And I don't think it's accurate to say that MMA borrowed these ideas. Nobody had a monopoly on them. Lee definitely swam against the tide, but he certainly wasn't the only one.

Bruce advocated - Fighting in all ranges.

As has been brought up before, Greek pankration (as just one example) was doing kicking, punching, and grappling long, long before Lee started talking about it. Champions were crosstrained in wrestling and boxing.

Many systems years ago were specialists in 1 or 2 ranges. Some Styles were great at long range with kicks, Some were good at the punching or mid range, some at close range and others excelled at ground work. Some were good at punching and kicking, some at punching and close range and some at close range or grappling range.

And many at least paid lip service to most of the above.

MMA has looked to kicking arts like Muy Thai for long range techniques, boxing for punching range, originally Wing Chun for the trapping or close range (but this has largely been dropped) and BJJ for the grappling range. No on prior to Bruce was doing this far as I know. Then again maybe someone was already head of the game but didn't have Bruce's notoriety.

MMA has never, in my view, looked to wing chun for trapping. There have been one or two wing chun-trained fighters in MMA events. Particularly early on. But, having only seen their appearances in early UFC, they didn't make a favourable impression. Interpret that however you will.

Bruce advocated - Making trainings alive and emphasized sparring so that practitioners would learn to apply their techniques in a more realistic fashion against a non cooperative opponent. In this way you can try your art under pressure, learn and work on distance & timing, etc.

Boxers, wrestlers, savateurs, fencers... were already doing that.

Bruce advocated - absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless. This however is largely misunderstood. Many think this mean take any technique and combine it how you like and if you like it and if you can make it work for you then great. This however will not make what you do JKD. It might make it MMA but not JKD. First how do you determine what to absorb and what to discard? That's the missing key. Yes Bruce researched many styles but he didn't take just anything. He researched many arts and ran them through a filter, to remove what was useless. That filter is 4 main principles of JKD which are Simple Direct Economical & Non Telegraphic. If you what you abosrb from other systems does not follow these 4 principle as a guide it is not JKD.

This I mostly agree with. You did say "if you can make it work... " And I think that's the built-in filter of MMA. If you can make it work in a bout, then good on you. That doesn't necessarily mean it will become a standard part of any "standard MMA curriculum." We've seen fighters like Cung Le and George St. Pierre pull off spinning back kicks in the ring lately. But I don't see those catching on as a standard part of MMA training.

I do think that something needs to fit within a conceptual framework to be called JKD. It's not enough to simply say "I've absorbed this from my studies of X, therefore it's part of my JKD." That said, the principles and concepts are broad reaching and flexible enough that there's still a fair amount of room for debate about how those concepts are applied in making determinations.


Stuart

 

[Tez3]

Reading Iain Abernethy's book 'Throws for Strikers' I was surprised to learn that boxing before the Queensberry rules had throws, kicks and some groundwork in. I think human nature tells us that fighters must have been doing all this since fighting began. There's nothing new under the sun so I'd be very surprised if no one had done standup, groundwork etc all in one fight before Bruce Lee came along.

I don't do JKD but am I correct in thinking it's stances are those of CMA, toes turned more inward than the 'boxing' or karate stances? The punching I think too seems different, fists with thumbs on top that type of thing?

 

[MASponge1]

Hey You guys are absolutely right.
I don't care if Bruce is the father of MMA or not. Dana White said he was. Some agree, some don't. I was just stating why some, who believe this, think this.

Yep there were other systems long before Bruce that fought in the ranges. However during his time period where he lived, the popular systems of the day, according to him didn't. So he spoke up and said something about it.
Also Bruce has often said what he does is nothing new.

It's good you guys have brought these things to light.

 

[Nolerama]

Wow. Off this forum for a while now. It's like I haven't left!

How's everything guys and gals?

 

[Gruenewald]

Oh do read my words.
I said the people who will try takedowns on the street as a first line thing won't be people who train martial arts as they know that they don't want to go to the ground if they can help it. As Elftengu correctly says a lot of the 'takedowns' here will be the rugger tackle. Takedowns aren't useless if you mean do they work, of course they do but they aren't what you want if you can avoid it. Rolling around on the floor leaves you open to being kicked in the head by 'spectators' etc, as well as rolling around in blood, snot, stale booze, dog mess, broken glass, etc etc. If you can, you want to be standing up, if you can put someone on the floor without going down yourself which being small hardly ever happens for me then take them down but otherwise stay up or preferably get the hell out.

Please don't use the word insinunating to me as I always say what I mean, often to others discomfort but I don't insinuate anything.

Sorry, but straight shooters are hard to come by. I read your first statement about people who aren't trained trying to do techniques that will obviously fail in a street scenario due to their inexperience, but it was mainly the part where you said "No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition" that I was responding to. I know what you mean about not taking people to the floor, but I wasn't sure if by "taking to the floor" you meant any throw that involved the opponent ending on the ground. Because there are a good number of throws that end in a very strong position (often with follow-ups into submissions/striking opportunities to vitals such as the throat).

 

[Robert Lee]

Clearly this debate can go on forever. Ones input is there belief. Bruce did help many change there views on how one can train. And how one trains is there choice and there life. An open door can come from justtrying If Bruce helped people so be it Just as is MMA helping people so be it. Why worry and try to name the Father of MMA. Just train and live on.

 

[Tez3]

Sorry, but straight shooters are hard to come by. I read your first statement about people who aren't trained trying to do techniques that will obviously fail in a street scenario due to their inexperience, but it was mainly the part where you said "No one takes people to the floor in a serious fight outside training or competition" that I was responding to. I know what you mean about not taking people to the floor, but I wasn't sure if by "taking to the floor" you meant any throw that involved the opponent ending on the ground. Because there are a good number of throws that end in a very strong position (often with follow-ups into submissions/striking opportunities to vitals such as the throat).

I meant taking the fight to floor if that sounds better? . If I'm working we put people on the floor but I wouldn't do it by myself. Out of work and I got involved in something I wouldn't take the fight to the floor nor would I want to take them down with throws. Although my throws are respectable, being small means that while I can throw them often if they are bigger than me I end up going down too, I've developed landing on people with my elbows just for this lol! With the guys yes, throws then a submission are good. I'm guessing my idea of a 'serious' fight outside is probably different from what others mean too. I'm used to all sorts of scuffles and drunken brawls, serious fights such as the football firm's ones are different.


Nolerama! Nice to see you back, nah nothing's changed

Gruenewald, you do know a lot of us are contempory to Bruce don't you? A lot of us were in training then too!

Oh and scrub that remark of mine about not doing JKD, did first class last night! Good training and I intend to carry on too!

 

[Gruenewald]

Yeah, that's very true; the effectiveness of a technique is usually subjective to the individual who is using it. What functions as an invaluable method of attack/defense for one person may not work for another due to a variety of different reasons. I've got to remember that...

Gruenewald, you do know a lot of us are contempory to Bruce don't you? A lot of us were in training then too!

Hehe, yeah that's why I'm so excited to be here and absorb as much as I can from more experienced martial artists.

 

[Xael]

Classic topic of debate, but in my opinion it's not really a debate at all. Let's discuss both the similarities and differences between Jeet Kune Do (founded in 1967 by Bruce Lee) and Mixed Martial Arts (could be considered founded in 1993 with UFC 1, although it has roots quite far back in history).

In 2004, UFC President Dana White was quoted as saying that Bruce Lee is the "father of mixed martial arts." From this we can make the assumption that Modern MMA was heavily influenced by one of the principle concepts of JKD, which is to "take what is effective and throw away what is ineffective". However, while the first few UFC tournaments were "no-holds barred", more recent rules have limited contestants in order to prevent death or serious injury from occuring; MMA has taken the shape of a bona fide sport, which in many ways contradicts JKD's philosophies against limitations. Also, a lot of people tend to think of the two as being the same thing, and use them pretty much interchangeably.

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.

First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's. Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up. Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.

Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then.

MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber.
MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.

MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.

I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed? Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.

 

[Tez3]

I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.

First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's. Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up. Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.

Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then.

MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber.
MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.

MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.

I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed? Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.

Whoa, hold on there sunshine before ripping MMA to pieces!

You need also to get some facts right. MMA is what it says it is, a great many experienced martial artists compete in MMA and they have great skills in Karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Judo,WC and Aikido among other arts. they do not have 'crappy' stand up skills! You have been watching far too much UFC and have little knowledge of what's out there beyond that. UFC is not the be all and end all of MMA, it's American money and showing offness! A great many of us are serious martial artists who take MMA seriously. don't judge us by an American TV show!

 

[James Kovacich]

Whoa, hold on there sunshine before ripping MMA to pieces!

You need also to get some facts right. MMA is what it says it is, a great many experienced martial artists compete in MMA and they have great skills in Karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Judo,WC and Aikido among other arts. they do not have 'crappy' stand up skills! You have been watching far too much UFC and have little knowledge of what's out there beyond that. UFC is not the be all and end all of MMA, it's American money and showing offness! A great many of us are serious martial artists who take MMA seriously. don't judge us by an American TV show!

It must be so much better in your little country. :erg: Your various posts hold a bit of anti-American tone to them. I don't see us bashing your country. Whats wrong with you?

 

[Tez3]

It must be so much better in your little country. :erg: Your various posts hold a bit of anti-American tone to them. I don't see us bashing your country. Whats wrong with you?

Anti American? have you always been this paranoid?

No it's not being being anti American, I'm not by the way, after all, you can't hate your own invention. I'm anti UFC and the way it's run, the way it's advertised and the way people think it's the be all and end of of MMA, I'm tired of people thinking MMA was invented by an America company and I'm tired of people judging MMA by what they see on an American television programme. I'm angry that Dana White won't allow women to fight on the UFC and I'm tired of all the anti MMA comments that get posted because the poster thinks the UFC and TUF are all there is to MMA. You can't deny that the UFC is an American company.

Don't bother making snide comments about my country, it bores me. I've made none about your country only about one company.

 

[James Kovacich]

Anti American? have you always been this paranoid?

No it's not being being anti American, I'm not by the way, after all, you can't hate your own invention. I'm anti UFC and the way it's run, the way it's advertised and the way people think it's the be all and end of of MMA, I'm tired of people thinking MMA was invented by an America company and I'm tired of people judging MMA by what they see on an American television programme. I'm angry that Dana White won't allow women to fight on the UFC and I'm tired of all the anti MMA comments that get posted because the poster thinks the UFC and TUF are all there is to MMA. You can't deny that the UFC is an American company.

Don't bother making snide comments about my country, it bores me. I've made none about your country only about one company.

I don't know why you would make a comment about my post about you and your country when it was you that wrote above "it's American money and showing offness! " From my American opinion, thats taking a shot at Americans and their martial arts. My opinion, I'm entitled to it.

But I may be just reading you wrong. Can you post some links to the non American MMA you'd like to be judged by?

 

[jks9199]

Hey, let's try not to bash either countries or sporting businesses, huh? There's plenty of room to disagree and still be polite about it!

 

[Tez3]

I don't know why you would make a comment about my post about you and your country when it was you that wrote above "it's American money and showing offness! " From my American opinion, thats taking a shot at Americans and their martial arts. My opinion, I'm entitled to it.

But I may be just reading you wrong. Can you post some links to the non American MMA you'd like to be judged by?

Okay let me put the sentence around the other way "it's showing offness and American money". Theres no arguing that there's more money in America than the rest of the world to put into things like this and that money talks.


from London Shootfighters

Sami Berik v Abdul Mohamed. Sami's background is CMA, Abdul's is Olympic wrestling. Abdul is trained by Ian 'The Machine' Freeman who beat Frank Mir very convincingly in the UFC, you can see him cornering Abdul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyrv7mUyc50&feature=related

I have loads more but I also have to go to work lol. I hope the first one goes someway to show that MMA fighters don't have bad stand up skills. Most of our fighters come from a TMa background. Abdul came here from Afghanistan a long time ago, he was in their Olympic wrestling team. He's a nice guy though, Sami is brilliant, has a wicked website if you want to look, is very into his Chinses martial arts. His sister also fights.

 

[Tez3]

From my fone.

don't forget too how many othr promotions there are in America never mind around the world.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I am not attacking you, or your post but let's clear up a few things.

This is just my opinion, but what you posted doesn't clear anything at all up.

First, MMA (mixed martial arts) was not started in the 90's.

Agreed.

Mixed martial arts dates back to any person cross training and mixing it up.

Disagreed. I think this is one of those cases where the term is being applied so liberally as to make it utterly useless. It's not a language breakthrough to say that terms made up of several words carry a meaning slightly different from the literal interpretation of each of those words.

In other words "mixed martial arts" isn't "mixed" + "martial" + "arts." Taken that literally, every martial art is a mixed martial art. Everything has hybridized something. That term didn't come into existence until the sport format adopted it (after it was correctly pointed out that "no holds barred" or "NHB" wasn't really accurate).

Retrofitting everything into that term does absolutely nothing to clarify things.

Most people that have created their own style has been a victim of borrowing or hybridizing a blend of one or more martial arts thus becoming a mixed martial artist. Lee was hardly the first, however I think Lee had the best.

I'm not sure that "victim" was the word you were looking for there, but if it was, I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. And, while we're at it, why you think that Lee's "victimization" was the best.

Next you quote Dana White and then predicate the idea that JKD was one of the principle concepts of the creation of MMA. Listen, White is a tool. Most of the things that come out of his mouth are marketing oriented. He is a muppet that works for Zuffa. Before Zuffa owned the UFC, it was owned by the Gracies. It has become night and day since then.

I doubt I'd get along with Dane White personally. But a "muppet"? The guy has been instrumental in elevating MMA to a widely recognized and appreciated sport, versus the bloodsport it was thought to be (and disdained for by many) beforehand. You may not like the direction that White took, but he drove that change. That's no muppet.

MMA since then has become a hodge podge melting pot of boxing, wrestling, kickboxing and jiu jitsu (or some other form of grappling). The problem with this is that most of these people have very crappy stand up skills and the only reason they look decent is because they are up against the same caliber.

Nonsense. It's a distillation. And the reason that the striking looks the way it does is that it has to be performed in a very different context to the striking that most of us are used to seeing. Boxing and kickboxing can look the way they do precisely because the competitors don't have to be prepared for certain eventualities. Striking in the early UFCs had yet to adapt to this new context, and strikers often paid the price. Now, fighters have a much better sense of the timing, angles, and setups required to successfully land strikes when grappling is a possibility. That this would look different from other striking venues isn't just plausible, it's common sense.

MMA is a serious hype train that is now a sport. Most people do not even consider a fight to be well done if it doesnt end in a knock out or a pummeling / tapout of the opponent. It caters to the mob of people watching, equivalent to that of the "pro"-wrestling people watch on tv for entertainment.

"Versus the purity of whatever it is I do." You can say it.

MMA is not everyone's cup of tea. But you're making a very lazy analysis of it right now. I hope that, in analyzing your practice, any critic would take more effort to be balanced and fair.

MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar.

If the line between success and failure is the availability of the finger jab, it's time to seriously reconsider your arsenal. No serious fighter is that reliant on one tool. And, in the (paraphrased) words of a very wise man, "what makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers, if you haven't proven you can hit my head with a boxing glove?"

I think at the end of the day one needs to ask themself a question: Am I learning this art for sport competition or am I learning this art to defend myself and not get killed? Once you truly understand this, it is clear and becomes night and day as far as application and comparison.

It's only clear as day because you're dealing in caricatures.


Stuart

 

[Xael]

First off, I should have proofed this after a nights sleep. My apologies, I have not slept in a few days. I will explain what I meant in my response.

Disagreed. I think this is one of those cases where the term is being applied so liberally as to make it utterly useless. It's not a language breakthrough to say that terms made up of several words carry a meaning slightly different from the literal interpretation of each of those words.

In other words "mixed martial arts" isn't "mixed" + "martial" + "arts." Taken that literally, every martial art is a mixed martial art. Everything has hybridized something. That term didn't come into existence until the sport format adopted it (after it was correctly pointed out that "no holds barred" or "NHB" wasn't really accurate).

Retrofitting everything into that term does absolutely nothing to clarify things.

Contextually in my response to OP, it does make sense retrofitting the term "mma" in conjunction with what I said. I was simply countering the OP's statement that the idea of MMA was founded with the UFC in the 90s although it has roots quite far back in history. Depending on the context of "mma" it could mean combining and training in a variety of styles, or it could mean an event of different styles pitted against each other, or it could even mean the hodge-podge style that a lot of people are training in. All are correct in their own context.

I'm not sure that "victim" was the word you were looking for there, but if it was, I'd be curious to know why you feel that way. And, while we're at it, why you think that Lee's "victimization" was the best.

You are right, victim was definitely a poor choice in words. You are curious why I said I felt Lee was the best at it? Well for starters I think he understood striking and delivery better than most. Especially in punching. I have yet to see anyone come close. Furthermore the JKD package was a very good nucleus for any style one could adapt or flow into. Lee also promoted fitness and lifestyle much more than the other arts.

I doubt I'd get along with Dane White personally. But a "muppet"? The guy has been instrumental in elevating MMA to a widely recognized and appreciated sport, versus the bloodsport it was thought to be (and disdained for by many) beforehand. You may not like the direction that White took, but he drove that change. That's no muppet.

Dana White is a network muppet. I did mean that. Sure he has endlessly promoted the UFC and done tons for "mma" going public and being successful. That means very little considering the things he has said over the years regarding martial arts and other people. One can still be a muppet and a marketing genius. I can care less of what Zuffa and White did to the UFC. I was never a huge fan of the UFC or these "mma" tournaments. He is not a fighter, he is a promoter and businessman. He still belongs to Zuffa and what he does lines their pockets.

Nonsense. It's a distillation. And the reason that the striking looks the way it does is that it has to be performed in a very different context to the striking that most of us are used to seeing. Boxing and kickboxing can look the way they do precisely because the competitors don't have to be prepared for certain eventualities. Striking in the early UFCs had yet to adapt to this new context, and strikers often paid the price. Now, fighters have a much better sense of the timing, angles, and setups required to successfully land strikes when grappling is a possibility. That this would look different from other striking venues isn't just plausible, it's common sense.

Distillation? Absolutely ridiculous. I am not a protectionist, I do not feel the need to not call something what it is. Most of these men and women in the mma are jack of all trades master of none. Emphasis on the word most, as I have seen some quite gifted wrestlers, judokas and juijitsu practitioners. Either way, swinging at the fences with haymakers, poor footwork and telegraphic punches does not excuse the fact that they are trying to prepare for being shot upon, kicked, grabbed or thrown. When studying certain arts, particularly those that understand striking and the different ranges of combat, you will learn to defend against those various attacks without becoming sloppy and predictable.

You talk about the evolution through the UFC in conjunction with the strikers that were getting manhandled by wrestlers and grapplers and act as if this represents all and or good strikers. I remember those mma days well. I also remember thinking the same way I do now "Their standup needs serious work." Sitting in fixed positions and firing off strikes from these fixed positions or from bad footwork leaves a person wide open for such things as you mention. You further argue that these fighters now have a better sense of timing and setups and angles for landing strikes, well this is all fine and grand when you are fighting the same type of opponent. Ever see an amateur boxer in a tough man competition? He usually looks supreme compared to the average untrained Joe's he fights. Your statement makes me question your understanding of striking.

"Versus the purity of whatever it is I do." You can say it.

MMA is not everyone's cup of tea. But you're making a very lazy analysis of it right now. I hope that, in analyzing your practice, any critic would take more effort to be balanced and fair.

Actually I am not comparing it to what I do. Do not ad hominem me for the sake of ignoring what I am saying. MMA is a hype train and hardly represents martial arts. Most people can honestly admit MMA is a quite popular bar, winghouse, hooters, saturday night event with tons of mobs hollering while guzzling beer. It most definitely caters to mob mentality. Especially when you realize a lot of bar-like establishments host these as free ppv events.
What I do and what is done in MMA is night and day. I train to defend myself and utterly destory an opponent. I do not fight for pride or some kind of prize purse like a gladiator. I fight to stay alive and keep those alive I am protecting. If I make a mistake, I go to the morgue not a locker room.

If the line between success and failure is the availability of the finger jab, it's time to seriously reconsider your arsenal. No serious fighter is that reliant on one tool. And, in the (paraphrased) words of a very wise man, "what makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers, if you haven't proven you can hit my head with a boxing glove?"

Why do you even bring this up? This is a complete strawman and neither here nor there. I was making a point about NHB. Have you ever been in a real fight before? If so you should be able to testify that you do what you need to do to walk away. If this means punching the throat, liver, groin shots, gouging the eyes, biting, you do what you need to do. This is NHB. Saying MMA is NHB is a lie, and that is exactly what I said in my original statement " MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed. Honestly, taking that way from a fighter puts them in a glass jar."

Your choice quote paraphrase really has no bearing here. There is no argument about what I can do with your head while I am wearing a glove or anyone elses in this hypothetical situation. The argument is whether or not something is NHB when tools are stripped away and not allowed. Anything else is moot and a diversion.

Regarding the intent of all of this in light of the OP, JKD and modern "mma" are night and day. I do not even know why this was ever up for discussion unless you do not practice JKD.

 

[ap Oweyn]

First off, I should have proofed this after a nights sleep. My apologies, I have not slept in a few days. I will explain what I meant in my response.

Ugh. A few days?! I would be completely incoherent. My sympathies.

Contextually in my response to OP, it does make sense retrofitting the term "mma" in conjunction with what I said. I was simply countering the OP's statement that the idea of MMA was founded with the UFC in the 90s although it has roots quite far back in history. Depending on the context of "mma" it could mean combining and training in a variety of styles, or it could mean an event of different styles pitted against each other, or it could even mean the hodge-podge style that a lot of people are training in. All are correct in their own context.

Yep, fair enough. I usually use pankration as my example in those situations. Ancient, but also competition based, combining boxing and wrestling, and from the Western tradition. But I see your point.

You are right, victim was definitely a poor choice in words. You are curious why I said I felt Lee was the best at it? Well for starters I think he understood striking and delivery better than most. Especially in punching. I have yet to see anyone come close. Furthermore the JKD package was a very good nucleus for any style one could adapt or flow into. Lee also promoted fitness and lifestyle much more than the other arts.

I don't disagree. I was just confused by the "victim" label.

Dana White is a network muppet. I did mean that. Sure he has endlessly promoted the UFC and done tons for "mma" going public and being successful. That means very little considering the things he has said over the years regarding martial arts and other people. One can still be a muppet and a marketing genius. I can care less of what Zuffa and White did to the UFC. I was never a huge fan of the UFC or these "mma" tournaments. He is not a fighter, he is a promoter and businessman. He still belongs to Zuffa and what he does lines their pockets.

Fair enough. I translated "muppet" into "puppet." And he seems like a pretty self-directed dude to me. But if you don't like the direction he goes, then I guess "muppet" works as well as any other insult. I doubt I'd like him much either. But I do appreciate the format if nothing else.

Distillation? Absolutely ridiculous. I am not a protectionist, I do not feel the need to not call something what it is. Most of these men and women in the mma are jack of all trades master of none. Emphasis on the word most, as I have seen some quite gifted wrestlers, judokas and juijitsu practitioners. Either way, swinging at the fences with haymakers, poor footwork and telegraphic punches does not excuse the fact that they are trying to prepare for being shot upon, kicked, grabbed or thrown. When studying certain arts, particularly those that understand striking and the different ranges of combat, you will learn to defend against those various attacks without becoming sloppy and predictable.

There are poor strikers and good strikers. I could rattle off some examples of very talented strikers in MMA. If you're looking at the wrestlers who are learning just enough muay thai not to get demolished before they can shoot in, then yeah it's going to seem pretty lackluster. But watch George St. Pierre or Anderson Silva flow effortlessly between grappling and striking and I think the impression is vastly different.

You talk about the evolution through the UFC in conjunction with the strikers that were getting manhandled by wrestlers and grapplers and act as if this represents all and or good strikers. I remember those mma days well. I also remember thinking the same way I do now "Their standup needs serious work." Sitting in fixed positions and firing off strikes from these fixed positions or from bad footwork leaves a person wide open for such things as you mention. You further argue that these fighters now have a better sense of timing and setups and angles for landing strikes, well this is all fine and grand when you are fighting the same type of opponent. Ever see an amateur boxer in a tough man competition? He usually looks supreme compared to the average untrained Joe's he fights. Your statement makes me question your understanding of striking.

Their striking has evolved (in many cases) to suit their needs. It's as simple as that. Take that amateur boxer who cleans up in a toughman contest. I give him about a minute against a well-rounded MMA fighter in that context.

Actually I am not comparing it to what I do. Do not ad hominem me for the sake of ignoring what I am saying. MMA is a hype train and hardly represents martial arts. Most people can honestly admit MMA is a quite popular bar, winghouse, hooters, saturday night event with tons of mobs hollering while guzzling beer. It most definitely caters to mob mentality. Especially when you realize a lot of bar-like establishments host these as free ppv events.

I think you have to divorce, to some extent, the practice of MMA from the spectatorship of MMA. Just as you do with boxing or any other combat sport.

But I could have been more diplomatic. Apologies.

What I do and what is done in MMA is night and day. I train to defend myself and utterly destory an opponent. I do not fight for pride or some kind of prize purse like a gladiator. I fight to stay alive and keep those alive I am protecting. If I make a mistake, I go to the morgue not a locker room.

You say "I fight" as though it were a regular occurrence. Is it? How many life-or-death encounters are you getting into?

Why do you even bring this up? This is a complete strawman and neither here nor there.

How is it a strawman? You said that taking the eye jab away "put the fighter in a glass jar." I simply pointed out that taking away one tool shouldn't incapacitate a fighter (unless that's not what "put in a jar" means).

I was making a point about NHB.

Well, clearly MMA isn't really, literally NHB. Presumably why they don't use that label anymore.

Have you ever been in a real fight before?

Nope. And I'm not ashamed of that. Never claimed to be any sort of expert on streetfighting.

If so you should be able to testify that you do what you need to do to walk away. If this means punching the throat, liver, groin shots, gouging the eyes, biting, you do what you need to do. This is NHB.

Sure. But how does this relate to anything I said? I simply pointed out that ruling out the eye jab doesn't completely disarm someone not trained for sport. The mechanics of landing an eye jab aren't so very different from punching someone in the nose. Which is perfectly legal.

The dispute over what's "fair game" in a streetfight wasn't any part of my post.

Saying MMA is NHB is a lie, and that is exactly what I said in my original statement " MMA was never no holds barred. Not one time were finger jabs allowed.

Did I say otherwise?

Regarding the intent of all of this in light of the OP, JKD and modern "mma" are night and day. I do not even know why this was ever up for discussion unless you do not practice JKD.

I think you've misunderstood the point I was making. I could have been more delicate. At the same time, I'm not going to take flak for arguments I didn't actually make.


Stuart

 

[Xael]

Hey Stuart, not all of this was a retaliation to your statements, though I used your quotes to set them up. Some of it was oveflow from my original post on here that was directed to the starter of this thread. For example the NHB / MMA argument. I wanted to restate a lot of what I originally intended so people including yourself would understand what I was trying to say. Sometimes I have the habit of not proofing my posts, bad habit i know

Yes I mentioned "I fight" and it used to happen quite a bit. I am not a trouble maker, but trouble had a way of finding me, mostly due to the area I lived in and the work I did. I got to test my JKD and other arts I trained in. I am very thankful for the training I have done. I think if I had gone with the MMA style of fighting I would have been killed. I love JKD and I have used that and Kenpo a dozen times over... but Silat and FMA are total lifesavers. I suppose it is exposure to these things that creates my stance on mma and sport related martial arts.

Also, the finger eye jab is perhaps the fastest attack possible a man can make, short of quickdraw with a revolver. I would not say my analogy is perfectly fitting as I can see that the jar idea favors completely disabled. The point was that you do definitely limit and whither down a person once you start taking away tools. This original statement however in response to the person who started the thread. The purpose of course being that mma is no way or no how JKD and definitely far from nhb.

You mentioned Pankration, that stuff might be antiquated, but it sure is awesome, especially if it is the real deal. I almost got a chance to learn that and Dumog from a guy I met some years back. It was disappointing when I found out he was incarcerated for something and my chances were shot.