haven't you've answered your own question?
If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.
Well that is a logical following of ideas, however the point of the thread was to dicuss
if these so called "nasty techniques" would work against a determined grappler. So far it seems the consensus of the grapplers is a resounding no but with only blind faith to support it. The consensus of the TMAers is a yes with only blind faith to support it. I am more interested in discussion specific situational technqiues and their strengths and weaknesses than a blind faith forum on grappling vs anything else.
I stated kung fu would not work in the octagon because of the nature of the sport. What must you do to win in the octagon? What must you do to "win" in a self defense situation? Are the two the same? Is negating a grapplers attempts to submit you and staying away from submissions a win in the sport arena of MMA? is a hard heel kick to the groin and a dropping elbow to the back of the neck a win in this same arena? We can debate (term used loosely) the MMA vs CMA for ever and never really get anywhere. Why not address specific issues such as a specific choke and its strengths and weaknesses as applied to MMA and CMA fighting?
Once again, I didn't mean to set this discussion inside the UFC's octagon or only with its champion fighters. I meant this as a serious discussion about the real issues of a grappler vs a CMA fighter.
I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.
I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.
Im not sure what to say here. Im sorry you dont see my point in this discussion. There are serious implications to real self defense fighting in this type of discussion. What would a grappler do in a certain situation? What would the CMA fighter do? What would be the intent or plan of attack for either? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type of technique or situation? I havent seen any inflammatory posts so far in this thread really, everyone seems polite and respectful
.not sure I get your point here. While threads of MMA vs Style X have been done before, it seems that at least 6 pages of discussion has come from this one. Pointless is a subjective term. What you may deem pointless I may gain great insight from. I may not be as skilled or experienced as you are, so allow me my pointless discussion as I may just learn something, eh?
You guys know something, the post that Exile made about the ROK Marines was a great example.
I will use one of my own......I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994. The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.
The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself. You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.
This is exactly what Im talking about. In this mindset and situation, how would a CMA fighter deal with the intensity and technique of a grappler? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? How can each train to better equip themselves with the skills needed for these types of exchanges?
Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.
Im assuming your speaking of video proof, but there is other proof than video. Your not going to find video of people attempting to push their fingers through each others eye sockets and the like. You cant seriously be saying that means its not a valid way to discourage an attacker are you?
This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques. A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.
Good, lets take this example then and apply it to a self defense situation. Is it a viable technique when attacked say in a parking lot on cement? What would you consider its strengths against the standpoint of both your arms being tied up choking while the one getting choke will most likely have both hands free to attempt such techniques as jabbing the eyes, groin, etc? What is your opinion of the mindset that purposefully attempting non-lethal techniques such as a choke in a true life or death self defense situation uses more time nad/or effort, or simply ignores more debilitating and quicker fight enders? What about the idea of choking out an opponent who might have a knife you arent aware of to slash at your choking arms or face, groin, chest areas? This is more along the lines of the discussion Im interested in.
The evidence has been the no-rules matches. If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now. There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill. Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics. However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better.
Thats faulty logic at its worst though. Would shooting a grappler or even a Gracie in the chest stop the takedown or submission? It has not been used as of yet, does that means its not a valid defense to it? Would video of a shooter missing a Gracies chest and still getting submitted prove the gun defense unreliable or ineffective? My example may be absurd, but it shows the flaw in your statement. Of course no one would go to that level of force to win a challenge
.but then on the same hand, why would someone go to the level of force of actually rupturing someones eyeball, or ripping off of a testicle? Also, your last statement is faulty in its logic as well. The refusal of a challenge match has absolutely no bearing on their ability. Im not saying your wrong, just that your statement doesnt hold proof of such either way.
Would you mind explaining a bit more your opinion on this matter? What or why do you believe is the MMA fighters advantage against a person willing to kill/maim/etc ? How often do grapplers train without cups? Do they train themselves to take and withstand shots to the groin? Is that just not a valid technique? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I understand your position better but I really don't agree. There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists. I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.
I would love to see your proof of this statement. To say no one has been successful in delivering lethal or deadly force against even a moderately skilled MMAist is just absurd. What kind of source do you have for this statement? What do you feel makes a MMAist invulnerable against lethal force? Could you outline any lethal force techniques you feel are incapable of effecting a MMAist?
THis is exactly the sort of stuff that is wrong with not pressure testing things. It is very unlikely, regardless of all the hype about it, that a person can put out a knee with a kick, however well placed. Despite knee kicks being perfectly legal (and frequently employed) in MMA, Muay Thai, and many kickboxing leagues, it is extremely rare that anyone gets any knee injury at all. The throat, too, will not so easy collapse. Despite all the talk of crushing windpipes and such, many MMA contests have been help with throat attacks fully legal and I can think of no instance in which an attack was sucessful in ending the match. The eyes could be seriously injured, but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent, and the effort might be better spent throwing regular punches rather than hitting such a small target.
Ive personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella
.all from a kick to the knee. This was from a knife fight on the streets of Houston when I was a paramedic there, but to say that no one has ever done that to another fighter in a less than lethal situation means it wont work is again faulty logic and really false premise. Your trying to imply the fighters are attempting to do these types of throat crushing attacks and such which may very well not be the case. In my own martial arts "career" I've seen many badly torn and innjured knees from not only kicks but throws, etc. Also, your assuming these techniques such as the eye strikes are going to be done from a distance as a punch, I usually only apply those types of techniques in extremely close quarters where there is not a lot of movement to deter the technique. Im just trying to point out that your making pretty large assumptions to discount valid proven techniques. Yes, I have seen people loose their eyes from various objects being inserted into them during altercations
.its most assuredly valid and if not fight stopping, definitely gives an advantage.
7sm