Wake-up Call: Takedowns=Fighting Ability

[MJS]

I know this is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who doesn't even engage in streetfighting, but of all the fights I witnessed when I was in 'a bad place' they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown, sometimes 'tori' would throw 'uki' on his head!

In this 'bad place', where i spent 8 months, I saw at least one fight per week, and it was all rather similar. Angry words, the two combatants grab each other, and then the inevitable throw to the floor. No Kickboxing, people don't politely circle and jab, and no thirty minute groundfights that end with a choke or armlock. If this streetfighting resembled any sport, I would say Greco-roman Wrestling and Judo are the only two that even remotely fit the bill.

The obsession with MMA, which is merely modern pankration, will pass, as all things do. You can't make money off of wrestling and judo, they're amateur sports primarily, so people will erroneously go after fads that have their beginnings and ends. It's rather depressing.

From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.

If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.

My point is, fighting is for retarts, wrestling and judo is self defense, and people are wasting a lot of precious time doing things that don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.

And don't give me bs about 'completeness'. 'Completeness' is not an indicator of what is important in real combat. 'Effectiveness' is. And takedown sports are both safe, and 'quick kill' which means they take seconds to take effect, not 12 rounds or thirty minutes or an hour.

And I'm sure a few karate purists will get angry at this post, and say that wrestling and judo are just scholastic sports, but I will refer you to Lao Tzu who said, 'That the soft can overcome the hard, and the gentle overcome the rigid- few in the world can realize this!" Takedown sports are fun, healthy, a good social activity, a teacher of positive sportsmanlike values, and the best self-defense.

"No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo. I think that just about says it all.

I'll start by saying two things. Nice post and no, I dont think you're babbling. I agree, that having a knowledge of takedowns/groundwork is important. Many places, such as what you described, such as a mental hospital, prison, etc., don't favor trading blows with the patients/inmates, so a controlling method would most likely be better.

As for the completeness and effectiveness...IMO, I think that the two actually go a little hand in hand. Being effective is of course very important. There are some arts out there that, while they may address controlling methods, don't get as deep as some other arts, therefore, in order to be 'complete' it may be necessary to look elsewhere for those skills. For example: there are weapon defenses in Kenpo. However, I wanted to further expand on my knowledge of them, so I looked towards a weapon based art, Modern Arnis.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Let me ask another question. Which art/sport/method is best? What is the most realistic martial art? Most martial artists and cops I've talked to say sambo, most med-taking/dubious background people say boxing, and I hear a lot about MMA on this and other message boards. Ive seen a lot of MMA on DVD and whatnot. Which is most realistic? Or is it a combination of things, like Muay Thai and Wrestling, or karate and jiu-jitsu, etc...?

Keep in mind a few things. First, any art can be effective. IMHO, its the way its trained that makes a big difference. Second, for myself, I would rather go with something that works for me, rather than jump on the bandwagon, and go with the latest fad. We had the Kickboxing craze, the Ninjutsu craze and in the 90's we had the MMA craze. Dont mistake this as me saying that those things are not good, as they are, but again, I'm going to go with what works for me, not run out because someone else says its the best.

Mike

 

[Freestyler777]

Thank you for a sober and clear reply.

 

[Last Fearner]

I'm going to start with the following quote:

"No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo.

In my opinion, I think this is a rather foolish statement. If someone trained and competed in Judo, then what they learned was, in fact, techniques from the orient. Until the 20th century, most of these advanced fighting skills could have been considered "secret" as non-Asians were not aware of them. "Hard work" is an important factor, but what was he working so hard on all the years of his training? It was the oriental technique of Judo.

all the fights I witnessed....

This has proven to be the most pertinent part of many misconceptions about any subject - - including the Martial Art, street fighting, and what works or does not work. What you have personally witnessed is a small slice of reality, and does not really complete the whole picture of why what you saw worked!

they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown....

In my experience (which is not limited by any means), the reason that a fight either begins with a clinch or involves clinching is as follows: 1. either both people want to clinch because that is what they are trained for, or 2. one person wants to clinch, but the other one does not, however the second person is not trained on how to avoid the clinch.

If we are talking about two random individuals (in an institution or otherwise) the quickest way to end a physical altercation is to strike the opponent fast enough, hard enough, and accurately enough to either knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from continuing. If one strike does not accomplish this, multiple strikes might be necessary.

The second quickest way (and not by a margin of much) is to effectively throw an attacker to the ground hard enough to knock them out, disable them, or discourage them from attacking. The third method is to apply a control, restraint, or submission hold which can knock them out (cut off air or blood supply), disable them (dislocating joints, breaking bones, or damaging muscles), or discouraging with pain so that they submit. The latter one takes a bit longer, and usually involves tying up of your own limbs to maintain control. This has disadvantages if there are multiple attackers.

Any close contact fighting runs the risk of being limited when dealing with multiple attackers (although it can be done), and has increased risk of being injured by a previously concealed weapon.

One thing that has been mentioned, which I will confirm, is that you really should lose this notion of "one art is better than another." Which weapon is better for killing: a sling shot, a bow and arrow, a hand-gun, a shotgun, or a riffle? Obviously, they can all do the job, and it depends on the situation, and how well trained the person using each "tool" is. Each weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, and some are better for long range, but they can all kill you.

In this case you describe to me, where most of the people involved in the fights appear to go only on natural instinct because of no formal training, then, absolutely--

This is 100% right on. You could witness ten thousand street-fights, and if every one of them used a clinch or went to the ground, that does not mean that this is the best choice for a trained Martial Artist. It just means that those people chose that route, perhaps because they lacked skills that would give them an alternate option. I would not say to a highly skilled punching/kicking Martial Artist that you should abandon those things and opt for ground-fighting because that is what most street-fighters do. The idea is that a Martial Artist should know what to do IF the fight goes to the ground, but their skills should prevent that in most cases.

--apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled. Striking in a scienced manner came a bit later

I don't want to disagree with this statement, but I would like to add my personal perspective. I believe that early fighting included both crude, unskilled and unrefined striking as well as wrestling. I don't believe that every conflict among early man started with, or was exclusively limited to wrestling. I can picture a couple of cavemen fighting over a piece of meat around the campfire, and one hits the other with his fist. Flinging fists of fury might ensue with little or no grappling.

While we can surmise that any form of fighting was the "seed" of modern fighting or even the "Martial Art," I don't consider these early fighting methods to be the earliest form of Martial Art. For two people to tackle one another, and roll around on the ground squeezing, twisting, biting and gouging does not qualify as "technical skill." Personally, I think that in order for a grappling technique to qualify as a Martial Art technique, it has to rise above the crude movements of natural responses, and be technically superior to your opponent's strength.

To fight an opponent who beats you because he is bigger or stronger is just crude, natural fighting ability. To make a hold work on a stronger person because you have applied the correct leverage, and used your strongest muscles against their weakest muscles is "smart" technical fighting and that is what creates a Martial Art curriculum. To swing your fist and randomly hit an opponent, by chance, in the head which knocks him out is not Martial Art skill. To utilize scientific principles to thrust with acceleration, strike a specific vulnerable area with pin-point accuracy, and to reinforce and support your power with internal reactionary movements and proper stances is superior fighting skills associated with the Martial Art.

Any of the Modern Day Martial Art systems contain these to varying degrees. Original Martial Art was not limited to a personal preference over striking, throwing or holding, but used any technique created, borrowed, or stolen that worked in combat. Many of today's schools and instructors are the product of those who came before them, dissecting the art, ripping it apart, and applying only those things they liked or worked for them. This is fine for a personal strategy, but does little to preserve the integrity of the whole Martial Art, thereby limiting options for future generations. How can you teach what you have not perfected in training. Then students are forced to seek elsewhere, and try to "mix" their training to re-make the whole again. "Mixed Martial Art" (MMA) is a good concept, but I believe it is a misnomer, and it is nothing new. It is merely reassembling the parts that were once considered to be the whole body of Martial Art training.

Limit yourself, if you want, but it is unwise to limit an entire system, lest future students find themselves playing hopscotch from school to school, retrieving all the parts that have been thrown about. Those who are serious, dedicated instructors should know better.

This is my humble opinion
CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[still learning]

Hello, They say NO two fights are the same? NO two combatants will be the same too?

So how a fight ends up or ended...? might not be the answer for the way we are training?, because some fights do end with ONE punch, some with throws, and many with combintions of both.

Answer is we must train for all situtions! At the same time we must also learn NO-rules of fighting (anything goes) style of fighing, biting,crawling,pinching,yelling,ripping,hair pulling,bust ear drums,breaking fingers/toes/ and anything else (except what MOM tell us).

Physcial fittness? If you are not? expect the worst! (take up VERBAL JUDO) instead!.........if you need to take them down? ...hit them with the book...............Aloha

 

[Rich Parsons]

I know this is kind of ridiculous coming from someone who doesn't even engage in streetfighting, but of all the fights I witnessed when I was in 'a bad place' they all began in the clinch and ended with a takedown, sometimes 'tori' would throw 'uki' on his head!

Question: The fight stopped with the takedown? Why? Did they hit their head into something? Did the person then strike them out? Or others stopped it by geting involved?

NOTE: My experience is that Most Fights have a weapon, stick, chain, bottle, knife, car, something that someone is using to take the advantage. When there is not weapon they use surprise and the sucker punch.

In this 'bad place', where i spent 8 months, I saw at least one fight per week, and it was all rather similar. Angry words, the two combatants grab each other, and then the inevitable throw to the floor. No Kickboxing, people don't politely circle and jab, and no thirty minute groundfights that end with a choke or armlock. If this streetfighting resembled any sport, I would say Greco-roman Wrestling and Judo are the only two that even remotely fit the bill.

In places I worked for a few years to help pay for college, I saw fights nightly and multiple on Fridays and Saturdays.

Angry words, maybe a sucker punch, or an improvised weapon, or even a carried weapon were used to start and or finish. Many times the first strike would stun the person enough so yes they went to the ground but to finish and do damage not because they both had to go.

Now I did see some clinch and go down. I even saw some who rolled around trying to hit and or pin the others. (* late 80's so before the MMA craze *) They just did what they knew which was wrestiling from High School.

I knew a guy that so many people were afraid of becuase he had two moves. Trap your hand down and hit hard in the face usually before you knew it was a fight. Most noses were broken. He hit me and my nose bent , no blood, it did hurt but I hit him back. His friends then got involved and tried to pull me off, so I started poking eyes, and slammed one into a wall to get away and get space. (* Yes, I forgot most fights I also saw had superior numbers on the agressive side. If not then they believed they had superior weapons. *)

The obsession with MMA, which is merely modern pankration, will pass, as all things do. You can't make money off of wrestling and judo, they're amateur sports primarily, so people will erroneously go after fads that have their beginnings and ends. It's rather depressing.

In the 60's it was Judo and Ju-jitsu then it turned into Hard sparring with Karated and then some MT as well in the late 70's. Then in the 80's the Weapons' arts and other eclectic arts became more popular.

I agree it is a circle, people concentrate on one area so much and then forgot another, or people get tired of somethign and move on.

From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.

No art is Best.

It is the person.

Untrained people who have no issue with killing you are more dangerous than the "BEST" fighter in the world who cares about people.

If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.

I am really confused about this.

People who enjoy doing something, now are being told they should volunteer instead. Why?

I repeat Why?

This arguement does not follow.

If anyone who studied any art gave up the time and volunteered there should be an improvement. Why is it limited to one group?

Pesonally I practice my art, and teach it and also give to charities and donations to help private citizens, so I do both.

My point is, fighting is for retarts, wrestling and judo is self defense, and people are wasting a lot of precious time doing things that don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.

I thought the word was retard, no matter how negative the word sounds, it has a "d" and not a "t" at the end.

In the grand scheme of things it is all wasting a lot of precious time. going to work, for what Money? An abstract item that one can use to trade for goods one wants, that most likely they do not need or could get cheaper but they "WANT it".

Look at the number of assaults in the area one lives. Then look at the type of assault and who did it. Then ask yourself what is the probability of you needing to defend yourself. Then see how little sense it makes to even try. For those I know work with, many of them have never even been in a fight let alone seen one. Now some are at more risk due to work or living locations, but even then ask yourself what is the rate of return?

One only studies an art if one truly likes it. Now they might get some weight benefits and self-defense benefits as well, but in today's worl people do not do things they do not like to do.

And don't give me bs about 'completeness'. 'Completeness' is not an indicator of what is important in real combat. 'Effectiveness' is. And takedown sports are both safe, and 'quick kill' which means they take seconds to take effect, not 12 rounds or thirty minutes or an hour.

I agree that Effectiveness is important.

I disagree that Takedowns are both safe and quick kill. In my expereince it was not a real quick take down there was clinch work going on when it happened. In my experience those that went down got hurt, as the other guys' friends would kick him and or hit him with weapons.

And I agree the fight would last 30 seconds to a couple of minutes and not rounds. But the problem is that they either gave it all and brought violence to the table or lost real quick as they guy was bringing it.

And please do not give me an BS about "Real Combative" as there are too many situations to one thing is true for all.

And I'm sure a few karate purists will get angry at this post, and say that wrestling and judo are just scholastic sports, but I will refer you to Lao Tzu who said, 'That the soft can overcome the hard, and the gentle overcome the rigid- few in the world can realize this!" Takedown sports are fun, healthy, a good social activity, a teacher of positive sportsmanlike values, and the best self-defense.

I do not study Karate. I am not angry. I am confused by your comments and by your lack in insight that you claim.


Now, I agree that takedown sports are fun ad they can be healthy, as I have seen some take it to tapping or choking out the underbelts to prove their dominance, which I dod not consider safe. I have seen people hit their head in falls which is not safe or healthy. But can it be, yes, it can be, but then it losses some of its' effectiveness.

I agree that a positive teacher and values are good.

I disagree that it is the best self-defense.

"No secret techniques from the Orient, only hard work!" -Doug Rogers, 1964 Silver Medalist in Judo. I think that just about says it all.

I think Mr. Rogers was trying to say that it was not the art, but what he did to get where he is. And also maybe give credit to the GOLD medal winner, for where he got with his training.

 

[Yeti]

I was more condemming MMA and combat sports in general, not martial arts.

No you weren't - your condemnation seems pretty clear...see your other post.

I grant you these were not the big fish, but they were eye-opening enough to see that MA is largely hogwash.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

It's times like this I laugh because I'm a face biter.

 

[Odin]

From what I have observed, I would deduce that wrestling, sambo, and judo are the best martial arts, since their main focus is takedowns and pins, and that kickboxing and submission grappling are worthless in this world or the next.

If the people involved in kickboxing or submission grappling put a tenth of that time and effort into something productive, like volunteerism, creative expression, or even studying, I think the world would improve tenfold.

My point is, fighting is for retarts, wrestling and judo is self defense, and people are wasting a lot of precious time doing things that don't even matter in the grand scheme of things.

And don't give me bs about 'completeness'. 'Completeness' is not an indicator of what is important in real combat. 'Effectiveness' is. And takedown sports are both safe, and 'quick kill' which means they take seconds to take effect, not 12 rounds or thirty minutes or an hour.

quote]

hmm I think you seem to be quite confused here.....at the top of this quote you talk of Sambo, judo and wrestling being the best martial arts beacuse of take downs and pins ( because of course in a streetfight if you pin someone back to the floor for 3 seconds they automaticly give up and say sorry ) ...and then say that MMA is useless???

Not to mention that MMA fighters actually train in sambo and Judo!!

and then you go on to say that people involved in kickboxing should do something more productive......

Could please explain to me how a sole striking art is not effective in a streetfight??

Not to mention...you got all this information from watching people in a mental hospital fight???...not actual martial artist????