Sport And TMA....Again
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Right not something you can train at full speed. Not something you would use in a comp either
Jean Marais
Yellow Belt
To me the sport is a form of simulation. Not bad all things considered. The simulation has to fit the art though. Also, you don't need to test every aspect in the same simulation. For the effectiveness of eye gouging, I would try a dummy, not a person...maybe not as realistic, but we have limits. Nontheless, simulation is an essencial tool for developement, both of an art and of personal abillity. If you want to simulate a fight between two different arts, it will be tricky to come up with a simulation that does not favour one or the other in a reasonably safe way. Anyway, I find testing your art's effectiveness is an important way to be continously improoving it and yourself. You may not be able to test all elements, however more often than not, you will learn something that will advance you.
Some TMA don't "participate" in some of the simulations against other styles, but it doesn't mean that they don't run simulations at all. Finding a common measuring stick simulation that does not hamper some aspects of an art, will probably never happen. There is no such thing as the perfect simulation. We do the best we can and learn as much as we can from those tests.
Some TMA don't "participate" in some of the simulations against other styles, but it doesn't mean that they don't run simulations at all. Finding a common measuring stick simulation that does not hamper some aspects of an art, will probably never happen. There is no such thing as the perfect simulation. We do the best we can and learn as much as we can from those tests.
frank raud
Master of Arts
Depending on the object of the fight. If it is to win a 'sporting contest' it is one thing. If it is to 'destroy' an opponent, it is totally different. The fact that UFC fighters were not trying to kill or permanently disable means that there were unwritten rules as well as the stated rules.
The punches and kicks were real but the elbows were restricted. As I have stated previously, my most preferred technique in a life threatening situation would be striking with the point of the elbow. Its potential to damage is why it is against MMA rules.
Most fights start standing up. The grapplers strength is to clinch and the strikers objective is yo maintain distance. I would suggest of those two it is easier to achieve the clinch.
I would like to see your reasoning! Wrestling starts standing and judo starts standing. Why is MMA different.
Unless the person shooting is highly trained they are likely to get really badly injured against a reasonably trained martial artist. Ballen's post of Tom Hill demonstrates what I mean.
Obviously 'vague idea' was tongue firmly placed to the outer region of the oral cavity. But 'real' fight still needs to be defined. If by 'real' it is meant to go all out to win a competition, yes it is real. If by 'real' you mean to injure or totally destroy an opponent, perhaps not so real. As I said, it depends on intent.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."
In a sporting environment.
What he said!
So may be participation in this thread.
Amen Brother! :cheers:
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.
I don't believe there are any dirty tricks. In RBSD there are just techniques. For example I was taught a kick to the groin in my early days. Kin geri to those who know Goju. I barely mention it nowadays. The chance of it doing anything in a real fight is low. If I am in the situation to attack the groin it will be a shin kick. Attacking the eyes is a valid technique, not so much to actually strike the eyes, bonus if that happens, but to elicit the flinch response and get the opponent's arm where I want it. If I am in a choke, sure I will go for the eyes. Spitting does nothing, but it is a distraction. Hair pulling, sure. It can be used to control your opponent's position. As for biting. Whether or not Bas actually said what he is quoted as saying or whether that is folk law, biting may well have a place in self defence. If you are in a choke and you can bite it is a valid distraction.
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.
Regardless of who beat who, UFC never demonstrated one art was better than another. It demonstrated that, at one particular point of time, one fighter was better than another.
Then let's leave it that way.
What you don't know won't hurt you. What I teach has no place in sport anyway and FWIW there are numerous neck cranks in each kata.Actually no. It takes little effort to break the neck. There are certain things that I will not post on an open forum that change the dynamic.
Exactly!
I see what you mean here and it makes sense to you because you have a lack of knowledge of grappling." Here is the problem....... You're assuming the "grappler" is on the bottom in those positions. In reality he grappler is most likely the one on too in North South and on top in side control.
So now rethink those positions from the idea of a grappler taking a striker down, getting on top of him and holding him down while knees to the head are legal. It's kinda terrifying.
Thing is, Royce wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 in his family at the time, and here IMO is the big difference, Royce had those qualities over the other fighters because he had to a and tons of real, live combat experience. His ***** was tested and tried and he was battle tested. He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight. No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.
Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO. As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts.
you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.
again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.
Lol, I'm saying Hughes dominated the whole fight, standing and ground and did so even while Royce Gracie cheated by using illegal performance enhancing drugs which makes that do inaction all the more impressive!
Now we are back to the OP. It's only taken 89 pages.
Fancy forms are for competition. Nothing more nothing less. Anyone that says that it demonstrates technique, balance etc. is missing the point of Kata. Kata can look messy and still be performed well, just as you can drive a dirty car, just a dirty car won't win a car show.
Throwing in forms like this demonstrates your ignorance of TMAs. We have had threads discussing kata so I won't waste time going deeply into it here. Suffice to say, in karate, kata are fighting systems. Every technique is designed to be a finishing move, if that move fails the next technique is your fail safe and so on. Kata is designed to show you how to disable or kill your attacker (and don't throw up the 'more deadly' stuff). That is just the way it is. What happens in MMA might be 'real' fighting in a sporting sense. Kata gives you the tools to fight in a real life or death situation, providing you have learned to use it that way. To most people kata are just what you see performed in competition and what you need to grade. If that is what your training teaches you then forget kata as it is a total waste of time, or get yourself a better teacher.
:asian:
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Thanks
Not sure what you mean here. Yes Ken was somewhat seasoned, but again he was a grappler and a fighter. There is no absolute, I think in Kens case he was out grappled by Royce and GJJ's system. Ken was a much, much better natural fighter, but Royces system (GJJ) and his experience got him thru that first fight with a win, after that Ken's mind failed him. To put it simply, Royce was in Ken's head big time and Ken never recovered mentally from that first defeat.
:bs:
In the UFC maybe, in real life highly debatable. Define pure striker. Grappling is fine and good and should be a part of any well rounded martial art, but all the grappling in the world will not help you if you get knocked out trying to go for a clinch. If you think that no striker can control the distance when faced with a grappler you are sadly mistaken.
:bs:
You know what they say about opinions?
Leverage for one, forcing the neck to move in a way it is not designed another. My point is it would not be very likely for the neck to be broken by moving it in a direction it was designed to do by accident. If it was then there would be a lot more accidental deaths and serious injuries in professional and amateur wrestling. It would definitely not be as easy as it is in the movies. You would have to do it on purpose and with a lot of force. Still something to be carefully practiced though.
This is not the place to discuss the how, but yes, we practise it slowly and carefully.
:asian:
Similar threads
