Sport vs. Street

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah for me. This is was bruce lee was banging on about when he said people are looking at you finger and not the universe it is pointing to.

The lock is the smallest part of that equation. The trick is getting to the point where you can apply any lock you want.

True with striking as well by the way.

Or position before submission.

I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? We seem to be heading in the same direction, but you seem to be taking issue with me referring to a specific lock, at the same time.

 

[drop bear]

I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with what I said? We seem to be heading in the same direction, but you seem to be taking issue with me referring to a specific lock, at the same time.

I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.

 

[CB Jones]

I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.

What is the focus point then?

 

[JP3]

Yeah for me. This is was bruce lee was banging on about when he said people are looking at you finger and not the universe it is pointing to.

The lock is the smallest part of that equation. The trick is getting to the point where you can apply any lock you want.

True with striking as well by the way.

Or position before submission.

It is too bad that it's a hell of a long flight to sit down and drink beer or five with you and exchange thoughts.

I tell my people all the time, "Be in the right spot, and you're fine, which means ... safe. If you're not there, then you are where the other guy wants you to be, and that's usually unsafe." Same-same.

 

[FriedRice]

Knowing that someone is about to attack you on your flack is one thing. Having enough time to do something about it is something totally different. Being aware that you are about to be attack doesn't mean that you can actually do something about it. It just means that you are aware that an attack is coming. In other words, you are fighting one guy and you see me move to your flank, just because you see me move to your flank doesn't mean you can actually do something to stop my attack.

This is obvious though...it's like saying, "knowing how to block a punch is not the same as being able to not get punched in the face". And the guy in question, that you based your winning tactic on......failed at your tactic for suckerpunching (at the ~33 second mark) because his targeted yellow, saw it and was able to do something about it....by moving away and actually throw the 1st punch. And since they were implementing this tactic already, in a recorded video....it's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them.

Because these guys fighting 1 on 1 at the start, you can only hope that one of your guys will pick that guy up.

I just mean that it's a better risk than your plan. I didn't say it was guaranteed to win.

For Example: At this particular moment A and B aren't engaging each other because they are keeping watch. C actually has a chance to go after the guy on his left, but he has to bang that guy hard enough where they can quickly get rid of their opponent. He can't attack as if he's scared. At that point it's would be a double team. C probably has the best opportunity because A can help delay any attack coming in at C. If the guy turns to address C on his flank then then his original opponent will have an opportunity for a clean shot. Another scenario is that A and C attack the guy to their left. They don't need to stay on him, they only need to nail him with hard shots and get out.

But this is armchair quarterbacking in a highly chaotic environment. When you're in there, in real life, I don't think you can make predictions as easily as you're doing here.

Your illustrations are interesting though. When I was in a fight like this, I just remembered swinging like crazy at anyone who I couldn't recognize, but it was more than 5 on 5. Who knows, maybe these Fighters do have elaborate game plans like how you've mapped it out.

 

[FriedRice]

The only way that my tactics would work is that they fight as a unit and not 1 vs 1. Fighting as a unit means more than just taking your own man out. There's coordination and communication among the fighters. There's an understanding before the fight, that if you teammate engages your guy, then you not only have to look for opportunities to beat up your guy, but you also have to watch whoever was targeting your team mate. At the 40 second mark yellow knocks his guy down but fails to realize that Red has his back to him. He missed an opportunity to take Red's back.

Think of it like this. Football and basketball players working as a unit vs working as 1 vs 1. Fighting 5 vs 5 should be able to make use of the same skill sets of team work and strategy. In terms of awareness and non verbal communication, I would have to say that basketball players are king. Things like no look passes not only requires you to be aware, but it requires your teammate to be aware as well. When those players decide to go 1 vs 1 then they don't become aware of people who are open. And guess how many people are on a basketball team.

While what you're saying is interesting, it still doesn't seem to be the main tactic being used by this TFC fighting league. There aren't that many videos to watch, but of the ones I've seen, none seem to endorse what you proposed....except that one that you link, where it VAGUELY resembles your tactic. But after watching it again with many pauses, it seems that the Red that hung back, merely did so on-the-fly and not planned....he was reluctant to engage or worried about his flank or something.....which was why Yellow saw the safe space to help his buddy, double team 1 Red. The main reason that Red won, was due to that Red beating that Yellow, 1-1....taking him out.

But all of the fights seems to start out 1-1 x 5 until 1 guy is out, which turns into a diminishing return effect for the team with 4 vs. 5, and they lose.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And the guy in question, that you based your winning tactic on......failed at your tactic for suckerpunching (at the ~33 second mark) because his targeted yellow, saw it and was able to do something about it....by moving away and actually throw the 1st punch. And since they were implementing this tactic already, in a recorded video....it's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What I saw as a poorly executed sucker punch. Instead of hooking the guy in his face with a left hook, he decided to go all the way to the person's back and threw a sloppy haymaker. The tactic that I suggested requires that they team fight as a unit, and in the video it was clear that they weren't fighting as a unit, hence the missed opportunities to take someone's back and choke them out.

As far as "It's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them." That has no bearing. The same tactic of isolating the enemy from a group has been around since ancient times. Romans did it, Greeks did it, Egyptians did it, Chinese did it, Japanese did it. Africans did it. Name any large ancient military and you'll see the same tactic. This is one of the main benefits that ancient soldiers would march and fight in tight formation. The tactic is a historical tactic The romans rose to power because they fought as a unit and not just a bunch of guys trying to go 1 vs 1.

But this is armchair quarterbacking in a highly chaotic environment.

Read some ancient military tactics and you'll see the same tactics that I I'm referring to. 5 vs 5 is simple in comparison. If you and I are on the same team, then I will position myself where I can take your opponents back. After I attack your opponent, you then pick up my opponent. If my opponent is too focus on saving his teammate from being choked out by me, then you'll have an opportunity to take my opponent's back while I'm choking out your opponent.

The same concepts tactics and strategies that were used back then are used today.

Here's an example of isolation. It's a larger scale but the strategy is the same. If you are against a group, isolate one of your opponents and quickly take them down.

Like I stated. The only way my tactics would work is if the team is fighting as a unit. Fighting 1 vs 1 increases the risk of being isolated and defeated. Fighting as a unit utilizes your teammates to take advantage of easy opportunities.

 

[FriedRice]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What I saw as a poorly executed sucker punch. Instead of hooking the guy in his face with a left hook, he decided to go all the way to the person's back and threw a sloppy haymaker.

There were no suckerpunch to begin with. The entry to the suckerpunch failed, that was the problem. But to be clear, at what time mark are you referring to.

The tactic that I suggested requires that they team fight as a unit, and in the video it was clear that they weren't fighting as a unit, hence the missed opportunities to take someone's back and choke them out.

As far as "It's safe to assume that you didn't come up with it before them." That has no bearing. The same tactic of isolating the enemy from a group has been around since ancient times. Romans did it, Greeks did it, Egyptians did it, Chinese did it, Japanese did it. Africans did it. Name any large ancient military and you'll see the same tactic. This is one of the main benefits that ancient soldiers would march and fight in tight formation. The tactic is a historical tactic The romans rose to power because they fought as a unit and not just a bunch of guys trying to go 1 vs 1.

Read some ancient military tactics and you'll see the same tactics that I I'm referring to. 5 vs 5 is simple in comparison. If you and I are on the same team, then I will position myself where I can take your opponents back. After I attack your opponent, you then pick up my opponent. If my opponent is too focus on saving his teammate from being choked out by me, then you'll have an opportunity to take my opponent's back while I'm choking out your opponent.

The same concepts tactics and strategies that were used back then are used today.

Here's an example of isolation. It's a larger scale but the strategy is the same. If you are against a group, isolate one of your opponents and quickly take them down.

Like I stated. The only way my tactics would work is if the team is fighting as a unit. Fighting 1 vs 1 increases the risk of being isolated and defeated. Fighting as a unit utilizes your teammates to take advantage of easy opportunities.

If they fight as a single group, huddled together...then the other team is going to do the same most likely, so you're still getting a 1-1 situation. The other team is not going to be dumb as rocks and send in 1 at a time vs. a block of 5.

 

[drop bear]

What is the focus point then?

Every step that gets you to that lock.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree the lock or the end results are different. But they are not really the focus point.

No, but they do affect the approach somewhat. If your point is that an LEO and I would use much of the same mechanics along the way (getting position, etc.), regardless of the endpoint, I can agree that there's a lot of overlap there. If I'm not trying to retain the person (so more projection throws and strikes, rather than locks and takedowns), then we're likely to use different distancing and positions, but the skills for getting to those various positions are still similar in many cases.

 

[JP3]

If I'm not trying to retain the person (so more projection throws and strikes, rather than locks and takedowns), then we're likely to use different distancing and positions, but the skills for getting to those various positions are still similar in many cases.

Question... think scrap, not dojo demo or whatever "nice world" situation. Projection throwing, or drop at your feet as the "go to tactic?" Well, unless you happen to be fighting with them right next to a ledge/cliff type thing, I guess, which can change your thinking.

Shoot, if it is a real fight situation and there's video around, better change too, eh?

 

[JowGaWolf]

If they fight as a single group, huddled together...then the other team is going to do the same most likely, so you're still getting a 1-1 situation. The other team is not going to be dumb as rocks and send in 1 at a time vs. a block of 5.

Not true, Just because a group of people decide to stand in one group doesn't mean that their opponents will stand in one group. This is also why ancient military tactics also included formations that help to deal with the enemy attacking the flanks.

we see similar strategy in north American football. For example, If I'm in a 5 vs 5 fight and I see that my opponent wants to attack in a ground then I'm going to have someone attack the flank. While 4 of my guys occupy 5 of their guys then I'll use my 5th man to attack. If you want to know how all of this stuff works then you have to look at some ancient military tactics.

Here an example of what I'm talking about. You'll see both the flank and isolation. 3 take the flank. 2 go out to look vulnerable. As the 3 rush one breaks from the group isolation. But once again. The group has to fight as a unit. It's not enough to be a group. There has to be coordination and communication. Even though one team split into a group of 3 and a group of 2. There was coordination and an understanding of a plan of how to deal with the other 5 and it wasn't going 1 vs 1.

 

[jobo]

Not true, Just because a group of people decide to stand in one group doesn't mean that their opponents will stand in one group. This is also why ancient military tactics also included formations that help to deal with the enemy attacking the flanks.

we see similar strategy in north American football. For example, If I'm in a 5 vs 5 fight and I see that my opponent wants to attack in a ground then I'm going to have someone attack the flank. While 4 of my guys occupy 5 of their guys then I'll use my 5th man to attack. If you want to know how all of this stuff works then you have to look at some ancient military tactics.

Here an example of what I'm talking about. You'll see both the flank and isolation. 3 take the flank. 2 go out to look vulnerable. As the 3 rush one breaks from the group isolation. But once again. The group has to fight as a unit. It's not enough to be a group. There has to be coordination and communication. Even though one team split into a group of 3 and a group of 2. There was coordination and an understanding of a plan of how to deal with the other 5 and it wasn't going 1 vs 1.

I think your correct if you have a general to dictate tatics .But left to their own devices group /gangs with stay together. That's why they had to invent the tatic

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Question... think scrap, not dojo demo or whatever "nice world" situation. Projection throwing, or drop at your feet as the "go to tactic?" Well, unless you happen to be fighting with them right next to a ledge/cliff type thing, I guess, which can change your thinking.

Shoot, if it is a real fight situation and there's video around, better change too, eh?

Throwing (to the ground at my feet, etc.) is my preference. Most of those throws can be pretty painful to someone who doesn't know the fall, and free me up to move if needed. But it is definitely situational. Projections (which I define as sending them away from me) are more likely to be recovery moves for me, where I missed the throw I wanted. The "drops" (throws that put them down without much energy for impact) would either be escape moves or a transition to a lock/pin, in most cases.

 

[drop bear]

Throwing (to the ground at my feet, etc.) is my preference. Most of those throws can be pretty painful to someone who doesn't know the fall, and free me up to move if needed. But it is definitely situational. Projections (which I define as sending them away from me) are more likely to be recovery moves for me, where I missed the throw I wanted. The "drops" (throws that put them down without much energy for impact) would either be escape moves or a transition to a lock/pin, in most cases.

Basically anything prevents them from being grounded standing and able to to throw dangerous shots at you will be to your advantage.

You may only get half a trip that results in a bit of a stumble. But that can give you a couple of unopposed strikes.

Which can turn the tide of a fight in you favor.

 

[JP3]

Basically anything prevents them from being grounded standing and able to to throw dangerous shots at you will be to your advantage.

You may only get half a trip that results in a bit of a stumble. But that can give you a couple of unopposed strikes.

Which can turn the tide of a fight in you favor.

Yes, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan on taking, and lots of times reflexes take over and hands move away from guard at that instant and there's the opening for a quick shot. That shot, once connected, can open up the next, etc.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan on taking, and lots of times reflexes take over and hands move away from guard at that instant and there's the opening for a quick shot. That shot, once connected, can open up the next, etc.

Examples of how effective it is to mess with someone's lead foot, including when used against a take down attempt (at 0:55)

 

[JP3]

My time indicator is off I think. Which aspect where you intending to show?

Examples of how effective it is to mess with someone's lead foot, including when used against a take down attempt (at 0:55)

 

[JowGaWolf]

My time indicator is off I think. Which aspect where you intending to show?

There were various examples in that video of how messing with the lead foot causes problems. It was in response to this

es, messing wityh someone's lead foot often causes a quick shuffle step which the other guy didn't plan

 

[JP3]

There were various examples in that video of how messing with the lead foot causes problems. It was in response to this

I gotcha, I was just trying to figure out if you meant a specific one.