Sport And TMA....Again

[lklawson]

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?

North-South? Maybe dangerous for the bottom man. Side-Control? Same thing. The top man has enough control that he can disengage just enough to put his body into a knee shot. Neither are particularly dangerous for the top man if knee shots are allowed. The bottom man is immobilized on his back and simply can't get his body into throwing knee shots. North-South would be a non-starter for knee shots for the bottom man. Side-Control would allow only comparatively weak knee shots for the bottom man, maybe analogous to a jab (maybe). And if the top man sinks his head down on to the bottom man, then the bottom man is going to be hard pressed to make effective shots. Experiment with it yourself and see.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

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.

We agree on this. Prior to UFC1, few people knew or cared what the Gracie Challenge was and it was a small, local, thing that simply didn't offer much incentive for people to travel any distance to go to them. Nevertheless, there's lots of evidence that if a fighter is not well versed in at least the basics of grappling, then a grappler (both standing and ground) will have a significant advantage. It's typically difficult and time consuming to beat a person to death with bare fists (and feet). If the target of a bare handed attacks have even minimal cover up skills, the person punching and kicking is going to have a long row to hoe, baring accident or luck. Conversely, it is far easier for someone with basic grappling skills to disable, negate, or "smother actions" someone who doesn't at least have basic grappling skills. The truth is, what UFC proved is that in an unarmed fight, a fighter without basic grappling skills is at a dramatic disadvantage to one with them. As UFC advanced, the evolution of the styles has shown that certain specific, if basic, grappling skills are all that is required in a high percentage of cases. This is epitomized in the fighting style referred to as "Sprawl and Brawl." While it is someone unfairly simplifying the Sprawl and Brawl style, the general gist of it is, "know just enough grappling (i.e.: 'sprawl') to be able to maintain or return to striking (i.e. 'brawl').

In short, what the Gracies and UFC proved is that fighters need to practice grappling skills and that what grappling skills most fighters thought they possessed were either the wrong skills or not practiced in such a manner as to make them functional for the fighter. That was the "Gracie Revolution."

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.

Ambushes generally favor the ambusher and I don't see them as a good test of the fighter or the art.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[RTKDCMB]

Ambushes generally favor the ambusher and I don't see them as a good test of the fighter or the art.

In a complete ambush you are correct, often though you can tell when someone is about to attack you, especially when you have an awareness of the surroundings that you learn to have with martial arts/self defence training.

 

[RTKDCMB]

than stop filibustering and scram.:jaw-dropping:

You know, talking to yourself is the first sign of madness?

 

[ballen0351]

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

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.

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.

Never mind no point in being rude back to you and getting the thread lock. Merry Christmas sir

 

[ballen0351]

Try these......

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


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

Again they are trying to hurt each other not injure. There is a difference. In a sporting event you want to hurt the guy to win not injure him. If they were trying to cause injury then they suck at it

 

[MJS]

I think that we have to accept not all Aikidoka are like Steven Seagal, not all BJJ guys are like Royce Gracie, not all Kung Fu guys are like Bruce Lee and not all Karate guys are like Chuck Norris. Most of us train to be the best we can be at what we do. Some of us might be overweight, some might be older, some might live with disability. Most of us have no desire to compete in competition and we all have different motivation for training which may even influence the style of martial art we have chosen. I would never post anything on YouTube as it will always be taken out of context by some idiot trying to make a point.

We were discussing it at Aikido this morning. People post stuff that yells, "look at me", and I might look and cringe. The person who has posted the video reckons that what they were doing was great, but I look at it from a different perspective and say that was not right, or that was not realistic or that will never work ... and that is from someone who trains in that system. But what really pisses me off is when there is material that is good technique that demonstrates balance and timing and is an example of good training and someone with no training in the style rubbishes it.

The thing that is important though is, no matter how terrible the video, it is not representative of the system it portrays and even more important, the person in the video has got up off his ****, gone down to a dojo and started training unlike the millions of couch potatoes and armchair experts who have nothing better to do with their time than to criticise others.
:asian:

Excellent post! This is why I don't like the idea of people always falling back on YT as the "Bible" of what is/is not good martial arts. Whie there is quite a bit that's good, there's just as much that's not. And I also agree with what you said about quality material and then someone craps on it. I've seen clips of some arts, and I'm looking at them thinking, "Umm...wtf?!?!" but try to look at it with an open mind, especially if it's something that I don't know, ie: Systema. SENC-33 posted some Systema clips for me, as I had mentioned that I'd seen quite a few but wasn't sure what was really good quality and what wasn't.

 

[MJS]

No we don't, at least not intentionally. We try to finish the fight quickly without going to the ground ourselves. That is the difference between sport and TMA. And if we​ go to the ground, normally we try to regain our feet ASAP because in an actual fight situation, we recognise the fact that in most cases the ground is not the best place to be.



Again, you cannot recognise the difference between sport and reality based MA. In sporting contests most go to the ground for a variety of reasons.

Let's explore the idea that most fights go to the ground. In most sporting contests the contestants are of a similar standard. Therefore many of their skills are cancelled out and the resort to whatever they can do to gain the advantage. That may well take the contest to the ground because they perceive that to be their strength. Many street fights would also be between untrained people of similar ability. In this situation of course size would give an advantage. Once again, in a situation, where skills are negated, it could very well go to the ground.

Now let's have a scenario where there is a highly trained stand up fighter like say Tyson. Against an untrained fighter in the pub, do you really think he would want to take the fight to the ground? That is a nonsense. Now shift the scenario slightly to a martial artist, of any persuasion, of reasonable ability, against an untrained person or even against someone with some limited MA training. Most would have no thought of taking a real fight to the ground. Of course it could happen by accident but highly unlikely by design.



lol

Exactly!

LOL..funny you should say this, because according to Hanzou, that's the norm....to always do something, especially if it's the strong point of the art. Sure, I have specific things that I like to do against certain things, ie: a favorite tech against a punch, a fav against a grab, etc, but I also realize that there's going to be times when those things may not be the best option.

 

[MJS]

Well I was talking pre MMA, style vs style. Now once these other fighters started learning the ground, learning TDD, etc then it changed the landscape from style vs style to "Mixed-Martial-Arts". GJJ isn't magic, it's just what works, along with other ground fighting arts. The is, if you don't know enough ground fighting you are going to be in trouble if you run across someone that does.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with striking styles, but IMO you had better mix in a healthy does of grappling training.

I can agree with this. Thing is though, how much is enough? I mean, if you took some privates in BJJ for 5 months, just to learn some basic stuff, and drilled the hell out of it, is that enough? Do we need to spend 1yr in a BJJ gym? 2yrs? 5? The same can be said about anything though. Let's play devils advocate. Technically if the stand up guy needs to know the ground, the ground guy should know some punching. I mean, just because one is skilled in the ground game, doesnt mean that they're always going to be able to take the other guy down. You mentioned something like this in a post to me. So, how much boxing should we have? 1 month? 1 yr?

 

[lklawson]

Again it's not my fault your not smart

Play nice. I'm not the one who claimed that rules=game. You did.

Of course rules in general don't make anything a game.

Well, I'm glad you're finally admitting it. Finally.

So try to keep up with the context of the discussion or don't because your disrespectful attitude towards our troops has made you the first and only person I will be placing on my ignore list. Some advisor you are

Give up the faux outrage. No one's buying it.

 

[MJS]

Untrue! 100% categorically false! Proven over and over by a majority.

how so? In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style. 2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc. As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important. Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore. Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.

 

[MJS]

. Infact it was used vs Royce in the eay UFC's and didn't work.

It was? By who? It's been so long since I've seen the first UFC, I can't recall.

 

[lklawson]

You know, talking to yourself is the first sign of madness?

So may be participation in this thread.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

Its not that they don't work, it's that they shouldn't be relied on to get you out of sticky situations. There are more efficient (and smarter ways) to get out of holds, mounts, and control positions. Furthermore, its risky to do "dirty tactics" when you don't have the dominant position.

As Bas Rutten says "I got you in a choke, you bite my arm, I snap your neck."

Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with! I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan. If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.

 

[lklawson]

I mean, if you took some privates in BJJ for 5 months, just to learn some basic stuff, and drilled the hell out of it, is that enough?

Probably, yes. Unless you were going into a MMA fight, 6 months to 1 year of dedicated grappling defenses from a skilled grappler (such as a GJJ school), along with maintenance practice, is probably going to cover you in the vast majority of situations the average person is likely to see.

Let's play devils advocate. Technically if the stand up guy needs to know the ground, the ground guy should know some punching. I mean, just because one is skilled in the ground game, doesnt mean that they're always going to be able to take the other guy down. You mentioned something like this in a post to me. So, how much boxing should we have? 1 month? 1 yr?

Having done (and still doing) both striking and grappling, it's easier for a grappler to learn how to negate (or at least mitigate) most striking than for a striker to learn the basic skill required to mitigate most grappling. Heck, "cover up and crash to clinch, then work on takedown" is a pretty good, well proven, strategy that's way harder to learn how to beat than to learn how to do. Yeah, it can be beaten. But it's kinda like comparing a weapons to armor. The weapon is almost always easier to use and make than the armor required to stop it. That's the way crashing to clinch works. If you're lucky, you'll get in one strike as the person crashing in to clinch (while he's in a "cover up" position). Once he's got clinch he'll start working for the takedown. From that position you need to know how to stop the takedowns (which ain't easy) while either trying to strike effectively from clinch (which ain't easy) or forcing a disengage from the clinch (which is even harder). So, in this limited context, grappling proponents have it "right" (well, sorta).

So, yeah, strikers need to know some grappling and grapplers need to know some striking. But it's way easier to force a fight to grappling (and/or to the ground) than it is to force a fight to stay standing at at range. If the guy who prefers a striking game is much better trained and more skilled than the guy who wants to go to grappling, then he's got a better shot at keeping it in his preferred range.

You know what also forces grapplers to not crash guard to the clinch? A knife. Paradoxically, a knife also forces grappling. No one wants to get stabbed so a knife will typically force a person to stay out of range, which will be punching range or greater (depending on the knife). However, if the other guy is unarmed and, for whatever reason, has to deal with the guy with the knife, the only way to do it successfully is to gain control of the weapon bearing limb. I.E. "grappling."

And here's another spot were RBSD proponents has it right. Grapplers, just because you don't see a knife doesn't mean he doesn't have a knife. Season with other various weapons to taste.

This crap is way to complex and nuanced for many of the overly simplistic pronouncements I've seen in this thread.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

Have you a time machine? We are only up to 1215. 1) Perhaps you could let us know how the thread progressed, 2)was Hanzou finally banned, 3)did we pass 200 pages 4)and did we ever resolve the issue?
:asian:

1)

2) No. Not yet anyways.

3) Oh yeah, well past the 200pg mark.

4) Hell no!!! LOL!

 

[lklawson]

Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with! I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan. If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.

I think it goes deeper than just having a backup plan if the "dirty trick" doesn't work. Many of the dirty tricks are lower percentage than some of the other potential responses. So, potentially, a better plan is to learn and use those other responses as a primary plan and save the "dirty tricks" for the backup plan, or maybe even roll the two together.

I remember in the early "Sport Fighter vs. TMA" arguments, I used to see "I'll just eye gouge or nut grab" him a lot as a response to stopping a grappler. The assumption was that a grappler was unaware that EMFG's existed and couldn't use them at all. But the reality is that a person who is conversant with grappling usually ends up in a superior position to not only prevent an EMFG but is actually in a better position to perform one. Basic grappling skills can actually enhance your ability perform "dirty tricks."

That's the point of not relying on "dirty tricks." It's not that they don't deserve a place in your bag-o-tricks, it's that we need to know how to actually use them and, as it turns out, it's not what a lot of us (myself included) believed they were prior to the "Gracie Revolution."

I haven't given up EMFG's or GroinGrabs from my martial list, I just have better ways to more effectively apply them. They're higher percentage techniques now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

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.

And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word.

 

[frank raud]

how so? In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style. 2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc. As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important. Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore. Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.

Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.

 

[lklawson]

And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word.

Frankly, yes. I've seen it happen plenty of times. "I issued a challenge to you that you never heard about (and didn't care about) and you never showed you coward!"

But my all time favorite permutation of the theme is the Ashida Kim Challenge.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk