Sport And TMA....Again

[ballen0351]

Standing fighters, breaking the clinch, allowing a standing fighter to force a down opponent to stand.... There are rules that clearly benefit strikers. But, being fair, no knees to the head of a downed opponent and rules like this favor the grappler.

I think the net is striker friendly, just as football rules favor the pass and baseball favors the hitter. Offense is more exciting, and spectator sports are about filling seats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I agree i think the rules were not put in place to benefit anyone other then the fans. It wasn't done to give anyone an advantage. It was done for entertainment value of a fan base with little patients and lots of alcohol

 

[Tenacious_Red]

You writing from an air force Base means nothing to me I was a Marine and I have lost friends in the war that YOU not me compared to the UFC. The topic was rules with regards to the UFC that's been the topic for about 20 pages you changed it to the military for some unknown reason since it had nothing to do with the topic. So you man up and say your sorry for your disrespect.

I *think* military was brought into the equation as a means to determine how MA were created to help defend countries (though not all originally and specifically, but many) and not be portrayed as a, "game"--which the term game can often be synonymous with, "non-serious." I have reason to believe either of you are intentionally looking to disrespect any organization, especially those who have sacrificed so much whether we agree with it or not.

There is a hot potato here being thrown around, and it's OK to let it cool off, because baked potatoes are yummy.

 

[K-man]

What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge? Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven! Nothing is proven!" Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it. No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and no more "chi". Just fighting and testing.

and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't feel a need to etc. but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was an open format to do it, for real.

I think this is greatly exaggerating the 'Gracie effect'. Nothing is proven. The Gracies have demonstrated the importance of grappling in competition. Period.

Your reference to death touches and Chi is out of context and when you link that with 'hyperbole' and 'nonsense' it is offensive to those who practise internal arts or Kyusho and demonstrates you have no understanding of the place of those things in TMA.

And maybe it's just the way I was brought up in the fighting world. It was a very practical, no nonsense type of fight training. First with a bonafide street fighter, then a JKD specialist that allowed open expression, then the era of the Gracie Challenge and style vs style actually fighting. Then Catch Wrestling, MMA standup, No Gi BJJ/Judo and straight BJJ.

sorry but the whole my art or my moves are to deadly and dangerous nonsense just doesn't fly anymore.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Personally, what I train is very practical, no nonsense self defence. First with sport karate, then traditional karate, then Aikido, then Systema, then Krav. That is perfectly adequate for my needs and is all RBSD. And I am sorry too because almost all my moves are designed to be deadly and dangerous. I might suggest that if yours are not your practice is not what it should be.

Unfortunately you still haven't gotten an honest answer to your question. I think its good to ask it again.

"How are NHB rules biased against "traditional" martial arts?"

Cracked record or just trolling? This has been answered every time you asked and you keep ignoring the answer.

This is interesting. Would it be safe to say that it is not a game, but a sport? An art? A discipline? And just like we separate sparring from an actual competition, we can also separate the form and practice from street fighting, and define as an exercise (weak description, though at a loss for proper terminology at the moment) to keep the mind and body sharp for incidents that can be physically endangering?

No. It is a competition. There are rules and there are limited numbers of people that want to compete. It doesn't prove anything but how the best fighter, under those rules, performed on the night.

We don't even need to get it to that point. What about Vale Tudo, UFC, Pride, Prancrase, MMA, etc? How do the rules in those sporting events work against traditional martial arts?

I have answered this question on at least three occasions. Either read the posts and respond or stop trolling.

Its the competeing part that is the game or sport or whatever term you want to use. Its the competing part that makes its not "real". Its for entertainment

Totally true. It is a 'real' sporting contest but it is no longer a 'real' fight. Whether it is a game or not is how you perceive it. It is obviously totally real and the whole reason for some people's existence but most of us couldn't give a toss. I had hardly watched any UFC prior to this thread. It just doesn't interest me. Sorry!

People die in boxing and wrestling too. And in "sport judo" as well. And, occasionally, even in football.

Deaths in football I would claim are very few if you consider the number of games of football played and are more what I call unexpected. Deaths from wrestling and Judo I think would be not far ahead of football if at all. Deaths from boxing I would think would be higher but the real impact of boxing is the long term brain damage. Gloves don't reduce concussion. The difference between MMA now and the early UFC is that had the no rule contest continued they would have had severe injuries and deaths that would have led to regulation or even a total ban. The smart move was to get in first and reduce the chance of serious injury.

I agree i think the rules were not put in place to benefit anyone other then the fans. It wasn't done to give anyone an advantage. It was done for entertainment value of a fan base with little patients and lots of alcohol

I'm not sure the rules were for the fans, except that they tend to prolong the event. I think the rules do benefit the fighters as they do produce a safer environment but the real beneficiaries are the organisers because without rules MMA would have become an underground activity rather than mainstream.

I agree that rules were not introduced to give anyone an advantage. It is just that the more traditional martial arts were more disadvantaged by the rules than those whose main strength is on the ground.
:asian:

 

[TFP]

. But, being fair, no knees to the head of a downed opponent and rules like this favor the grappler.

This is highly debatable IMO. Yes sprawling on a shot and then kneeing benefits the striker, but positions like North South and top Side Control would be insanely dangerous as a grappler if knees were allowed, hell even under side control ala Frank Shamrock vs Renzo.

Thoughts?

 

[TFP]

I think this is greatly exaggerating the 'Gracie effect'. Nothing is proven. The Gracies have demonstrated the importance of grappling in competition. Period.

Your reference to death touches and Chi is out of context and when you link that with 'hyperbole' and 'nonsense' it is offensive to those who practise internal arts or Kyusho and demonstrates you have no understanding of the place of those things in TMA.

I don't think it was greatly exaggerated at all, and even if it was a little exaggerated, so what, at least it's something besides boisterous posturing without action. Which is what the martial arts world had for along time in regards to what really works and which art was the best.

And you know exactly the type of thing I am talking about and it's the "my art is so deadly I can't practice it" crowd, sorry if you think there is some form of disrespect there. I'm not talking of the context of "internal arts" and you know it. I'm talking about fighting so although thats a nice attempt at a side step, but ignoring or deflecting the real point is well..... Pointless.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Personally, what I train is very practical, no nonsense self defence. First with sport karate, then traditional karate, then Aikido, then Systema, then Krav. That is perfectly adequate for my needs and is all RBSD.

What is "RBSD"?

And I am sorry too because almost all my moves are designed to be deadly and dangerous. I might suggest that if yours are not your practice is not what it should be

Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.

 

[ballen0351]

What is "RBSD

Reality based self defense

Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.

Sure we do there are plenty of real life examples where they work.

 

[K-man]

I don't think it was greatly exaggerated at all, and even if it was a little exaggerated, so what, at least it's something besides boisterous posturing without action. Which is what the martial arts world had for along time in regards to what really works and which art was the best.

I give full credit to the Gracies for what they have given the martial arts community. It is however nothing to do with what works and what doesn't. My kata contain numerous neck breaks. I can't practise them full power in my training and I couldn't use them at all in competition. Will they work? In theory yes but I hope I never find out for real. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

And you know exactly the type of thing I am talking about and it's the "my art is so deadly I can't practice it" crowd, sorry if you think there is some form of disrespect there. I'm not talking of the context of "internal arts" and you know it. I'm talking about fighting so although thats a nice attempt at a side step, but ignoring or deflecting the real point is well..... Pointless.

I'm sorry, I can only read what you write. I haven't side stepped anything. In fact I have agreed with most of what you have said.

What is "RBSD"?

Mmm! That says something.

Yet you have no idea your moves actually work.

My moves have been taught to me by guys who teach special forces, those who teach police tactical response and undercover police. Why would they teach stuff that doesn't work?
:asian:

 

[TFP]

Ok, so we can for the most part agree that the Gracies did something great and it helped shape and open alot of martial artists eyes but is absolutely not the end all be all in combat or SD.


Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................ Care to give an example?

 

[TFP]

For anyone interested, here is the full (ball punch) fight, Keith Hackney was one of the legit martial artists in the early UFC's IMO.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/


And here is a nice video of that wacky early MMA that was just amsport that no one was trying to actually injure eachother in............

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/

 

[ballen0351]

Your clips aren't working it just sends me to the main YouTube page

 

[K-man]

Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................ Care to give an example?

What's to talk about? If you apply a neck crank quickly you can have catastrophic consequences. Applied slowly you have submission. I'll post a small piece from Brian VanCise's blog.

Neck cranks are a dynamic and dangerous method of applying pressure to the spine around the 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae. They are a neck break and when done can have absolutely devastating consequences. It is very, very important in my opinion to learn them from a qualified instructor and one that also teaches morality or good behavior. When ever we practice neck cranks safety is absolutely first. There is simply no need to do anything fast or in a herky jerky manner. They are some thing that is needed in your martial training for that chance of a violent encounter that goes way south.
http://brianvancise.com/2009/04/26/irt-neck-crank-intensive-is-today/

If you practise kata as a fighting system you will find multiple opportunities through the kata for neck cranks.
:asian:

 

[RTKDCMB]

What about the Gracie in action fights and the open Gracie Challenge? Thing is we can sit back with our heads in the sand saying "nothing is proven! Nothing is proven!" Or we can look at a clan that put together an art and challenged the martial arts world with it. No more hyperbole, no more talk, no more nonsense, no more death touches and no more "chi".

Again only SOME martial arts were involved in the challenges and they involved individuals, not the entire art. That is one thing you and Hanzou fail to understand time and time again. Do you think the FDA tests its new drugs on one or two individuals here and there and only from a single ethnic group, no they test on a large scale and even then they never find all the possible problems.

Just fighting and testing.and it's fine if certain arts didn't want to take the challenge, didn't feel a need to etc. but if you wanted to deny GJJ's claims. There was an open format to do it, for real.

Only those who cared what they claimed and could or wanted to make the trip out to see them would go out of their way to disprove their claims. If they wanted to test their art against me they could just as easily just go up and attack me, that is the only true test of a self defence martial art and the only reason I would use my art to its full extent.

 

[TFP]

Your clips aren't working it just sends me to the main YouTube page

Try these......

The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......

Keith Hackney vs Joe Son

 

[TFP]

Again only SOME martial arts were involved in the challenges and they involved individuals, not the entire art. That is one thing you and Hanzou fail to understand time and time again. Do you think the FDA tests its new drugs on one or two individuals here and there and only from a single ethnic group, no they test on a large scale and even then they never find all the possible problems.

Yes, nit every single person from every single art showed up, that must invalidate what happened....... But they all were invited!

Only those who cared what they claimed and could or wanted to make the trip out to see them would go out of their way to disprove their claims. If they wanted to test their art against me they could just as easily just go up and attack me, that is the only true test of a self defence martial art and the only reason I would use my art to its full extent.

I see.....

so basically nothing is nothing......

 

[RTKDCMB]

Yes, nit every single person from every single art showed up, that must invalidate what happened....... But they all were invited!

It does not invalidate what happened it just limits the scope considerably and that is the concept you seem to have trouble grasping. It is often offered as proof that BJJ is superior to all other martial arts which is far beyond the scope of the challenges and quite a considerable stretch of logic.:s406:

 

[TFP]

:s406:

than stop filibustering and scram.:jaw-dropping:

 

[RTKDCMB]

Try these......

The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......
http://youtu.be/gvc6GHCEAlE

That is a bit closer to reality but note the referee that steps in when things get too rough for one fighter. In real life there is no guarantee that someone will stop someone from going too far or that tapping out will end the fight. Very entertaining video, some things that can be learned from it:

. The first 15 seconds shows that being on the ground is not a good place to be.
. Striking is very effective.
. Things are more brutal when you don't ban everything.
. Ring girls are hot.
. Not many double leg takedowns when you are allowed to use downward elbows.
. Headbutts make clinching dangerous.
. More victories by striking than grappling.
. The UFC is not what it used to be.

Keith Hackney vs Joe Son
http://youtu.be/gIJLEmITPtg

If anyone deserves to get hit in the balls it is Joe Son.

 

[lklawson]

You writing from an air force Base means nothing to me I was a Marine

Which is irrelevant. I included it to show how silly your claim that I was "disrespecting" the military was, so stop dick measuring.

The topic was rules with regards to the UFC that's been the topic for about 20 pages you changed it to the military for some unknown reason since it had nothing to do with the topic.

For some unknown reason? Mule Muffins. You claimed that the rules mean it's a game not a fight. I asked you twice just to be sure. The military has to do with the topic that YOU included because even wars have "rules" yet no one, not even you, claims that it is not fighting. Rules do not mean that it's not a fight. Just man up and admit it.

So you man up and say your sorry for your disrespect.

Your interjection of the ludicrous accusation of "disrespect" is nothing but a smokescreen so that you don't have to admit that even war has rules. Man up.

 

[lklawson]

I *think* military was brought into the equation as a means to determine how MA were created to help defend countries (though not all originally and specifically, but many) and not be portrayed as a, "game"--which the term game can often be synonymous with, "non-serious."

Nope. It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.

I have reason to believe either of you are intentionally looking to disrespect any organization, especially those who have sacrificed so much whether we agree with it or not.

It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.

 

[lklawson]

Deaths in football I would claim are very few if you consider the number of games of football played and are more what I call unexpected. Deaths from wrestling and Judo I think would be not far ahead of football if at all. Deaths from boxing I would think would be higher but the real impact of boxing is the long term brain damage. Gloves don't reduce concussion. The difference between MMA now and the early UFC is that had the no rule contest continued they would have had severe injuries and deaths that would have led to regulation or even a total ban. The smart move was to get in first and reduce the chance of serious injury.

The discussion of deaths is a direct response to what you wrote:

​

"Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died in both. So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack."
​

Note that you write, "I have a vague idea people died in both." Deaths, as a direct result of the event, occur in all of these. The point is that the answer must be far more nuanced than just "deaths" or, as I think we agree, that the addition of "rules" does not mean it's not a "real fight."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk