MMA would never work in a real fight.

[TFP]

Your words, not mine!
:asian:

True.


but of course those words and perspective were not mentioned by you. It was the lack of you mentioning it that I was getting at. You looked at that clip and chose to talk about the offense and mention nothing of the fight, technical defense. Just an observation I made.

 

[K-man]

True.

but of course those words and perspective were not mentioned by you. It was the lack of you mentioning it that I was getting at. You looked at that clip and chose to talk about the offense and mention nothing of the fight, technical defense. Just an observation I made.

Then your observation was wrong! I didn't mention offence! Again, your words, not mine.

You failed to mention in your clip that the guys in the MMA brawl had been drinking. So what? Omission of itself means nothing unless it is relevant. All I did was post a clip and suggest that the guy demonstrated 'good' technique. Was it technically correct? That's difficult to tell from the clip. Was it 'sloppy'? Perhaps, but again difficult to tell from that angle. Relaxed? Certainly.

The video you posted clearly demonstrated the guy using technically correct punches and knee strikes, but not one was effective. Was he using 'good' technique?

Technique can mean several things. It can be singular as in the strike that caused the knockdown, or a combination of individual components that allow a specific task to be completed, in this case removing the guys ability to cause further trouble. Either way, the karate guy demonstrated good technique. Everything he did from his attitude, his stance, his execution and his positioning after his strike, demonstrated 'good' technique.
:asian:

 

[TFP]

Then your observation was wrong! I didn't mention offence! Again, your words, not mine.

You failed to mention in your clip that the guys in the MMA brawl had been drinking. So what? Omission of itself means nothing unless it is relevant. All I did was post a clip and suggest that the guy demonstrated 'good' technique. Was it technically correct? That's difficult to tell from the clip. Was it 'sloppy'? Perhaps, but again difficult to tell from that angle. Relaxed? Certainly.

The video you posted clearly demonstrated the guy using technically correct punches and knee strikes, but not one was effective. Was he using 'good' technique?

Technique can mean several things. It can be singular as in the strike that caused the knockdown, or a combination of individual components that allow a specific task to be completed, in this case removing the guys ability to cause further trouble. Either way, the karate guy demonstrated good technique. Everything he did from his attitude, his stance, his execution and his positioning after his strike, demonstrated 'good' technique.
:asian:

You did mention offense, you said after 20 technical punches and knees his attacker was still there.

Didn't catch your video the first time around. It have see it many times, yes that was great technique!

 

[K-man]

And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.

This is good technique ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
:asian:

You did mention offense, you said after 20 technical punches and knees his attacker was still there.

Didn't catch your video the first time around. It have see it many times, yes that was great technique!

Sorry! I know this sounds pedantic but I did not mention offence and I did not say his attacker was still there. What I did say was that the guy who was using what looked like good technique was actually using ineffective technique.

As to who was the attacker was unclear as they are both squared up at the start. The thug threw the first punch so I can go with him being the attacker. So the security guy hit him about 20 times in that clip. At the end of the clip the attacker was still there and still potentially dangerous. However you define 'technique' as either an individual strike or a combination to end the altercation, the security guy's was not effective.

This discussion is in the context of whether a technique has to be technically correct to be effective. All I am saying is that something that can appear to be technically correct is not what it appears. Here is an example of a wild swing that was 100% effective.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w&desktop_uri=/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w

Now, in fairness, Barry Hall, the guy in red and white, is a reasonable boxer but the strike itself could be considered 'sloppy' technique. Technically the strike had the right angle, direction and accuracy to achieve the desired outcome although not altogether optimal for Hall, who was reported by the umpire and suspended for seven matches by the tribunal.
:asian:

 

[TFP]

Sorry! I know this sounds pedantic but I did not mention offence and I did not say his attacker was still there. What I did say was that the guy who was using what looked like good technique was actually using ineffective technique.

As to who was the attacker was unclear as they are both squared up at the start. The thug threw the first punch so I can go with him being the attacker. So the security guy hit him about 20 times in that clip. At the end of the clip the attacker was still there and still potentially dangerous. However you define 'technique' as either an individual strike or a combination to end the altercation, the security guy's was not effective.

This discussion is in the context of whether a technique has to be technically correct to be effective. All I am saying is that something that can appear to be technically correct is not what it appears. Here is an example of a wild swing that was 100% effective.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w&desktop_uri=/watch?v=9wm9WEfXq-w

Now, in fairness, Barry Hall, the guy in red and white, is a reasonable boxer but the strike itself could be considered 'sloppy' technique. Technically the strike had the right angle, direction and accuracy to achieve the desired outcome although not altogether optimal for Hall, who was reported by the umpire and suspended for seven matches by the tribunal.
:asian:

Pedantic? Lol, why yes it does....... Because although you may not of typed the word "offensive" technique, that is 100% what you were talking about when you mentioned his 20+ punches and knees.

See this is a problem, if you arnt even going to be honest with yourself or me then what is the point of debate and discussion? It's absurd!!!!:rpo:

I disagree it was ineffective, no it did not secure him a finish or a knockout, but it did stop him from harming the girl or the security officer. The offensive strikes were landing and his defense was pretty great TBH.

as for the footballers strike being "wild" I again do not agree with you. He spins around getting his head around first, spots the target and throws a perfectly straight punch landing nicely on the chin.

 

[MJS]

Lol, I'm not even sure. Just a funny pic. I would guess Karate as a kid!?

I agree, it was pretty funny. LOL. I'm still going with no official formal training. I say that, due to numerous comments about traditional arts, Karate, etc, that he's made in the past. Personally, I liked Tank. His pre/post fight interviews were hilarious, and despite his losses, he still put an *** whooping on pretty much everyone he fought.

 

[K-man]

Pedantic? Lol, why yes it does....... Because although you may not of typed the word "offensive" technique, that is 100% what you were talking about when you mentioned his 20+ punches and knees.

So I didn't mention 'offensive', I didn't mean 'offensive' and because you think I should have said 'offensive' that's what I meant. Yeah right!

See this is a problem, if you arnt even going to be honest with yourself or me then what is the point of debate and discussion? It's absurd!!!!:rpo:

I am being honest with you. What more can I say? The fact you can't comprehend what I am saying is your problem, not mine.

I disagree it was ineffective, no it did not secure him a finish or a knockout, but it did stop him from harming the girl or the security officer. The offensive strikes were landing and his defense was pretty great TBH.

Yeah! Great outcome! Imagine how much better it would have been if he actually used good technique!

as for the footballers strike being "wild" I again do not agree with you. He spins around getting his head around first, spots the target and throws a perfectly straight punch landing nicely on the chin.

You'd better watch it again. It caught the point of the jaw, not the chin. It was downward at about 45 degrees, the optimal strike. Pure fluke! He was turning to strike before he looked.

Mmm!

 

[Hanzou]

Good to see that not much has changed around these parts.

Anyway, MMA guys should be pretty solid in self defense and fighting if they went to a decent school.

 

[wimwag]

MMA worked for Trayvon Martin....

 

[Steve]

MMA worked for Trayvon Martin....

I think Zimmerman is the guy who trained at an mma gym.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[wimwag]

I think Zimmerman is the guy who trained at an mma gym.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Nope. Zimmerman tried boxing.

Sent using Tapatalk 2.

 

[Steve]

Nope. Zimmerman tried boxing.

Sent using Tapatalk 2.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/6/2...ning-mma-weeks-before-trayvon-martin-shooting


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Kframe]

Well Trayvons ThugFU GNP worked till Zimmerman pulled out a gun. Hence why you don't go to the ground on the street.

 

[Chris Parker]

Your opinion, I happen to disagree on the relative importance of each aspect on effective application of techniques.

Honestly, I don't think what I'm saying is being understood. That's not really a problem, but it is leading to people trying to argue against something that isn't actually being said. I'll try to put it together as succinctly as I can.

The original argument is whether or not MMA would "work" for a "real fight"... and the contention is that MMA's limitations aren't anything to do with techniques working or not, it's to do with the context and tactics found within MMA training (constantly seeking to engage an opponent, focusing on one person only, lack of weapon defence, rule sets, having fights start from a distance, and so on). An example brought up later to demonstrate MMA's applicability focused on the techniques... to which I replied that the techniques aren't the important thing. Because, well, they're not.

Now, that doesn't mean that the techniques aren't important at all... as I said, they need to be mechanically sound.... however, the techniques themselves aren't what actually "works". They're simply the medium used to apply what actually matters (which is the tactical expression and methodology)... without that aspect, no matter how good a technique is, it's pointless. And with it, there's no real need to look at specific techniques as an "answer".... which makes the technique itself, in the end, not important. It doesn't matter if it's an armbar, a rear naked choke, a throw from Judo, a kick from muay Thai, or anything else. The technique itself is nothing... the application is what's important.

Its a good idea but somehow not important?

Now, what I said was that the elements you mentioned aren't needed, not that they aren't important.

Techniques without the successful strategies and so forth to apply them are useless, yes, but all the successful strategies, timing etal in the world will be useless if you can not block, strike, kick or grapple or whatever properly when you apply it.

Yeah, that's kinda been what I've been saying. The specific technique, though, isn't the important thing. I mean, the strikes in my system are different to the strikes in yours... same with the blocks, kicks, throws etc. And they're all equally valid (depending on the tactic), which means that the technique itself isn't the important part.

Strategies work a hell of a lot better when you have good technique with speed, power, accuracy etc. Good technique can mean the difference between having to hit someone 20 times and only needing to hit them once.

Tactics, not strategies, to be correct. But again, yes, it can certainly help, but that's not the same as the techniques being the important aspect.

Lucky shots can never be relied upon because luck can run out at any time, assuming you had any in the first place and sucker punches require there to be a sucker in the first place. Good technique is better to have than bad technique. Strategies can only be practiced in the presence of training partners but technique can be trained any time so then it is important.

Sure, lucky shots are lucky shots, and yes, sucker punches require a sucker... not sure who you think was throwing them (it's not the trained martial artist with the good technique was my point... they're more likely to get caught out by it due to a very different sense of distance, timing, and more). Oh, and tactics can absolutely be trained solo as well... in fact, they need to be. What do you think kata really are?

Actual violence against who exactly? The untrained masses, highly trained traditional martial artists, professional fighters? Being being fast, accurate, precise, powerful, effective and reliable may matter more or less depending on who this actual violence refers to.

That's the thing.... there isn't just one form. And that's a big part of what I was talking about. But, to clarify, I'm not talking about highly trained martial artists or professional fighters, as they're simply not realistic opponents outside of their specific environments (sports competition etc)... and the topic of the thread is a "real fight". See what you can make from that.

I wouldn't exactly say its arbitrary, you can't exactly use a flying side kick against a hip throw. Strategies and effective techniques are both important you can not just train one and avoid the other and be much good.

Yeah, it really is arbitrary, after a point. You get in a position to throw, does it really matter that much which throw? You're at a distance to kick, does it matter that much which kick?

I'll put it this way. In Judo, you get a large number of people who get known as specific waza specialists... they might be an Osoto Gari specialist... or a Tai Otoshi specialist.... or Seio Nage.... or anything, really. And what makes them so good at each isn't what throw they've chosen, it's how they approach it... they learn how to apply it from any position, counter it no matter how it's applied against them, use it to counter everything they come up against. Is Osoto Nage the superior technique, or is Tai Otoshi? Or are neither "better"? And, if neither are better, is it important which is chosen? Honestly, the answer is no. It's not important. How it's trained is, but the technique itself is arbitrary, provided the approach is suited.

Lastly, what strategies do you think would help these guys against someone who is highly trained and has good technique.

Realistic training. And a more honest appraisal of their current methods.

Anyone interested in exploring the importance of good technique can go here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/113337-Techniques?p=1619006#post1619006

I'll visit over there as well.

Couple "technical" street fights.

first one is example of technical fighter vs sloppy brawler. (Yes Chris I'm sure these don't mean anything, give any type of insight into anything at all......... Like everything else, lol.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_RziL1Ds6xU

First off, you can drop the passive-aggressive tone... you're not that good at it. Secondly, while the guard had a more technical form, he was swinging wildly, and missed the vast majority of his shots. Question, though... what was this supposed to prove?

this second one is of two MMA fighters fighting in the backyard. The one in the black & yellow pants is a known street fighter whom I helped Train and was his fight manager for his pro career. (Again Chris, I'm sure this means, shows, proves, gives insight into anything because it's just one moment in time.......).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b864pBwFkJY

Would like people's thoughts on these tho.

Again, watch the passive-aggressive. All you're showing me is that you don't understand what I've been saying... which, frankly, isn't a real surprise. But I'm still not sure what you're thinking these clips show, or prove... there's really nothing one way or the other here (but, for the record, this isn't a "street fight", it's a match fight... your lack of ability to grasp what the distinction is tells me you really don't have the requisite knowledge to discuss real violence and self defence with me here).

in retrospect the last video of my fighter actually enforces some of what my buddy Chris has been preaching in here. Mind set and awareness. My fighter coming from a street fighting experience and mindset had no problem smashing his opponents head into the concrete (attempts twice, once being aware and seeking out concrete bricks to slam him on) while that opponent set up an armbar. He split the guys head open and you can hear him complaining about Marlon slamming him like that, he was under the impression they were fighting under an unspoken "gentlemen's" rule set that somehow was married to MMA rules.................. Oh, wait no it doesn't, it doesn't enforce anything because it's just one moment in time and nothing helps prove nothing.

Which just speaks to training methodologies and limitations of one form or another... which is what's been said since, well, the second post of this thread (from myself).

I would still say that the more you focus on not being sloppy, the better off everything will be.

Sure. And I haven't argued against that... I have just argued as to what has the greatest importance.

And this pretty much backs up what Chris said. Superficially you see a technical fighter with crisp controlled technique fighting a street brawler who is just swinging wildly. Yet even after about 20 punches or knees by the technical fighter, no damage was inflicted. In other words good looking technique is not the same as good technique.

This is good technique ...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4&desktop_uri=/watch?v=n1nsATz6La4
:asian:

Ha, see now, to me, that's pretty damn poor technique, honestly... he's not centered, his weight rises up, there not a lot of follow-through.... but it worked (in that instance).

Good to see that not much has changed around these parts.

Anyway, MMA guys should be pretty solid in self defense and fighting if they went to a decent school.

And.... that's different from other arts how?

 

[K-man]

Ha, see now, to me, that's pretty damn poor technique, honestly... he's not centered, his weight rises up, there not a lot of follow-through.... but it worked (in that instance).

It depends what you mean by centred. My stance would have been slightly more centred to my way of thinking but that depends on how you train.

I would say he is balanced and at the point of impact his weight is slightly in front of his front foot allowing use of his body mass to reduce the physical effort. The targeting is precise, he is utilising awareness before and after the strike and the strike was effective. I didn't see his weight rising. He is targeting a taller opponent. In actual fact he drops his centre just before the strike. It may not have been good ninjutsu but it sure was good karate.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[TFP]

For one thing, you're looking at a superficial similarity, the actual specifics and context, as well as the reasoning behind the approaches, are wildly different. Additionally, the application of JKD's "absorb what is useful, discard what is not" doesn't actually fit MMA's methodology... there, it's "do what gets you a win"... wildly different, mate.

Can you expand on this theory of yours?

 

[Chris Parker]

It depends what you mean by centred. My stance would have been slightly more centred to my way of thinking but that depends on how you train.

Well, I mean that the weight is centred in the tanden/hara, rather than in the chest as seen in the clip. For the record, though, having your centre rise under adrenaline is common... the upper chest and throat are "emotional" centres... which is why you train to counter such tendencies.

I would say he is balanced and at the point of impact his weight is slightly in front of his front foot allowing use of his body mass to reduce the physical effort.

I'd say he's off balance at the moment of impact... I currently have the clip paused on that moment (42 seconds), and he's raised up onto his toes on his rear foot, arched his back, and leant a fair bit away with his head (an indication of being worried about being hit in the head, again, a common thing). His weight isn't in front of his lead foot, as it's pretty well pulled back (his hips aren't moving forward at all... his back and head are pulled back from them).

The targeting is precise, he is utilising awareness before and after the strike and the strike was effective.

The only part of that I agree with is that the strike was effective (in that it had a successful result). The targeting I'd class as lucky (he seemed surprised himself, really, and with him pulling his body and head back while striking, he's lucky to have hit at all), he's not that aware to begin with (he is keeping the guy in his sight, but he's ignoring what's going on around him... in the middle of a road...), nor is he that aware afterwards (turning away from the guy once he's down, ignoring the pimps associates, and aping for the camera before turning back to see the result), and he didn't pay attention to the way the guy was behaving in the first place (to me, he looked either drunk, or completely taken over with emotion... and my money would be on drunk... in which case, he didn't necessarily need the response he used... he could more easily move the guy to a safer place to control, if he was actually thinking about what he was doing).

I didn't see his weight rising. He is targeting a taller opponent. In actual fact he drops his centre just before the strike.

Dropping before the strike is rather pointless if he then rises up onto his toes... which he does. The taller opponent really doesn't make that much difference, and even if it did, the height difference there isn't that substantial. My guys are always surprised by just how low I get... I'm typically a foot or so shorter in "fight mode" than I am just walking around... and that's even against 7 foot guys (that was a fun student... nice way to test what I could do!).

It may not have been good ninjutsu but it sure was good karate.

Ha, as ninjutsu is was desperately bad... unless, of course, it was a disguised technique.... hmm...

I stand by my original statement.

Cool. I like the pre-emptive strike as a tactic, and I'm glad it worked for him there, but it doesn't (to me) come across as a result of much more than luck, an already half out of it opponent, surprise (which shouldn't be underestimated), and little else.

Can you expand on this theory of yours?

Not sure what else there is to expand on, really... what don't you follow?

 

[drop bear]

Can you expand on this theory of yours?

I think the idea is ring craft. Which is specific sports fighting tactics to enable a person to better perform in a mma match or out perform a specific person.

So in its simplest form. You could if your bjj was awesome and their wrestling was poor. Take the fight to the ground with you underneath them to try and effect a submission. Sometimes you will see this happen in the dying minutes of a round where the time limit reduces your risk of being punched into butter.

Although there are a couple of counters.

As mma fighters are becoming more well rounded thistactic is becoming lower percentage and is being used less.

And this tactic is applied on top (hopefully) of the better basics that does reflect the absorb what is useful mentality.

The flying triangle. Which my coach woud not allow me to do due to the risk.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YGhLBPYEHSY