Actually, yes. That's a very crude one, of course, but yes, that, and much, much more. Simply by agreeing to meet in a place and fight implies rules... hell, there's rules even when there isn't such an agreement. True "no rules" fighting doesn't actually happen... if you can't see (or follow) the difference between an absence of rules and an absence of restrictions (which is really what the UFC were in the beginning), you're not going to do well for the rest of my comments...
GOD BLESS YOU CHRIS, I KNEW YOU WERE GONNA BE ONE OF THOSE GUYS!!! I SUPPOSE SINCE YOU CAN'T DROP A NUKE ON YOUR OPPONENT IN A STREET FIGHT IT MAKES IT NOT REAL DUE TO "RULES". OH WAIT! NOW YOUR CHANGING YOU STANCE MID SENTENCE AND SAYING THERE WERE ONLY "RESTRICTIONS" IN THE EARLY UFC's! WHICH IS IT BUDDY? I WILL TELL, NO RULES IS WHICH ONE IT WAS.
SO IF IM IN A BAR AND SOMEONE ASKS ME TO STEP OUTSIDE, THAT ISN'T A SELF DEFENSE SITUATION BECAUSE WEMBOTH AGREED TO GO TO GO OUT THERE AND FIGHT?
How was it geared towards grapplers? In a number of ways, actually... first was the rules. The lack of time limits or rounds played into a longer strategy. Next was the lack of referee interference (the fighters wouldn't be broken up for lack of action
CHRIS, YOU'RE HONESTLY GOING TO SIT HERE AND SAY THE "LACK OF RULES" HELPED THE GRAPPLERS!!! LIKE, THE STRIKERS NEEDED RULES TO HELP EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD!?!?!
The only banned actions were ones that would only be applied against a grappling opponent, of course (not that fish-hooking would result in immediate defeat of the grappler, but it is interesting that that was not allowed, whereas striking the throat or groin was fine...).
WELL I GOTTA DISAGREE, ROYCE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS BIT AND STILL WON HIS FIGHT, AND I HAVE USED A LEGIT FISHHOOK TWICE IN STREET FIGHTS AND BITH TIMES IT WAS STANDING.
Beyond the rules, was the environment. A number of fighters afterwards (particularly those from striking-based arts) mentioned that the floor was a lot softer than they were used to... which invites going to the ground, as you're not about to break your knees in a bad fall, but, more importantly, robbed the strikers of their usual speed and power.
THIS IS A GOOD POINT!
The surrounding cage allowed grappling competitors more handholds and grips, providing leverage which wasn't really any help to the strikers (seriously, they needed a cage?).
ACTUALLY THIS STATEMENT JUST SHOWS YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE SUBJECT. THE CAGE ACTUALLY HELPS THE STRIKER. GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO KEAN AGAINST AS SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TAKE THEM DOWN, CAN AND IS STILL USED TO HOLD ONTO TO STOP SOMEONE FROM TAKING THEM DOWN AND IS OFTEN USED TO "WALL WALK" THERE WAYNBACK TO THERE FEET ONCE ON THE GROUND.
Then, of course, was the selection of the competitors. Very grappler friendly, and, more specifically, ground fighting friendly. Really, why would there have been any surprise that Royce won?
LOL, OH MY!!!!!!! YES, SETTING ROYCE UP FOR A SECOND ROUND MATCHUP VS A 225LB, RIPPED CATCH WRESTLING BOXER AND KING OF PANCRASE NAMED KEN SHAMROCK SURE WAS GIVING HIM THE EASY ROAD. THISE SNEAKY GRACIES!!!!!!
It's interesting to note that the surface has become a lot more solid (still padded, and a little slow, but faster than it used to be), there's been an instigation of time limits and rounds, attrition isn't encouraged anymore, there are more restrictions on what can be done, and so on...
WHICH IS WHY THE GRACIES STOPPED FIGHTING. TO MANY RULES MADE THE UFC UNREALISTIC AS A TRUE SENSE OF COMBAT.
As far as "please explain how grappling is not ground work?", seriously? Maybe read a dictionary? Grappling means "to seize or hold"... it is taken from the English term "grapnel", a device to take hold of a wall. It has nothing to do with if you're standing, sitting, lying down, swimming, or flying through the air. The fact that it has come to refer to ground work in the MMA world has no real meaning here. In real terms, I'm a grappler. I don't do ground work.
JUST BECAUSE THERE IS STANDUP GRAPPLING DOESNT MEAN THE STUFF ON THE GROUND ISN'T ALSO GRAPPLING.
OH AND HERE IS DEFINITION.
grappling - the act of engaging in close hand-to-hand combat; "they had a fierce wrestle"; "we watched his grappling and wrestling with the bully"
hand-to-hand struggle, wrestle, wrestling, grapple
struggle - strenuous effort; "the struggle to get through the crowd exhausted her"
2. grappling - the sport of hand-to-hand struggle between unarmed contestants who try to throw each other down.
LOOKS LIKE MAYBE YOU ARE WRONG........AGAIN.:bangahead:
You really want me to say it? Okay, yes. Gracie JiuJitsu, despite all accounts and claims, is not a self defence art. If it's meant to be, it's missed the boat incredibly badly. In my time in BJJ I saw absolutely nothing that I would consider viable, or appropriate self defence teachings... training in a seminar with Royce just solidified that for me, really. To me, BJJ really is a watered down sporting version of a watered down kids version of a watered down sporting version of actual martial arts. It's fantastic in it's specialisation, but it's specialisation isn't anything to do with self defence.
:BSmeter:
As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.
There's a big difference between what something is said to be, and what it actually is... no matter who, or how many, are saying it.
No, you really don't. Tell you what, can you explain to me the two major categories of violence that could be encountered in a self defence altercation, and the types of violence (and attacker/s) that might present you with? Can you explain what a self defence system actually is?
The "legit challenge" was little more than another publicity stunt.
It's sport. It's a contest. A game, really. And no, it's not "as real as it gets", nor is it anywhere close to serious enough for me. And if you think that the UFC, or MMA is "actually fighting" in anything other than a controlled, sporting environment, then yeah, you're incredibly off base.
No, I didn't ignore them. I gave them the proper relevance. There's a difference.
But, frankly, "testing things in the cage" doesn't relate at all to self defence. At all. Not one bit. But, I suppose we haven't met properly yet either... me not looking at the history of something is quite a funny idea. Get back to me with an understanding of self defence, and you might be able to talk. I already know your context... can you get a handle on mine?
Ha, sure.... "could be"...
No. And I wouldn't be so strong in your defence, as you're also stating later that "hey, it's just a theory". Here's some insight for you... your theory is wrong.
BJJ can be incredibly technical, it is often described as "physical chess", showing that it focuses on longer-term strategy to employ it's technical methods, and, having experience with both, I would say that no, Aikido isn't harder to learn than BJJ is... nor is BJJ harder to learn than Aikido is. Both require a different approach, certainly... but that's not on a scale. As far as the ideas of "real Aikido" of the old days versus now... that type of comment I have seen levelled at pretty much every art that's old enough. Watch, you'll see it applied to BJJ in the next decade or two.... When it comes to Segal's randori... when I believe you know what you're watching, I'll listen to your comments. Answering my questions above will go a long way towards that.
This question I like, and I feel is largely at the heart of the intention of the thread!
Ha, oh, that was funny... "simpler and more practical"? BJJ? Really? Wow, we must have trained in very different arts...
As far as the idea of competition being how to "learn the technique, then apply it at full force" (really? Full force? I seriously doubt that... if you did, you'd have no training partners the next class, they'd all be recovering from broken arms and the like... or you would be yourself), do you really think that non-competitive arts don't do that? Or that competitive methods are the only, or even the best way to achieve such training?
No, I'm not... oh, right... you meant someone else...
