"Why MMA Fails"

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
Ah yes, this BS again. To be honest, I thought most of this rediculous sentiment faded in recent years.

The article brings about the same tired arguments from butthurt "traditional" martial artists who can't accept the fact that the styles and training methods they've wasted 20+ years on are ineffective. I won't even touch on how ignorant people are of the ground game.

The only valid point he has is that "Mixed" should be dropped from Mixed Martial Arts. People crosstrained long before that title came about.

How are they inneffective? A martial art specifically designed to maim and hurt is obviously more effective in a real fight, than a martial art that's a combat sport with built-in rules (ie: boxing and wrestling). Many cagefighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, they receive cursory training in Muay Thai and Jiujitsu (watered-down versions, as he pointed out), and then call themselves martial artists? Gimmie a break. An Okinawan Sensei or Shaolin Monk would destroy those arrogant kids, who are only doing it for the money, anyways.

As for the "ground game"; what if you're outnumbered? See, "ground and pound" only works in one-on-one fights, and preferably with a ref present. Ground fighting is ideal in a combat sport, not in a choatic bar brawl.

Rogue Jedi

MMA works in real life street fights. Watching it? Boring.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How are they inneffective? A martial art specifically designed to maim and hurt is obviously more effective in a real fight, that a martial art that's a combat sport with built-in rules (ie: boxing and wrestling). Many cagefighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, they receive cursory training in Muay Thai and Jiujitsu (watered-down versions, as he pointed out), and then call themselves martial artists? Gimmie a break. An Okinawan Sensei or Shaolin Monk would destroy those arrogant kids, who are only doing it for the money, anyways.

As for the "ground game"; what if you're outnumbered? See, "ground and pound" only works in one-on-one fights, and preferably with a ref present. Ground fighting is ideal in a combat sport, not in a choatic bar brawl.
Techniques that work in the ring still work out of the ring. "Traditional" martial artists hide behind that "we're too deadly for the ring." Most don't actually train to fight in any environment and have only become masters of doing flashy kicks in the air or demonstrations against willing opponents. This is the same logic that builds myths like Bruce Lee.

Any fighter is at a disadvantage against multiple opponents. That said, you have to be able to beat a single opponent before you can ever hope to take out multiple opponents. I'd bank on your average fighter outperforming the "lets do kata on the air all day" TMAist. You're also forgetting that high level grapplers can incapacitate your average bar room brawler quite quickly without going to the ground. The only reason you see two professional fighters "rolling around on the floor" is because both of them are skilled. Obviously, two similarly skilled fighters can neutralize each other.

Also, mixed martial artists have varying backgrounds and aren't given "cursory" courses in Muay Thai and Jujitsu. You don't get to be Anderson Silva with minimal muay thai training.

Lyoto Machida could probably solo like....6-7 shaolin monks before succumbing to fatigue. No joke.

They are arrogant? You're being harsh. All sports have their share of jerks, but I've noticed most fighters are actually pretty nice guys. Most pro fighters don't get paid that much. Not everyone is George St Pierre.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
MMA works in real life street fights. Watching it? Boring.
I can understand that. The sport is not for everyone. I just don't get why so many feel the need to lash out at the fighters.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
Techniques that work in the ring still work out of the ring. "Traditional" martial artists hide behind that "we're too deadly for the ring." Most don't actually train to fight in any environment and have only become masters of doing flashy kicks in the air or demonstrations against willing opponents. This is the same logic that builds myths like Bruce Lee.

Why do you think so many moves are fouls in MMA? Heabutts, kicking the groing, biting, manipulating fingers, kicking the heads of downed opponents? Because these things work, and in real fights with no refs, there are no rules. Fighters need to be healthy and able to perform in the next pay per view, in order for bookies and promoters to do their job.

Yes, they train for real situations. That's the whole point of martial arts. It would be a waste of time to do it "just because".

Originally posted by StyleTime

Any fighter is at a disadvantage against multiple opponents. That said, you have to be able to beat a single opponent before you can ever hope to take out multiple opponents. I'd bank on your average fighter outperforming the "lets do kata on the air all day" TMAist. You're also forgetting that high level grapplers can incapacitate your average bar room brawler quite quickly without going to the ground. The only reason you see two professional fighters "rolling around on the floor" is because both of them are skilled. Obviously, two similarly skilled fighters can neutralize each other.

Certian martial arts were specifically designed for multiple opponents, like Monkey Kung Fu and the Indain martial art Mukti Yudha. Wrestling (or any "ground game" wink

SpadeKing

I had my doubts when I first read it but I kinda agree with the article.

MMA fights do bar a lot of things that would easily end a fight, maim a fighter, etc... Yes the training for martial arts in sports friendly competitions are a bit watered down. Not like they are going to teach you any of the competitive illegal moves that could end a real fight quickly.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Lyoto Machida could probably solo like....6-7 shaolin monks before succumbing to fatigue. No joke.

I hope you don't mean at once cause then I'm quite sure it was a joke haermm

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you think so many moves are fouls in MMA? Heabutts, kicking the groing, biting, manipulating fingers, kicking the heads of downed opponents? Because these things work, and in real fights with no refs, there are no rules. Fighters need to be healthy and able to perform in the next pay per view, in order for bookies and promoters to do their job.
Actually, those rules came about fairly recently. There are still vale tudo circuits without those restrictions and many include groin shots. You still see a distinct lack of these so called masters. Pride was a recent organization that allowed kicks to the heads of downed opponents. I've still yet to see a kung fu stylist do well, apart from San Da and San Shou if you count them.

Judo is one of the few styles that actually suffers in the ring. It was intended for clothed opponents, yet people still effectively employ in the ring. Why is that? Judo is effective. It will work in or out of the ring. Just like the rest.

Lastly, all of the options you listed are available to sport fighter as well in a street fight; if the fighter is already capable of breaking your legs or knocking you out, he only have more of an advantage when more techniques are allowed.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, they train for real situations. That's the whole point of martial arts. It would be a waste of time to do it "just because".
You see, no they don't. They sit around and play "theory fighter." Proper training requires resisting opponents. If these techniques were so dangerous and practice in any real simulated environment, TMA schools would go out of business because students would be maimed or killed every day.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Certian martial arts were specifically designed for multiple opponents, like Monkey Kung Fu and the Indain martial art Mukti Yudha. Wrestling (or any "ground game" wink

is incompatible with many opponents. Same with boxing and Muay Thai.

The other reason they roll around the ground, is because they have no idea what they're doing. That's why they often look like schoolboys rolling around a school yard after one dissed the other's momma.

(As you just said right there: you'd "bank" on an average fighter. See, betting is the only fuel that MMA continues to run on)
Like I said, more theory fighter. We know wrestlers, boxers, thai boxers, etc are capable of maiming or otherwise incapacitating an opponent. Kung Fu styles look cooler in movies, but there's not much evidence supporting its effectiveness.

Now comes the belittling of grappling. Most people uneducated in the art of grappling will see only two guys rolling around. This does change the fact that they are executing positioning, sweeps, submission attempts, and general strategy.

I'm not sure what your point is here. They make money pursuing their passion(fighting). That has nothing to do with there abilities.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Silva actually knows Muay Thai, though. Which is why he excels in his specific arena: one-on-one sport fighting with a ref to break it up.

Machida has a black belt in Shotokan, so I respect that; he's the real deal. But 6-7? I think you're exaggerating. The opponents he fights for a living aren't trying to remove his eyes from their sockets or crush his trachea.

They're also not doing it for free. They're trying to make it to the level of St. Pierre.
That's my point though. The muay thai fighter actually know Muay Thai. You said they went through cursory curses, which is wrong. Your notion of his abilities are wrong as well. Silva excels at defeating other world class fighters. Without a ref, he'd be a world class fighter now free to get as vicious as he'd like. A shaolin monk has absolutely nothing saying he stand up to that.

Machida is also is a very high level sumo wrestler and an accomplished grappler with a black belt in jujitsu. I was trying to show you that MMA is far more diverse than you give credit. Many fighters have black belts in karate, tae kwon do, even kung fu styles. I'm actually surprise you don't give karate the same flak you give the rest of the styles. Since day one, karate has actually been fairly prominent in combat sports. Why do you accuse karate-ka of the same stuff you accuse the others?

And yeah, he would. Machida's only loss in his entire career is to Shogun. Shogun and Machida are two of the best fighters on the planet currently. Together they could probably run through a medium sized group of monks; I certainly don't see a single monk, or any other unverifiable fighter for that matter, doing jack shit to either one of them.

What's wrong with wanting to be paid for what you do?
Originally posted by SpadeKing
MMA fights do bar a lot of things that would easily end a fight, maim a fighter, etc... Yes the training for martial arts in sports friendly competitions are a bit watered down. Not like they are going to teach you any of the competitive illegal moves that could end a real fight quickly.

I hope you don't mean at once cause then I'm quite sure it was a joke haermm
No, they don't. Most of the banned techniques don't end fights. They simply cause fighters unneccesary harm. Small joint damage takes a while to heal. You guys keep talking about ending a fight quickly, while avoiding the fact that KOs end fights quite quickly. You're being unreasonable here.

At once? He's fast, has proven KO power, is a good deal larger than most monks, and vastly more skilled than any shaolin monk. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he took out 6-7 at once actually.

StyleTime

Awwwwwwww snap! batdude123 with the muthatruckin' breakdown!

I taught you well. excellent

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime

You see, no they don't. They sit around and play "theory fighter." Proper training requires resisting opponents. If these techniques were so dangerous and practice in any real simulated environment, TMA schools would go out of business because students would be maimed or killed every day.

How do you know this? Have you been to every dojo in the nation?

Now if you're talking about McDojo's, I agree. They're just in it for the money, with their stupid "guarunteed black belt" programs. But any respactable dojo (like the one I go to) has live sparring and practices what to do if someone pulls a knife on you, take-down resistance, etc.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Many fighters have black belts in karate, tae kwon do, even kung fu styles.

Kung Fu has no belt-ranking system. That's mostly a Japanese/Korean martial art thing.

----

If you're just a hardcore fan of cage-fighting, who doesn't like the discipline and long undertaking required to learn a martial art, just say so.

Originally posted by batdude123
Yes, a practitioner of a single art can defeat another practitioner of a different art, but his chances become increasingly diminished if he faces somebody who's fluent in multiple styles. I don't see how that can really be argued.

But how many styles can a person learn, and still be "fluent" in all of them? Its like those people who try to learn 8 or 9 languages; there's no way they're equally as proficient in all of them.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by StyleTime
No, they don't. Most of the banned techniques don't end fights. They simply cause fighters unneccesary harm. Small joint damage takes a while to heal. You guys keep talking about ending a fight quickly, while avoiding the fact that KOs end fights quite quickly. You're being unreasonable here.

At once? He's fast, has proven KO power, is a good deal larger than most monks, and vastly more skilled than any shaolin monk. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he took out 6-7 at once actually.

You're telling me if I broke your fingers you could still be a very effective fighter? Who cares about the healing time? I didn't mention anything about it, it still ends a fight quickly. If I kneed or kicked a down opponent a few times they wouldn't get up no time soon, or stomped them while they are down. That "unnecessary harm" does in fact end fights quickly and painfully which is why they're banned from the sport fighting world. You're making it sound like knocking someone out is really simple, even in the mma or any other martial art fights there are some people who just won't get KO'd easily, but no matter how tough they are if you gouge at their eye or punch them in the throat they are going down.

Sorry but that is not ever going to happen even if thy threw those monks in a cage with Lyoto with mma rules laughing

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by StyleTime
.

I can understand that. The sport is not for everyone. I just don't get why so many feel the need to lash out at the fighters. No doubt.

IMO, if two guys are fighting, one is a badass boxer, while the other is just really good at MMA, the boxer wins. Skill level is key.

I know, that's my Captain Obvious moment of the day.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How do you know this? Have you been to every dojo in the nation?

Now if you're talking about McDojo's, I agree. They're just in it for the money, with their stupid "guarunteed black belt" programs. But any respactable dojo (like the one I go to) has live sparring and practices what to do if someone pulls a knife on you, take-down resistance, etc.
Yes, I have. uhuh

This is what I'm talking about though. If you are truly doing live sparring, you have rules just like sport fighting. Why draw battle lines just because some guys decided to get into competition?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Kung Fu has no belt-ranking system. That's mostly a Japanese/Korean martial art thing.

----

If you're just a hardcore fan of cage-fighting, who doesn't like the discipline and long undertaking required to learn a martial art, just say so.
Historically, no it does not. Still, I've seen several kung fu schools offering belt ranks. Is it an insult to kung fu that they do that? Possibly. It still happens, and my statement stands.

Nice. An attempt to paint me as a hater of "traditional" martial arts without actually knowing my history with martial arts or my actual preferences. It's laughable and irrelevant. If you're just a hardcore fan of rigid styles with questionable at best efficiency, just say so.

You see? Pretextual insults get us nowhere. You're also severely understating the years of training fighters must go through to master these so called "ring styles." Not to mention, calling it cagefighting is just like calling all kung fu styles wing chun.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But how many styles can a person learn, and still be "fluent" in all of them? Its like those people who try to learn 8 or 9 languages; there's no way they're equally as proficient in all of them.
There is no magic number, but there are several multi-faceted fighters emerging now. Georges St Pierre has outstruck kickboxers, outwrestled wrestlers, and outplayed jujitsu experts. Silva, Shogun, Machida, Fedor, BJ, and other fighters have similar feats. The notion of being average at many areas fades while those who excel at all areas emerge. We have entered the age of the "complete" fighter honestly.
Originally posted by SpadeKing
You're telling me if I broke your fingers you could still be a very effective fighter? Who cares about the healing time? I didn't mention anything about it, it still ends a fight quickly. If I kneed or kicked a down opponent a few times they wouldn't get up no time soon, or stomped them while they are down. That "unnecessary harm" does in fact end fights quickly and painfully which is why they're banned from the sport fighting world. You're making it sound like knocking someone out is really simple, even in the mma or any other martial art fights there are some people who just won't get KO'd easily, but no matter how tough they are if you gouge at their eye or punch them in the throat they are going down.

Sorry but that is not ever going to happen even if thy threw those monks in a cage with Lyoto with mma rules laughing

You mentioned certain things ending fights quickly, which I rightfully refuted. There are several things wrong with you slightly altered points, but a few a key.

Breaking the fingers of a trained, world class fighter is nigh impossibilty unless you are a train, world class fighter yourself. Not to mention, these same fights also have access to joint manipulation when rules are removed. Compounded with their other abilities, no shaolin monk movie magic BS is countering that fact.

I make KO's sound exactly like what they are. They are examples of things that end fights quickly and are part of several fighters repetoire.

Again, gouging the eye of a train fighter is incredibly difficult. He is more likely to do it the "traditional too deadly for the universe fighter" than the other way around in fact. Are you more afraid of the wrestler who can actually hold you down while he gauges your eyes because you decided to take tippy tap point sparring, or are you afraid of live action role playing kid who got his orange belt practicing eye gouges from pointless stances three times a week. Obviously, I intend a bit of humor in posts. No use getting so serious, but you get the point

You're welcome to believe that, but I wouldn't count Machida out against 6-7 monks with no proven fighting abilities whatsoever.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123

It's funny how he says that Karate and Kung Fu aren't sports, but leaves out full-contact Karate tournaments and Sanshou fights (which both, ironically enough, have RULES).

Because they're not, and he didn't need to mention those two sports loosely based on Karate and Kung Fu. FCK and Sanshou were both developed in the 20th century, long after Karate and Kung Fu were established as systems of combat.

And FYI: Sanshou isn't a form of Kung Fu. It's a fusion martial art that borrows elements from several different Chinese martial arts, and Kung Fu is just one of them.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
Yes, I have. uhuh

This is what I'm talking about though. If you are truly doing live sparring, you have rules just like sport fighting. Why draw battle lines just because some guys decided to get into competition?

Sparring is an exercise meant for learning, not pummeling each other for ratings and endorsement deals.

Originally posted by StyleTime

Historically, no it does not. Still, I've seen several kung fu schools offering belt ranks. Is it an insult to kung fu that they do that? Possibly. It still happens, and my statement stands.

Yes, it would be an insult to it. And those Kung Fu "schools" you've been to are McDojo's. They were heavily commercialized and Westernized businesses designed to keep kids busy when the little league seasons are over. True Kung Fu doesn't and has never had belts.

I currently do Praying Mantis and Karambit Machan, a form of Indonesian knife-fighting. They're definitely not McDojo's and the second they even start to resemble one, is when I'll stop attending.

Originally posted by StyleTime

Nice. An attempt to paint me as a hater of "traditional" martial arts without actually knowing my history with martial arts or my actual preferences. It's laughable and irrelevant. If you're just a hardcore fan of rigid styles with questionable at best efficiency, just say so.

You see? Pretextual insults get us nowhere. You're also severely understating the years of training fighters must go through to master these so called "ring styles." Not to mention, calling it cagefighting is just like calling all kung fu styles wing chun.

I like all martial arts as long as they stay true to themselves. I'm not a big fan of creating a system that deliberately cherry-picks certain things from various styles just to create a spectator sport.

The only combat sports I really like watching are ones that involve a weapon, like fencing.

Originally posted by StyleTime

There is no magic number, but there are several multi-faceted fighters emerging now. Georges St Pierre has outstruck kickboxers, outwrestled wrestlers, and outplayed jujitsu experts. Silva, Shogun, Machida, Fedor, BJ, and other fighters have similar feats. The notion of being average at many areas fades while those who excel at all areas emerge. We have entered the age of the "complete" fighter honestly.

Or maybe those kickboxers, wrestlers and Jiujitsu "experts" were subpar? Still, those cage-fighters you mentioned aren't equally skilled in all of their facets of fighting. They're always better at one, than the others (striking, grappling, or what-have-you).

The age of the "complete" fighter? Gimmie a break... Those MMA marketers and advertisers must really be good to have you saying that.

Originally posted by StyleTime

You're welcome to believe that, but I wouldn't count Machida out against 6-7 monks with no proven fighting abilities whatsoever.

What do you mean "no proven fighting abilities"? How about the fact that they are Shaolin Monks. Not anyone can just waltz into the Shaolin Temple and be like "Hey, I wanna join you guys". Granted they're not comic-book superheroes, but like Navy SEALs, they're damn good at what they do.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by StyleTime
You mentioned certain things ending fights quickly, which I rightfully refuted. There are several things wrong with you slightly altered points, but a few a key.

Originally posted by SpadeKing
I had my doubts when I first read it but I kinda agree with the article.

MMA fights do bar a lot of things that would easily end a fight, maim a fighter, etc... Yes the training for martial arts in sports friendly competitions are a bit watered down. Not like they are going to teach you any of the competitive illegal moves that could end a real fight quickly.

I hope you don't mean at once cause then I'm quite sure it was a joke haermm

Well for one thing I don't see any certain thing that I pointed out at all, I was speaking as in the illegal attacks in general. You're welcome to point out any real specific thing I said.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Breaking the fingers of a trained, world class fighter is nigh impossibilty unless you are a train, world class fighter yourself. Not to mention, these same fights also have access to joint manipulation when rules are removed. Compounded with their other abilities, no shaolin monk movie magic BS is countering that fact.

I make KO's sound exactly like what they are. They are examples of things that end fights quickly and are part of several fighters repetoire.

Again, gouging the eye of a train fighter is incredibly difficult. He is more likely to do it the "traditional too deadly for the universe fighter" than the other way around in fact. Are you more afraid of the wrestler who can actually hold you down while he gauges your eyes because you decided to take tippy tap point sparring, or are you afraid of live action role playing kid who got his orange belt practicing eye gouges from pointless stances three times a week. Obviously, I intend a bit of humor in posts. No use getting so serious, but you get the point

You're welcome to believe that, but I wouldn't count Machida out against 6-7 monks with no proven fighting abilities whatsoever.

The finger breaking is something sport fighters won't pay much or any attention to though, they are too use to being open to things like that cause they don't have to worry about it. It's like having a Muay Thai stance in a real fight, that is an invite for a kick to the balls. I'm sorry but I didn't get the point of pointing out access to the illegal moves when the rules are removed no expression

BTW I wasn't arguing for the monks in the first place with these moves, just the watering down on martial art techniques designed for real fights.

Put it this way, unless you're facing someone with a glass jaw or you're just throwing punches like Tyson KO's aren't going to COME quickly. Of course they end a fight quickly it is a Knock Out, but some people can just take blows over and over and over and keep going without never getting KO'd. It is going to end a fight as quickly as a throat chop cause it is something you're going to have to work for, unless like I said you're fighting glass jaw, it is more of a varying thing.

The wrestler but I still don't see where you're going with this blink

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Sparring is an exercise meant for learning, not pummeling each other for ratings and endorsement deals.
The point is still valid. You refer to ratings and endorsement deals as if it demeans any similarities. It doesn't.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, it would be an insult to it. And those Kung Fu "schools" you've been to are McDojo's. They were heavily commercialized and Westernized businesses designed to keep kids busy when the little league seasons are over. True Kung Fu doesn't and has never had belts.

I currently do Praying Mantis and Karambit Machan, a form of Indonesian knife-fighting. They're definitely not McDojo's and the second they even start to resemble one, is when I'll stop attending.

Cool. We agree. It doesn't change what I said.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I like all martial arts as long as they stay true to themselves. I'm not a big fan of creating a system that deliberately cherry-picks certain things from various styles just to create a spectator sport.

The only combat sports I really like watching are ones that involve a weapon, like fencing.
Fighters must adhere to the ruleset, but it does not change the fact that the fighter is from "x" style. If you don't like MMA, that is your prerogative; however, this rhetoric of yours borders on absurdity at this point.

Ok.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Or maybe those kickboxers, wrestlers and Jiujitsu "experts" were subpar? Still, those cage-fighters you mentioned aren't equally skilled in all of their facets of fighting. They're always better at one, than the others (striking, grappling, or what-have-you).

The age of the "complete" fighter? Gimmie a break... Those MMA marketers and advertisers must really be good to have you saying that.
No, they weren't subpar. This is based on verified records. We see their abilities. You're just speculating now.

Again, these are based on facts. I refer to them as complete because that is what they are. We can see this. We can verify this. You operate on personal conjecture and it has no place in a discussion such as this. If you want to believe the opposite, fine; still, you must realize how little merit this method has in legitimate discussion.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do you mean "no proven fighting abilities"? How about the fact that they are Shaolin Monks. Not anyone can just waltz into the Shaolin Temple and be like "Hey, I wanna join you guys". Granted they're not comic-book superheroes, but like Navy SEALs, they're damn good at what they do.
I mean exactly what I stated. We can't verify any real fighting ability from these monks. Navy SEALs actually have proven combat abilities and engage in combat regularly; it is rediculous to compare a shaolin monk to that.

Again, this is the same logic that built the lies around Bruce Lee. Theory fighting at its finest.
Originally posted by SpadeKing
Well for one thing I don't see any certain thing that I pointed out at all, I was speaking as in the illegal attacks in general. You're welcome to point out any real specific thing I said.

The finger breaking is something sport fighters won't pay much or any attention to though, they are too use to being open to things like that cause they don't have to worry about it. It's like having a Muay Thai stance in a real fight, that is an invite for a kick to the balls. I'm sorry but I didn't get the point of pointing out access to the illegal moves when the rules are removed no expression

I wouldn't count him out against 1, 2 would still be a loss. Those guys' daily routine is comprised of train, meditate, and worship. I'm quite sure they work on their martial arts more than most, probably all mma fighters train.
I spoke in general there.

That makes little sense. Most of the systems employed by the fighters employ small joint manipulation and you still fail to account for places that actually allow rediculous stuff like that. In a fight, you have to actually break the fingers. How do you that if you don't have the basic knowledge an MMA fighter has? He has a lot more to stop that from ever occuring than the other way around. Also, there are Muay Thai competitions that allow groin shots. Surprise, surprise. The stances are identical to standard Muay Thai barring the clinchwork. An effective style is an effective style.

There is watering down of techniques, but you miss one thing. It occurs in these so called TMA schools. Most fighters still train those techniques which may be banned in a particular competition. In fact, many of them have competed in true Vale Tudo environments where anything goes.

If you don't have the requisite skills to pull these "oh so deadly techniques", you won't get them off. A trained sport fighter will have a far easier time executing these techniques than the guys who sit safely at their dojo, hiding behind the excuse that they are "too deadly" to compete.

Yes, they train and train and still have no proven combat ability. You're giving credit where it is not deserved. Again, you are allowed to believe what you want; however, you are debating against facts here.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by StyleTime
I spoke in general there.

That makes little sense. Most of the systems employed by the fighters employ small joint manipulation and you still fail to account for places that actually allow rediculous stuff like that. In a fight, you have to actually break the fingers. How do you that if you don't have the basic knowledge an MMA fighter has? He has a lot more to stop that from ever occuring than the other way around. Also, there are Muay Thai competitions that allow groin shots. Surprise, surprise. The stances are identical to standard Muay Thai barring the clinchwork. An effective style is an effective style.

There is watering down of techniques, but you miss one thing. It occurs in these so called TMA schools. Most fighters still train those techniques which may be banned in a particular competition. In fact, many of them have competed in true Vale Tudo environments where anything goes.

If you don't have the requisite skills to pull these "oh so deadly techniques", you won't get them off. A trained sport fighter will have a far easier time executing these techniques than the guys who sit safely at their dojo, hiding behind the excuse that they are "too deadly" to compete.

Yes, they train and train and still have no proven combat ability. You're giving credit where it is not deserved. Again, you are allowed to believe what you want; however, you are debating against facts here.

I don't know which MMA and Muay Thai organizations you're referring to that allow those moves, but those guys aren't obviously held back by the same rules that the more popular organizations are held back by and would train for usage and avoiding those moves.

Depends on your teacher if you ask me, on the watering down parts, but now most MMA fighters do MMA style gyms that train multiple martial arts and mma training or they stick with their own personal trainers or they are Roy Nelson and practice in their basement alone. Only ones that come to mind that I would know for a fact would have done True Vale Tudo is the Gracie family.

Not always, the only real advantage I would say the sport fighter has is combat experience, he is more than likely less trained on the super deadly technique than the guy at the dojo since his focus is elsewhere in martial arts. The Dojo guy can probably pull it off better but he may not be able to set it up better considering the little experience.

Well kinda like the Navy SEAL thing you guys are mentioning, I have never heard a story from people of any military branch saying they had to use whatever H2H skills they learned. Most of the stories I've seen or personally heard were using teamwork mainly in close quarters, wasn't a need for fighting someone when you or your squad mates behind you can shoot him. They are basically in the same boat as monks when it comes to martial arts, except for the amount of training and emphasis in it.

StyleTime

Originally posted by SpadeKing
I don't know which MMA and Muay Thai organizations you're referring to that allow those moves, but those guys aren't obviously held back by the same rules that the more popular organizations are held back by and would train for usage and avoiding those moves.

Depends on your teacher if you ask me, on the watering down parts, but now most MMA fighters do MMA style gyms that train multiple martial arts and mma training or they stick with their own personal trainers or they are Roy Nelson and practice in their basement alone. Only ones that come to mind that I would know for a fact would have done True Vale Tudo is the Gracie family.

Not always, the only real advantage I would say the sport fighter has is combat experience, he is more than likely less trained on the super deadly technique than the guy at the dojo since his focus is elsewhere in martial arts. The Dojo guy can probably pull it off better but he may not be able to set it up better considering the little experience.

Well kinda like the Navy SEAL thing you guys are mentioning, I have never heard a story from people of any military branch saying they had to use whatever H2H skills they learned. Most of the stories I've seen or personally heard were using teamwork mainly in close quarters, wasn't a need for fighting someone when you or your squad mates behind you can shoot him. They are basically in the same boat as monks when it comes to martial arts, except for the amount of training and emphasis in it.
Ok. Looks like we're roughly on the same page in all honesty. I just highlighted that fighters hold back in a ruleset, but don't necessarily neglect their art during training.

I can agree with that somewhat. Most pro fighters may not train like....720 hook kicks, but it's less watering a style down than dojos who only point spar.

I do still disagree here. The sport fighter has every advantage. He's more conditioned, more skilled, better fundamentals, better reflexes, and trains more effective techniques. For example, pro fighters have better head movement than your average dojo dude. These fighters effectively move their entire heads out of the way of incoming strikes; to hit a target as small as their eyes in combat is unlikely. Even training such techniques would be difficult; eye gouging in training would leave students out of commission often and would probably cause many to quit honestly.

I referred to general combat effectiveness of the Navy SEALS. I didn't know if he meant specifically hand to hand.

In any case, we quickly approach the point of agreement here; I offer this as the intersection of our views. Two equally skilled fighters face off without rules, but one has a proven record of beating high level opponents with these "deadly" techniques. I would probably give him the advantage. That may be what you meant, but it came off as something else.

Darth Angel

I would like to clear some aspects in this discussion.

First, the idea of "martial art". A martial art is nothing more then a fighting system that allows to anyone to physically defeat other person or defend oneself in REAL LIFE situations. So as you can understand, this implies that a martial artist is someone who is training himself in a fighting system that will increase is chances of winning a fight.

Now, while this concept seems rather simple, it also tells what should be the major concept of any martial art: to create a fighting system effective in REAL LIFE situations. In fact, what kind of martial art can call himself a true martial art if isn't tested in real fights?

Obviously, this brings a great problem to so many "masters" who have never enter in a real fight.
Reminds some videos around the youtube where you see a undefeated kiai master with over 500 wins (or so he said) being beat by a MMA figher with a couple punches in the face (rather pathetically actually) or the kung fu fighter who got his arm broke by a kimura in less then 30 seconds.
So, what's the problem with this guys? They didn't build their art in real fights, they don't really test if their techniques are really useful or just a "show off" movement, and that's why I believe any true fighter show have try MMA, because honestly, if a kung fu master can't beat a MMA fighter in the ring, he can't do it in real life situations.

I also would like to remind everybody, as it was already said, that in the begining of UFC everything was allowed, you can't go more as a street fight as that, yet, guys like royce gracie beat bigger guys trying to grab his groin and bite him, only to have his arm broke in the end with a armbar. Yeah, and that's one of the problems with low blows, they hurt but they also show lack of fighting skill, because if one goes to this aproach, he probably doesn't know to fight at all, and the result will probably be a pissed fighter who will seriously injury you as a result.

So all this "deadly techniques" are probably as much as not usable or just dirty fighting of people who have never faced a true fighter and are afraid to do so.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime

Fighters must adhere to the ruleset, but it does not change the fact that the fighter is from "x" style. If you don't like MMA, that is your prerogative; however, this rhetoric of yours borders on absurdity at this point.

What rhetoric? Hybrid/fusion MA's do cherry-pick from others, that's why they're called fusions and hybrids. The founders of these more recent styles take what they like from a certain already established martial art, and discard what they don't like in an arbitrary manner. Well, maybe not 'arbitrary', but what they personally deem "unnecessary".

Sanshou, Kajunkembo, Americano, Modern Arnis, Krav Maga and so on. This applies to all fusion MA's.

Originally posted by StyleTime

No, they weren't subpar. This is based on verified records. We see their abilities. You're just speculating now.

Again, these are based on facts. I refer to them as complete because that is what they are. We can see this. We can verify this. You operate on personal conjecture and it has no place in a discussion such as this. If you want to believe the opposite, fine; still, you must realize how little merit this method has in legitimate discussion.

How are they "complete"? GSP is good at striking, grappling and submissions, but he's still better at one of those than the other three. I believe he comes from a Karate background, so hard hitting is his bread and butter. He's good at his chosen profession, I'll give him that.

Originally posted by StyleTime

I mean exactly what I stated. We can't verify any real fighting ability from these monks. Navy SEALs actually have proven combat abilities and engage in combat regularly; it is rediculous to compare a shaolin monk to that.

Look at history. The Shaolin Monks did essentially the same thing as the Knights Templar: religious warriors who sheparded pilgrims and travelers from bandits and other bad guys. And unlike the Templars, they're still around. Those nasty weapons they made weren't toys.

They may be a living antique, but they're still fine fighters. Our 'Jedi', you might say.

(Fun fact: Jedi attire, teachings and fencing are all partly based on those of the Shaolin Monks.)

Originally posted by StyleTime

Again, this is the same logic that built the lies around Bruce Lee. Theory fighting at its finest.

What "lies"? You're saying he wasn't a good figher? That vato actually promoted mixing martial arts before it was cool. At the beginning of Enter the Dragon he's wearing MMA gloves. He even founded a fusion martial art: Jeet Kun Do.

Originally posted by Darth Angel
I would like to clear some aspects in this discussion.

First, the idea of "martial art". A martial art is nothing more then a fighting system that allows to anyone to physically defeat other person or defend oneself in REAL LIFE situations. So as you can understand, this implies that a martial artist is someone who is training himself in a fighting system that will increase is chances of winning a fight.

Now, while this concept seems rather simple, it also tells what should be the major concept of any martial art: to create a fighting system effective in REAL LIFE situations. In fact, what kind of martial art can call himself a true martial art if isn't tested in real fights?

Obviously, this brings a great problem to so many "masters" who have never enter in a real fight.
Reminds some videos around the youtube where you see a undefeated kiai master with over 500 wins (or so he said) being beat by a MMA figher with a couple punches in the face (rather pathetically actually) or the kung fu fighter who got his arm broke by a kimura in less then 30 seconds.
So, what's the problem with this guys? They didn't build their art in real fights, they don't really test if their techniques are really useful or just a "show off" movement, and that's why I believe any true fighter show have try MMA, because honestly, if a kung fu master can't beat a MMA fighter in the ring, he can't do it in real life situations.

I also would like to remind everybody, as it was already said, that in the begining of UFC everything was allowed, you can't go more as a street fight as that, yet, guys like royce gracie beat bigger guys trying to grab his groin and bite him, only to have his arm broke in the end with a armbar. Yeah, and that's one of the problems with low blows, they hurt but they also show lack of fighting skill, because if one goes to this aproach, he probably doesn't know to fight at all, and the result will probably be a pissed fighter who will seriously injury you as a result.

So all this "deadly techniques" are probably as much as not usable or just dirty fighting of people who have never faced a true fighter and are afraid to do so.

I've seen those videos you described, and other similar ones where some self-proclaimed "Master" of something gets his ass handed to him by an amature cage-fighter, or somebody with only basic martial arts training. Those guys are either liars and/or come from questionable dojos. McDojo's are usually opened by a guy who took a martial art for a couple years, bought a black belt off the internet, makes up some story about being taught "secret" moves in remote parts of Asia and then starts calling himself a Master. And sadly, Master Certifications are pretty easy to forge. But there's very few genuine Karate and Kung Fu Masters in North America. One of the conditions of the oath a Sifu takes is not not to fight for the entertainment of others, this is another way to tell those guys are lying.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

What "lies"? You're saying he wasn't a good figher? That vato actually promoted mixing martial arts before it was cool. At the beginning of Enter the Dragon he's wearing MMA gloves. He even founded a fusion martial art: Jeet Kun Do.

Adding to this point:

I agree with you and a lot of other people that the image of Bruce Lee is blown up to a larger-than-life myth, to the point of being superhuman. But that still doesn't take aways his many accomplishments and his works over his short life. Not only was he an entertainer, Bruce Lee was historically significant in that he brought martial arts to the forefront and made it a household word. Nowadays, you can look up martial arts in the yellow pages of any phone-book. But before the 1950's, martial arts in America were limited to ethnic enclaves, and they weren't at all businesses. They were underground organizations, that bordered on being cults. He really butted heads with the Kung Fu community in Oakland, because they didn't like him teaching non-Chinese people. In fact, I read an article in Black Belt a while back, in which the guy argued that if Bruce Lee never existed, there probably would be no fighting video games. He says this is because so many of the game characters are based on him (looks, stances, moves, sound FX), and because he popularized martial arts as a whole.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What rhetoric? Hybrid/fusion MA's do cherry-pick from others, that's why they're called fusions and hybrids. The founders of these more recent styles take what they like from a certain already established martial art, and discard what they don't like in an arbitrary manner. Well, maybe not 'arbitrary', but what they personally deem "unnecessary".

Sanshou, Kajunkembo, Americano, Modern Arnis, Krav Maga and so on. This applies to all fusion MA's.

It seemed like you meant a hybrid style is automatically ineffective. I apologize if you didn't, but that's how it sounded.

Martial arts are constantly evolving, and hybrid styles are just one of the evolutions honestly. We can take virtually any style and identify its effective moves and its less effective moves. If you took kickboxing, would you rely on a tornado kick instead of your roundhouse? Would you take a wind up punch over a jab if you were a boxer? I'm sure you can find some techniques within your own style you don't employ. Making a style that consists of the best parts of other styles doesn's strike me as a bad thing.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How are they "complete"? GSP is good at striking, grappling and submissions, but he's still better at one of those than the other three. I believe he comes from a Karate background, so hard hitting is his bread and butter. He's good at his chosen profession, I'll give him that.
GSP was indeed a kyokushin karateka before entering MMA. He still wears his gi to fights and says he is as karate fighter first and foremost. Initially, he was a striker as you said, but he's evolved greatly since those days. He has arguably the best wrestling in all of MMA currently; he was even asked to join his country's Olympic wrestling team. He has his black belt in jujitsu and has submitted or outplayed any grappler thrown at him.

I'm not saying he's invincible when I say "complete." I mean he excels at all ranges of unarmed combat at this point, even if he started out as a karate guy. That is what I mean by "complete."
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look at history. The Shaolin Monks did essentially the same thing as the Knights Templar: religious warriors who sheparded pilgrims and travelers from bandits and other bad guys. And unlike the Templars, they're still around. Those nasty weapons they made weren't toys.

They may be a living antique, but they're still fine fighters. Our 'Jedi', you might say.

(Fun fact: Jedi attire, teachings and fencing are all partly based on those of the Shaolin Monks.)
The problem is, we can't really verify the skills of modern day monks. In all honesty, we can't verify the skills of those in the past. I'm not saying they weren't fighters, but you know as well as I do that history has built up its fair share of myths. If we go by evidence, Lyoto Machida or GSP should absolutely rock a monk, even if they stick strictly to their karate techniques.

I remember hearing that the "Force" concept was based on Buddhism as well. I'm no Star Wars expert though.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What "lies"? You're saying he wasn't a good figher? That vato actually promoted mixing martial arts before it was cool. At the beginning of Enter the Dragon he's wearing MMA gloves. He even founded a fusion martial art: Jeet Kun Do.

I'm saying he lacks verification for like 9/10 of his exploits. As for him promoting "MMA before it was cool", this is why I actually hate the "mixed martial arts" name. It implies that this is something new. Even before Lee, people crosstrained in other styles. Mas Oyama, for example, was also a high ranking judoka. It was actually pretty common in Japan from what I understand to take the karate/judo package.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Jeet Kune Do? I noticed you tend to speak poorly of hybrid styles in general. Bruce certainly discarded kung fu techniques he didn't like, and got hated by some for it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Adding to this point:

I agree with you and a lot of other people that the image of Bruce Lee is blown up to a larger-than-life myth, to the point of being superhuman. But that still doesn't take aways his many accomplishments and his works over his short life. Not only was he an entertainer, Bruce Lee was historically significant in that he brought martial arts to the forefront and made it a household word. Nowadays, you can look up martial arts in the yellow pages of any phone-book. But before the 1950's, martial arts in America were limited to ethnic enclaves, and they weren't at all businesses. They were underground organizations, that bordered on being cults. He really butted heads with the Kung Fu community in Oakland, because they didn't like him teaching non-Chinese people. In fact, I read an article in Black Belt a while back, in which the guy argued that if Bruce Lee never existed, there probably would be no fighting video games. He says this is because so many of the game characters are based on him (looks, stances, moves, sound FX), and because he popularized martial arts as a whole.
I'm pretty sure karate was fairly popular in America by the time Lee arrived. Lee's image helped popularize some things, but it may have done more harm than good. A lot of a bullshido arose in his wake.

His biggest accomplishment was probably fight choreography. Before him, American movies had pretty shitty fight scenes. As for the video games, fighting game characters are frequently based on martial arts stereotypes. The screaming Bruce Lee wannabe, the ninja, the loudmouthed American wrestler, the ******* vale tudo fighter, old kung fu master, huge russian grappler, military commando, the list goes on. Bruce is just one of many, and I think that guy gave him a little too much credit there.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
It seemed like you meant a hybrid style is automatically ineffective. I apologize if you didn't, but that's how it sounded.

Martial arts are constantly evolving, and hybrid styles are just one of the evolutions honestly. We can take virtually any style and identify its effective moves and its less effective moves. If you took kickboxing, would you rely on a tornado kick instead of your roundhouse? Would you take a wind up punch over a jab if you were a boxer? I'm sure you can find some techniques within your own style you don't employ. Making a style that consists of the best parts of other styles doesn's strike me as a bad thing.

No, I don't think that. They should evolve to adapt to the times. Krav Maga has certain moves and techniques for when someone is holding a gun to your head. This is martial arts evolution at its finest, since guns weren't around when most MA's were developed.

What makes a move "less" effective with in its own style? Certain moves were made for specific situations. The right tool for the right job.

Originally posted by StyleTime

GSP was indeed a kyokushin karateka before entering MMA. He still wears his gi to fights and says he is as karate fighter first and foremost. Initially, he was a striker as you said, but he's evolved greatly since those days. He has arguably the best wrestling in all of MMA currently; he was even asked to join his country's Olympic wrestling team. He has his black belt in jujitsu and has submitted or outplayed any grappler thrown at him.

I'm not saying he's invincible when I say "complete." I mean he excels at all ranges of unarmed combat at this point, even if he started out as a karate guy. That is what I mean by "complete."

Then by that definition, I guess he would be a complete fighter. Did he ever decide to wrestle for Canada? If not, why?

I wonder how he is as a fencer. After all, the kendo stick and tonfa are both part of Kyokushin training.

Originally posted by StyleTime

The problem is, we can't really verify the skills of modern day monks. In all honesty, we can't verify the skills of those in the past. I'm not saying they weren't fighters, but you know as well as I do that history has built up its fair share of myths. If we go by evidence, Lyoto Machida or GSP should absolutely rock a monk, even if they stick strictly to their karate techniques.

I remember hearing that the "Force" concept was based on Buddhism as well. I'm no Star Wars expert though.

Maybe this footage of a Shaolin Monk in a cage helps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP5TgxWaZrs&feature=search

The Force is more based on Eastern panentheism (ie: "Everything is God).

Originally posted by StyleTime

I'm saying he lacks verification for like 9/10 of his exploits. As for him promoting "MMA before it was cool", this is why I actually hate the "mixed martial arts" name. It implies that this is something new. Even before Lee, people crosstrained in other styles. Mas Oyama, for example, was also a high ranking judoka. It was actually pretty common in Japan from what I understand to take the karate/judo package.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Jeet Kune Do? I noticed you tend to speak poorly of hybrid styles in general. Bruce certainly discarded kung fu techniques he didn't like, and got hated by some for it.

I don't really have anything against hybrid martial arts. A lot of later Kung Fu styles are hybrids, like Southern Praying Mantis and Hung-gar (a combination of Tiger and Crane). A lot of foreign interpretations are also hybrids, like Sambo (Russian judo) and Tang Soo Do (Korean wushu). These borrowed arts have been adapted to local variants; nothing wrong with that.

The only one flaw I see in more modern hyrbids (such as Jeet Kune Do and Kajunkembo) is that they teach their students to be a jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none. JKD fighters are good at punching, kicking, trapping and grappling, but they really don't excel in any one category. It's moderation, not specialization. But then again, that's Jeet Kune Do philosophy.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm pretty sure karate was fairly popular in America by the time Lee arrived. Lee's image helped popularize some things, but it may have done more harm than good. A lot of a bullshido arose in his wake.

His biggest accomplishment was probably fight choreography. Before him, American movies had pretty shitty fight scenes. As for the video games, fighting game characters are frequently based on martial arts stereotypes. The screaming Bruce Lee wannabe, the ninja, the loudmouthed American wrestler, the ******* vale tudo fighter, old kung fu master, huge russian grappler, military commando, the list goes on. Bruce is just one of many, and I think that guy gave him a little too much credit there.

Karate and judo were both brought back by WW2 servicemen, but it took kung fu longer to become well-known.

Would fighting video games be the same without Bruce Lee, though? Many martial art stereotypes also appeared in his movies. Those archetypes got their start in 70's martial art cinema, which was Lee's era.

Bardock42

I'd assume most MMA fighters are well trained and athletic, so they would likely be good in a fight either way, however I agree that MMA doesn't necessarily determine the best fighter in a real life situation.

Now I don't know exactly, but I'd assume that a very well trained Krav Maga practitioner or a MCMAP master would likely beat and kill a similarly trained MMA fighter, as obviously many of the techniques the MMA fighter uses is very much focussed on winning within the rules of the game.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, I don't think that. They should evolve to adapt to the times. Krav Maga has certain moves and techniques for when someone is holding a gun to your head. This is martial arts evolution at its finest, since guns weren't around when most MA's were developed.

What makes a move "less" effective with in its own style? Certain moves were made for specific situations. The right tool for the right job.
Alrighty.

Several things would go into an "effective" definition, but certain moves are noticeably less efficient than others. I, again, mention tornado kicks. Or the 540 the monk in your video uses.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then by that definition, I guess he would be a complete fighter. Did he ever decide to wrestle for Canada? If not, why?

I wonder how he is as a fencer. After all, the kendo stick and tonfa are both part of Kyokushin training.
Last I heard, he is still undecided. Dividing time between that and MMA may work against him. A Canadian coach said these guys prepared 8-10 years before trying out, and GSP won't get any special treatment. A 2008 wrestler (Matt Gentry) commended GSP's great blast doubles and other takedowns, but wrestling in a pure wrestling environment differs from MMA or any other venue honestly. It'd do wonders for Dana White if GSP succeeds though. Imagine the marketing for "GSP, The Olympian".

Regardless, GSP is an extremely rare breed of fighter. It wouldn't surprise me if he makes it.

I've never seen him use weapons, so I honestly don't know.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Maybe this footage of a Shaolin Monk in a cage helps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP5TgxWaZrs&feature=search

The Force is more based on Eastern panentheism (ie: "Everything is God).
Firstly, that was a beautiful 540 at 1:10 by the shaolin dude; however, I think this was point sparring. The Tae Kwon Do jin definitely had a point sparring stance: his hands are by his waist and he's bouncing on the balls of his feet.

Gotcha.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't really have anything against hybrid martial arts. A lot of later Kung Fu styles are hybrids, like Southern Praying Mantis and Hung-gar (a combination of Tiger and Crane). A lot of foreign interpretations are also hybrids, like Sambo (Russian judo) and Tang Soo Do (Korean wushu). These borrowed arts have been adapted to local variants; nothing wrong with that.

The only one flaw I see in more modern hyrbids (such as Jeet Kune Do and Kajunkembo) is that they teach their students to be a jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none. JKD fighters are good at punching, kicking, trapping and grappling, but they really don't excel in any one category. It's moderation, not specialization. But then again, that's Jeet Kune Do philosophy.
Ok.

Well, I am about do some theory fighting here. embarrasment

Hybrid styles are supposed to build fighters who actually excel at multiple areas. Unfortunately, it just doesn't always pan out that way. Not everyone can be GSP in reality.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Karate and judo were both brought back by WW2 servicemen, but it took kung fu longer to become well-known.

Would fighting video games be the same without Bruce Lee, though? Many martial art stereotypes also appeared in his movies. Those archetypes got their start in 70's martial art cinema, which was Lee's era.
I'll agree to that.

They wouldn't be the same in the literal sense, of course. A few character designs would change or dissappear altogether, but the games wouldn't differ all that much as a product.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd assume most MMA fighters are well trained and athletic, so they would likely be good in a fight either way, however I agree that MMA doesn't necessarily determine the best fighter in a real life situation.

Now I don't know exactly, but I'd assume that a very well trained Krav Maga practitioner or a MCMAP master would likely beat and kill a similarly trained MMA fighter, as obviously many of the techniques the MMA fighter uses is very much focussed on winning within the rules of the game.
It's probably the best gauge we have though.

What most people don't realize, is that these military styles are utterly indistinguishable from MMA. The only thing an MMA fighter has to do to become "deadly" is well....not stop choking his opponent.
Check out this video of military melee training from the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6yJ_-urZxY

Unsurprisingly, kickboxing, judo, boxing, jujitsu, muay thai, wrestling, karate, sambo and all these other "ring styles" that "don't work for real" are what the military uses.

They even tap out during competition too. I pointed it out before, but it'd be stupid to kill or maim people during competition. It doesn't mean a pro fighter can't do it.

A marine going to the ground and armbarring someone? *Gasp*

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8849/800pxarmbartechniquemcm.jpg

This isn't aimed at you specifically, Bardock42. I know you weren't saying most of that stuff, but you gave me a way in. 131

Bardock42

Originally posted by StyleTime
It's probably the best gauge we have though.

I wouldn't say so, unless you modify it a bit. If you say it's the best gauge we in western nations have within legal limits, then sure, count me in.

Originally posted by StyleTime
What most people don't realize, is that these military styles are utterly indistinguishable from MMA. The only thing an MMA fighter has to do to become "deadly" is well....not stop choking his opponent.
Check out this video of military melee training from the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6yJ_-urZxY

Unsurprisingly, kickboxing, judo, boxing, jujitsu, muay thai, wrestling, karate, sambo and all these other "ring styles" that "don't work for real" are what the military uses.

They even tap out during competition too. I pointed it out before, but it'd be stupid to kill or maim people during competition. It doesn't mean a pro fighter can't do it.

A marine going to the ground and armbarring someone? *Gasp*

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8849/800pxarmbartechniquemcm.jpg

This isn't aimed at you specifically, Bardock42. I know you weren't saying most of that stuff, but you gave me a way in. 131

Lol, well, you are right it's not what I said stick out tongue

. I'm with you for the most part in thinking MMA isn't bullshit. And that it obviously shows prowess. Perhaps we disagree on some issues, as I do think that a fight to the death is different to what we see in MMA, but I would not deny that the techniques they use are useful in real fights.

I do think that a real fight wouldn't necessarily go down like most MMA fights do, but to claim it is pointless and totally removed from any reality is absurd to me.

Though the 1 guy beat up 7 Shaolin Monks (make that 7 petty thugs for all I care) at once thing someone mentioned...I mean, c'mon

batdude123

YTIv8fGkVpE

Omega Vision

Originally posted by batdude123
YTIv8fGkVpE
Bas needs to get his own cereal brand for kids who want to grow up to be big, strong, and ready to choke people out at the drop of a hat.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wouldn't say so, unless you modify it a bit. If you say it's the best gauge we in western nations have within legal limits, then sure, count me in.

I do think that a real fight wouldn't necessarily go down like most MMA fights do, but to claim it is pointless and totally removed from any reality is absurd to me.

Though the 1 guy beat up 7 Shaolin Monks (make that 7 petty thugs for all I care) at once thing someone mentioned...I mean, c'mon
I'd say so. The organizations in the east are nearly identical to ours and "street fight" footage between high level combatants is hard to come by. You may have had something else in mind though.

I can agree here. I doubt most fighters would engage in a feeling out process in a "real" combat scenario. Strategies would change as well, etc.

I said I wouldn't be surprised. Obviously, any fighter is disadvantaged against multiple people. It's just that Machida could potentially one hit KO each guy. It may not be likely, but it is possible. The average person is surprisingly ineffective in a fight. Even against a group, a boxer was able to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

I don't want to turn this into, "Find one crazy video that supports what you said", but I do think it is food for thought. Those guys had like 0 concept of spacing, hands down, probably shitty taste in music.

Overall, I can see your stance though.

Bardock42

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'd say so. The organizations in the east are nearly identical to ours and "street fight" footage between high level combatants is hard to come by. You may have had something else in mind though.

I can agree here. I doubt most fighters would engage in a feeling out process in a "real" combat scenario. Strategies would change as well, etc.

I said I wouldn't be surprised. Obviously, any fighter is disadvantaged against multiple people. It's just that Machida could potentially one hit KO each guy. It may not be likely, but it is possible. The average person is surprisingly ineffective in a fight. Even against a group, a boxer was able to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDlzL7zrNU

I don't want to turn this into, "Find one crazy video that supports what you said", but I do think it is food for thought. Those guys had like 0 concept of spacing, hands down, probably shitty taste in music.

Overall, I can see your stance though.

Well, I was mostly thinking that you could potentially just have fights to the death. That would give you a good idea, probably happens in some parts of the world, too. But that's why I said, it's a pretty good gauge within western legal limits (I usually count Japan as "Western" wink

StyleTime

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I was mostly thinking that you could potentially just have fights to the death. That would give you a good idea, probably happens in some parts of the world, too. But that's why I said, it's a pretty good gauge within western legal limits (I usually count Japan as "Western" wink

I agree that most normal people are rather ineffective, however if you talk about 7 people who fight often or are trained very well (even if in a somewhat ineffective style) it seems very unlikely that one fighter could beat them all, at least to me.
Ok. I can accept that. I think to the death matches are too hard to come for it to be a reliable gauge though.

I meant that mostly to the thugs you brought up. I don't think it's extremely likely either.

In any case, I am being unnecessarily argumentative. KMC does that to you. We're saying nearly the exact same thing, but I'm being "that guy" about it. stick out tongue

I'll drop it.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by StyleTime
Ok. Looks like we're roughly on the same page in all honesty. I just highlighted that fighters hold back in a ruleset, but don't necessarily neglect their art during training.

I can agree with that somewhat. Most pro fighters may not train like....720 hook kicks, but it's less watering a style down than dojos who only point spar.

I do still disagree here. The sport fighter has every advantage. He's more conditioned, more skilled, better fundamentals, better reflexes, and trains more effective techniques. For example, pro fighters have better head movement than your average dojo dude. These fighters effectively move their entire heads out of the way of incoming strikes; to hit a target as small as their eyes in combat is unlikely. Even training such techniques would be difficult; eye gouging in training would leave students out of commission often and would probably cause many to quit honestly.

I referred to general combat effectiveness of the Navy SEALS. I didn't know if he meant specifically hand to hand.

In any case, we quickly approach the point of agreement here; I offer this as the intersection of our views. Two equally skilled fighters face off without rules, but one has a proven record of beating high level opponents with these "deadly" techniques. I would probably give him the advantage. That may be what you meant, but it came off as something else.

A real man would stay and volunteer to take the eye gouges estahuh

But really, I'm not too sure on the conditioning part, but sport fighters would more than likely win the physical strength conditioning, unless we're talking martial artists built like Bruce Lee. I'll give them skills in sense of having done more fights, fundamentals well that is basically what they train more on as opposed to training moves like butterfly kicks. Reflexes sports guys again I would guess, though some martial artists have amazing reflexes that could translate well into real fights, like the Wushu competitions though it is choreographed they have some impressively quick people.

In general Navy SEALs are definitely effective, H2H I still haven't heard any story of anyone in military using their H2H training other than basic training when recruits manage to PO a drill instructor enough.

Basically what I meant.

Quiero Mota

Mosty military H2H involves a knife or grabbing some kind of makeshift weapon. Putting up your dukes in modern warfare just doesn't seem very practical...or smart

StyleTime

Originally posted by SpadeKing
A real man would stay and volunteer to take the eye gouges estahuh

But really, I'm not too sure on the conditioning part, but sport fighters would more than likely win the physical strength conditioning, unless we're talking martial artists built like Bruce Lee. I'll give them skills in sense of having done more fights, fundamentals well that is basically what they train more on as opposed to training moves like butterfly kicks. Reflexes sports guys again I would guess, though some martial artists have amazing reflexes that could translate well into real fights, like the Wushu competitions though it is choreographed they have some impressively quick people.

In general Navy SEALs are definitely effective, H2H I still haven't heard any story of anyone in military using their H2H training other than basic training when recruits manage to PO a drill instructor enough.

Basically what I meant.
I know. I'm not a real man. sad

Cool.

Agreed.

I figured. That's why I dropped it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Mosty military H2H involves a knife or grabbing some kind of makeshift weapon. Putting up your dukes in modern warfare just doesn't seem very practical...or smart
I agree with that.

Also, thanks to everyone for remaining civil.

Quiero Mota

^Que dices, puto?

Quiero Mota

This is a statue of an ancient Greek boxer, circa 600 BC.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Boxer.jpg

^Notice how the leather hand-wrappings resemble modern MMA gloves.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This is a statue of an ancient Greek boxer, circa 600 BC.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Boxer.jpg

^Notice how the leather hand-wrappings resemble modern MMA gloves. Very interesting. Good catch on that one.

Anyway, just to sum it up, I love Boxing Kickboxing and MMA. These 3 'sports' I value for the art.

StyleTime

That is a cool find Quiero Mota.

Prep-Man

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's the only thing that matters, bro.

And, yes. Gina Carrano's ****in hot.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/carano.gif

Hot damn! I've been looking for her name for a while. Glad I clicked this link. rolling on floor laughing

Darth Angel

I would put my money in a guy like Overeem over 7 shaolin monks, that's for sure. After all, he fought 6 bouncers and put 5 in the hospital (I guess the last one ran for his life lol).

batdude123

He was fighting them with his brother. He wasn't alone.

RE: Blaxican

Bouncers = Shaolin Monks?

StyleTime

No, the bouncers are probably better fighters.

batdude123

Much bigger and stronger too (f*ck the mystical "chi" bullshit).

Darth Angel

I know Alistair was with his brother but he knocked most of the guys, he even went to the hospital because his hand was getting infected for punching all that guys.
But hey, I could get more examples. Chuck was known for knocking out guys in bars. Aleksander Emelianenko beat the crap of a group of guys (not sure how many, but I think they were like half a dozen or something) who called ***** to his wife and a friend of her. Roger Huerta, a lightweight (155 lbs class) knocked out a guy who seemed to have 100 pounds on him in a streetfight. Actually you can see the situation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmfXN588F98&feature=related

And by the way, I would take a big muscular bouncer, with probably some background in martial arts, over a shaolin monk anyday.

Mindset

If half a dozen guys can't beat one person, even if they're a pro fighter, that's pitiful.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
No, the bouncers are probably better fighters.

Not even. Some guy who checks ID cards for 8 bucks an hour > lifelong students of fighting? Gimmie a break.

Originally posted by batdude123
Much bigger and stronger too (f*ck the mystical "chi" bullshit).

Chi is nothing to screw with, actually. Its some scary stuff. Are you familiar with the discipline known as Iron Shirt? There's an episode of Fight Science about it, you should check it out. This one monk totally baffled the scientist and all their modern equipment with what he did.

Originally posted by Mindset
If half a dozen guys can't beat one person, even if they're a pro fighter, that's pitiful.

Right? That manager hired some sorry-ass bouncers.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Chi is nothing to screw with, actually. Its some scary stuff. Are you familiar with the discipline known as Iron Shirt? There's an episode of Fight Science about it, you should check it out. This one monk totally baffled the scientist and all their modern equipment with what he did.

pdrzBL2dHMI

gEDaCIDvj6I

Take a Shaolin Monk and put him up against somebody like Shogun, and he would get thoroughly embarrassed.

Prep-Man

I'd take the Shaolin Monk over a bouncer anyday. Plus, I heard of a Monk taking it to a bouncer type build not too long ago. One of those traveling monks that was showing off.

The Nuul

WTF? We are not talking about bouncers in here.

Monks and MA teachers etc... do not fight for real. MMA fighters do.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
pdrzBL2dHMI

gEDaCIDvj6I

Take a Shaolin Monk and put him up against somebody like Shogun, and he would get thoroughly embarrassed.

What the f**k?

Dame un respiro, guey...

You went and specifically found two videos with guys who were obviously frauds and grifters. And notice how they weren't even monks; one was American and the other was Japanese. Furthermore, they both do Karate, and Chi, Qi Gong and the Dim-mak (death touch) are all specifically Shaolin disciplines. And I knew the first video was a failure the moment they mentioned that walking joke George Dillman. The George Dillman International Schools is actually an entire chain of McDojos, there's even one a couple miles from my house. Dillman, who does Americanized Kenpo Karate, was the one who first coined the concept of the "no-touch knock-out" back in the 70's, and has never once agreed to have it tested scientifically. Him and all his schools are cons.

So you really dropped the ball with those two attempted counter-examples.

In any event, THIS is the video I was reffering to:

KArX8iNnY4Q

^That guy is a true monk and the real deal. Shogun's kicks would bounce off him like raindrops.

batdude123

Yes, I've seen numerous examples of people doing the exact same things as the guy above. Three things:

1. The original point still stands. The bouncers are much stronger.

2. They never do any tests on the subject's head. I've seen dozens of examples of guys getting smashed with wood and metal on their abdomen, arms, back, etc, but never in the head. Frankly there's no evidence they wouldn't get KO'd. It's an entirely different matter when you're dealing with the brain.

3. Those guys have no actual combat experience. It's all theory and practice. That's no substitute for what Shogun does. If it took him longer than a minute to dispatch one of those guys, I'd be shocked.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
1. The original point still stands. The bouncers are much stronger.

Big deal. Just because they can bench press a lot, doesn't mean they can take a blade to the neck. Or even win a fight. Besides, are the vast majority of bouncers trained in anything...or are they just hired because they're big and tall? Just something to think about.

Originally posted by batdude123
2. They never do any tests on the subject's head. I've seen dozens of examples of guys getting smashed with wood and metal on their abdomen, arms, back, etc, but never in the head. Frankly there's no evidence they wouldn't get KO'd. It's an entirely different matter when you're dealing with the brain.

Because the brain is more sensitive than the torso (that's common knowledge). Qi Gong is called Iron Shirt for a reason, its not "Iron Helmet". Besides, he took a spear to the throat with 2,900 PSI; thats pretty impressive and incredible. Could some random bouncer do that? I doubt it.

Originally posted by batdude123
3. Those guys have no actual combat experience. It's all theory and practice. That's no substitute for what Shogun does. If it took him longer than a minute to dispatch one of those guys, I'd be shocked.

Who's "those guys"? Are we generalizing? I don't know Master Huang personally; maybe he's been in scraps, maybe not. I doubt he'd be a pushover in a real fight. Either way he demonstrated that his neck is essentially impervious to a blade with nearly a ton and 1/2 of force behind it.

If Shogun even could kick that guy's ass, it would would take longer than a minute. That real monk could no doubt whoop those two phonies in the videos you posted.

Mindset

I'd knock that monk out.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Big deal. Just because they can bench press a lot, doesn't mean they can take a blade to the neck. Or even win a fight. Besides, are the vast majority of bouncers trained in anything...or are they just hired because they're big and tall? Just something to think about.

Whether you want to admit it or not, strength plays a big part in knock-down-drag-out brawls. If someone grabs a hold of you, it's going to take more than flying kicks and katas to save you.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because the brain is more sensitive than the torso (that's common knowledge). Qi Gong is called Iron Shirt for a reason, its not "Iron Helmet". Besides, he took a spear to the throat with 2,900 PSI; thats pretty impressive and incredible. Could some random bouncer do that? I doubt it.

Of course it's impressive. If a bouncer tried that, he'd obviously bleed out.

That being said, you're placing way too much emphasis on a demonstration that has no practical purposes in a real life scenario. He has to take time and effort to prepare himself physically and mentally for the task at hand. In the heat of battle, not only would he not have the time to prepare himself, but more importantly, his focus would be entirely on his opponent, not about taking a bat to the gut or a spear to the throat.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Who's "those guys"? Are we generalizing? I don't know Master Huang personally; maybe he's been in scraps, maybe not. I doubt he'd be a pushover in a real fight. Either way he demonstrated that his neck is essentially impervious to a blade with nearly a ton and 1/2 of force behind it.

The Shaolin monastery is Buddhist in faith and practice. The whole concept is about the sanctity of inner peace. They don't believe in violence unless it's for self-defense purposes. So yeah, I can flat-out guarantee that the guy in your video hasn't been in as many fights as a professional fighter... if he's been in any at all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If Shogun even could kick that guy's ass, it would would take longer than a minute. That real monk could no doubt whoop those two phonies in the videos you posted.

"If Shogun even could"?

Lawl. I know this might be hard to comprehend, but what that guy demonstrated in the video doesn't make him an effective fighter.

The Nuul

MMA is closer to tournament TKD then it is to real MA's. Hell, Tournament is not even closer to real MA's. A bunch of people punching trees, bricks and mats etc... is a lot different than fighting or sparring a real Human being.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Mindset
If half a dozen guys can't beat one person, even if they're a pro fighter, that's pitiful.
I agree that any fighter is disadvantaged against multiple opponents, but it doesn't suprise me when something like this happens. People usually suck at fighting, and going up against a top ten heavyweight only further highlights the issue.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not even. Some guy who checks ID cards for 8 bucks an hour > lifelong students of fighting? Gimmie a break.
It's highly debatable if they are "lifelong students of fighting" being that we rarely, if ever, see them fight.
Originally posted by Prep-Man
I'd take the Shaolin Monk over a bouncer anyday.
If they lived up to the hype, then obviously the monk wins; however, it's nearly impossible to argue with any solid evidence.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Big deal. Just because they can bench press a lot, doesn't mean they can take a blade to the neck. Or even win a fight. Besides, are the vast majority of bouncers trained in anything...or are they just hired because they're big and tall? Just something to think about.

If Shogun even could kick that guy's ass, it would would take longer than a minute. That real monk could no doubt whoop those two phonies in the videos you posted.
You're right. Demonstrations require a shit ton of training, but that isn't the same as fighting. The technique the monk uses on the bat is actually found in like....a billion martial arts styles(including ones used in MMA).

Nah. Shogun would break the dude's leg with a kneebar.

I'm only being fair here. If we saw some MMAtist claim he could beat Shogun just because he could burst a punching bag, I'd say the exact same thing.
Originally posted by The Nuul
MMA is closer to tournament TKD then it is to real MA's. Hell, Tournament is not even closer to real MA's. A bunch of people punching trees, bricks and mats etc... is a lot different than fighting or sparring a real Human being.
Exactly. Humans actually fight back.

Darth Angel

I have no problem with people training katas and takind different martial arts, but they should not delude themselves, they are not becoming a lethal weapon with that.

Thinking well, let people think that TMA are the sh*t. It's easier to punch them in the face if they decide to pick a fight anyway. wink

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
Whether you want to admit it or not, strength plays a big part in knock-down-drag-out brawls. If someone grabs a hold of you, it's going to take more than flying kicks and katas to save you.

That monk definitely wouldn't do a flying kick. If grabbed, he would reciprocate, and we'd have a ground fight on our hands. Its a misconception that Kung Fu is all strikes. Tiger, Dragon, Monkey, Praying Mantis (which I do), Elephant, Bear and others all have a good amount of stand-up grappling and ground game. In fact, Python is like 90% grappling.

Kata may seem corny and roundabout to the non-traditionalist, but it has its uses and is a good exercise/drill. It can be compared to shadowboxing, but with more focus. Every single move, stance and stance transition that makes up a kata serves a purpose.

Originally posted by batdude123
Of course it's impressive. If a bouncer tried that, he'd obviously bleed out.

That being said, you're placing way too much emphasis on a demonstration that has no practical purposes in a real life scenario. He has to take time and effort to prepare himself physically and mentally for the task at hand. In the heat of battle, not only would he not have the time to prepare himself, but more importantly, his focus would be entirely on his opponent, not about taking a bat to the gut or a spear to the throat.

No practical purpose? What if someone pulled a kinfe on him? Well, there you go. That's when Qi Gong (Iron Shirt) would come into play.

Originally posted by batdude123
The Shaolin monastery is Buddhist in faith and practice. The whole concept is about the sanctity of inner peace. They don't believe in violence unless it's for self-defense purposes. So yeah, I can flat-out guarantee that the guy in your video hasn't been in as many fights as a professional fighter... if he's been in any at all.

Training for self-defense purposes is exactly that: training for the unforeseeable, as anything is possible. Cagefighters train for one-on-one fights where there's a ref there to stop it for them if they're losing and it gets out of hand.

Sports fighting is about aerobics as much as it is about landing the knockout blow or finding the subsmission. A real fight should never last 15 or 25 minutes.

Originally posted by batdude123
"If Shogun even could"?

Lawl. I know this might be hard to comprehend, but what that guy demonstrated in the video doesn't make him an effective fighter.

Do you think he's not a good fighter? I think we have every reason to believe he certainly wouldn't be a pushover. In a real fight there's only one objective: live.

The Nuul

Real MA's is about the body and mind, not about fighting someone. The movies got it twisted.

Mindset

Originally posted by StyleTime
I agree that any fighter is disadvantaged against multiple opponents, but it doesn't suprise me when something like this happens. People usually suck at fighting, and going up against a top ten heavyweight only further highlights the issue.
Aleks isn't a top ten HW, but yea, that's why it's pitiful. Unless they tried to fight him one at a time MA movie style, them all getting beaten is just sad.

Darth Piggott

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's the only thing that matters, bro.

And, yes. Gina Carrano's ****in hot.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/carano.gif thumb up

StyleTime

Originally posted by Mindset
Aleks isn't a top ten HW, but yea, that's why it's pitiful. Unless they tried to fight him one at a time MA movie style, them all getting beaten is just sad.
I completely thought you were talking about Overeem when I said "top ten heavyweight."

And yeah. Losing 6 on 1 should make for an embarrassing story.

Quiero Mota

I know right.

I can almost picture them standing in a single-file line, and taking turns. One fool gets knocked out, and then the next guy charges.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That monk definitely wouldn't do a flying kick. If grabbed, he would reciprocate, and we'd have a ground fight on our hands. Its a misconception that Kung Fu is all strikes. Tiger, Dragon, Monkey, Praying Mantis (which I do), Elephant, Bear and others all have a good amount of stand-up grappling and ground game. In fact, Python is like 90% grappling.

I've seen videos of the Tiger style grappling. The moves are way too highly dependent on the positioning of the opponent. In a real-life scenario, he's not going to be working with you in order to showcase the "effectiveness" of that style. It's the same reason why people criticize aikido.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Kata may seem corny and roundabout to the non-traditionalist, but it has its uses and is a good exercise/drill. It can be compared to shadowboxing, but with more focus. Every single move, stance and stance transition that makes up a kata serves a purpose.

I understand what katas are used for, thanks. That being said, you can't prepare for the unpredictable nature of a fight by using pre-determined sequences of movements.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No practical purpose? What if someone pulled a kinfe on him? Well, there you go. That's when Qi Gong (Iron Shirt) would come into play.

Again, a demonstration =/= real life scenario. The guy doesn't walk around impervious to knives. If someone came up behind him and stabbed him, I can guarantee that he'd be punctured. Being able to focus and prepare oneself physically/mentally isn't something he'd have the luxury of doing in a random encounter.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Training for self-defense purposes is exactly that: training for the unforeseeable, as anything is possible. Cagefighters train for one-on-one fights where there's a ref there to stop it for them if they're losing and it gets out of hand.

Sports fighting is about aerobics as much as it is about landing the knockout blow or finding the subsmission. A real fight should never last 15 or 25 minutes.

You're also not going to have two adept mixed martial artists with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, NCAA Division I wrestling, or kickboxing backgrounds fighting in a random encounter, so this point is moot. We've seen how Roger Huerta handled a guy who looked damn-near 100 pounds heavier than him in a real fight, and we've already covered the Aleksander Emelianenko instance as well. And there are plenty of other examples.

Trying to make it seem like MMA fighters can't handle themselves in a real life fight is laughable.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you think he's not a good fighter? I think we have every reason to believe he certainly wouldn't be a pushover. In a real fight there's only one objective: live.

There's no evidence to suggest he's a good fighter.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
I've seen videos of the Tiger style grappling. The moves are way too highly dependent on the positioning of the opponent. In a real-life scenario, he's not going to be working with you in order to showcase the "effectiveness" of that style. It's the same reason why people criticize aikido.

What kind of 'videos' were they? If they were anything like the 2 quacks in your earlier videos, then yeah, they're probably not very convincing. Tiger grappling is highly effective: it places a heavy emphasis on clawing, biting, and attacks to the eyes and throat. Therefore, Tiger is essentially a banned style in MMA.

Aikido and Tiger are two different animals (no pun intended). Aikido was invented in the 20th century, and was from the beginning intended to be 100% defensive. Tiger, by contrast, is highly aggressive (just like the creature its based on) and isn't dependent on anything. The video you saw likely had one guy throwing a punch, frezzing in motion, and then the other guy did some move. But that's a very, very, very dumbed down version of how it is applied for people who are complete beginners in MA.

In fact, a while back I was reading an issue of Fight! (an MMA magazine), and Aikido was jokingly referred to as "hippie judo". Which isn't too far off the mark.

Originally posted by batdude123
I understand what katas are used for, thanks. That being said, you can't prepare for the unpredictable nature of a fight by using pre-determined sequences of movements.

Well, that's not what they're intended for. They're meant to develop balance, get used to stances, and reflexive movement so that it all becomes second nature. So in that way, they do help.

Originally posted by batdude123
Again, a demonstration =/= real life scenario. The guy doesn't walk around impervious to knives. If someone came up behind him and stabbed him, I can guarantee that he'd be punctured. Being able to focus and prepare oneself physically/mentally isn't something he'd have the luxury of doing in a random encounter.

Because he wouldn't have the time or opportunity to do so. He would do Chin Na, which is a form of mental/physical focus during a real-time situation. The person thinks/does/reacts all at once.

Originally posted by batdude123
You're also not going to have two adept mixed martial artists with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, NCAA Division I wrestling, or kickboxing backgrounds fighting in a random encounter, so this point is moot. We've seen how Roger Huerta handled a guy who looked damn-near 100 pounds heavier than him in a real fight, and we've already covered the Aleksander Emelianenko instance as well. And there are plenty of other examples.

Trying to make it seem like MMA fighters can't handle themselves in a real life fight is laughable.

Good point. The general public by-and-large sucks at fighting.

Originally posted by batdude123

There's no evidence to suggest he's a good fighter.

Then I guess we're at impasse. Since I can't produce courtroom-type evidence to show his fighting prowess while typing here from my laptop, you're unwilling to budge. But if we employ a little common sense, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he could certainly defend himself in a fight. Though, I suspect you just don't want to give him any credit at all, no matter what. Its not like he's some blow-hard, lard-ass couch potato who says he can do various things but isn't willing to show for it.

----

Just to be clear: I'm not knocking MMA. I've been a UFC fan since its inception in 1993. I've been to 18 UFC events, as well as to numerous local, lesser events put on by small promotions. (By the way, I'm actually related to Efrain Escudero by marriage). But I think its necassary to criticize the popular school of thought that MMA is the be-all and end-all of martial marts. That criticism also applies to dogmatic traditional martial artists, of which there's no shortage.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What kind of 'videos' were they? If they were anything like the 2 quacks in your earlier videos, then yeah, they're probably not very convincing. Tiger grappling is highly effective: it places a heavy emphasis on clawing, biting, and attacks to the eyes and throat. Therefore, Tiger is essentially a banned style in MMA.

Aikido and Tiger are two different animals (no pun intended). Aikido was invented in the 20th century, and was from the beginning intended to be 100% defensive. Tiger, by contrast, is highly aggressive (just like the creature its based on) and isn't dependent on anything. The video you saw likely had one guy throwing a punch, frezzing in motion, and then the other guy did some move. But that's a very, very, very dumbed down version of how it is applied for people who are complete beginners in MA.

In fact, a while back I was reading an issue of Fight! (an MMA magazine), and Aikido was jokingly referred to as "hippie judo". Which isn't too far off the mark.

Actually, the video showed basically what you're talking about, including head control, wrist control, etc. The problem is that the eyes are minuscule targets when your opponent is flailing about. And a wrestler/BJJ practitioner can just as easily hit those sensitive areas in a no-holds barred fight. In fact, the Gracie's style of jiu-jitsu is pretty brutal, and they'd be the first to tell you that going for "submissions" in a real life scenario isn't the most practical thing to do (unless you choke them unconscious). It's all about establishing position, and then from there, you can do whatever you want to with your opponent.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, that's not what they're intended for. They're meant to develop balance, get used to stances, and reflexive movement so that it all becomes second nature. So in that way, they do help.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because he wouldn't have the time or opportunity to do so. He would do Chin Na, which is a form of mental/physical focus during a real-time situation. The person thinks/does/reacts all at once.

From what I understand, Chin Na is a grappling art and martial arts such as Judo, Jutusu, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu all evolved from it. But the key is evolution. Combat has evolved over the years, and these are the more effective styles. They don't place emphasis on specific ways for an opponent to attack you, but rather, they flow and allow you to deal with things as they come naturally.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Good point. The general public by-and-large sucks at fighting.

And for that reason, I may agree with you that a Monk would probably beat up the average person.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then I guess we're at impasse. Since I can't produce courtroom-type evidence to show his fighting prowess while typing here from my laptop, you're unwilling to budge. But if we employ a little common sense, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he could certainly defend himself in a fight. Though, I suspect you just don't want to give him any credit at all, no matter what. Its not like he's some blow-hard, lard-ass couch potato who says he can do various things but isn't willing to show for it.

While I don't doubt he'd be able to beat up random pedestrian X, a professional fighter who has actual experience with fighting and does nothing but eat, sleep, and breathe combat like Shogun is an entirely different story.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Just to be clear: I'm not knocking MMA. I've been a UFC fan since its inception in 1993. I've been to 18 UFC events, as well as to numerous local, lesser events put on by small promotions. (By the way, I'm actually related to Efrain Escudero by marriage). But I think its necassary to criticize the popular school of thought that MMA is the be-all and end-all of martial marts. That criticism also applies to dogmatic traditional martial artists, of which there's no shortage.

I understand where you're coming from, but MMA fighters don't have to play fair in the streets either.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Mosty military H2H involves a knife or grabbing some kind of makeshift weapon. Putting up your dukes in modern warfare just doesn't seem very practical...or smart

Works on CoD & Fallout ermm

Originally posted by The Nuul
WTF? We are not talking about bouncers in here.

Monks and MA teachers etc... do not fight for real. MMA fighters do.

No, MMA fighters fight for competition. My main Sifu on the other hand has plenty of actual fights to share, one I heard so far that involved some mma guy who thought he could beat Frank Shamrock. I don't know how the fight started, but my Sifu got head butted and has a scar from it. All I know is he (word for word) "kicked his a--".

StyleTime

Originally posted by SpadeKing
No, MMA fighters fight for competition. My main Sifu on the other hand has plenty of actual fights to share, one I heard so far that involved some mma guy who thought he could beat Frank Shamrock. I don't know how the fight started, but my Sifu got head butted and has a scar from it. All I know is he (word for word) "kicked his a--".
Well, there's the same problem that keeps resurfacing. MMA fighters have proven ability. Your Sifu appears to have stories that may or not be true.

Acting like MMAtists can't fight outside the ring is absurd. Not trying to be mean, but are we still going to go through this guys? Seriously?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But I think its necassary to criticize the popular school of thought that MMA is the be-all and end-all of martial marts. That criticism also applies to dogmatic traditional martial artists, of which there's no shortage.
MMA, Vale Tudo, etc are probably the best venues available for safely training your skills while still maintaining realism. I think that is where the "be all end all" thing comes from.

That and the beer bellied wrasslin' fans who recently got into it. sad

Originally posted by batdude123
We've seen how Roger Huerta handled a guy who looked damn-near 100 pounds heavier than him in a real fight
Yep. He was an ex-NFL player if I recall correctly, and was pretty 'effin huge.

Darth Angel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk

What he says about Aikido aplies to many TMA. Let's just rephrase Bruce Lee, you should study all martial arts, learn what works, forget what doesn't work. MMA did that, and the only martial arts that doesn't agree are the ones who didn't pass the test obviously.

Now, you can agree with the evidence and the Darwin's aproach of MMA to fighting or you can just believe in each martial art bible, believing that you are invincible until you fight a good boxer who breaks your jaw.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
Actually, the video showed basically what you're talking about, including head control, wrist control, etc. The problem is that the eyes are minuscule targets when your opponent is flailing about. And a wrestler/BJJ practitioner can just as easily hit those sensitive areas in a no-holds barred fight. In fact, the Gracie's style of jiu-jitsu is pretty brutal, and they'd be the first to tell you that going for "submissions" in a real life scenario isn't the most practical thing to do (unless you choke them unconscious). It's all about establishing position, and then from there, you can do whatever you want to with your opponent.

Fair enough.

From what I understand, Chin Na is a grappling art and martial arts such as Judo, Jutusu, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu all evolved from it. But the key is evolution. Combat has evolved over the years, and these are the more effective styles. They don't place emphasis on specific ways for an opponent to attack you, but rather, they flow and allow you to deal with things as they come naturally.

And for that reason, I may agree with you that a Monk would probably beat up the average person.

While I don't doubt he'd be able to beat up random pedestrian X, a professional fighter who has actual experience with fighting and does nothing but eat, sleep, and breathe combat like Shogun is an entirely different story.

I understand where you're coming from, but MMA fighters don't have to play fair in the streets either.

Chin Na has grappling in it, but that's hardly the entirety of it. Like Qi Gong and Nei Jing, its a very chi-based discipline. Though in your defense, most Americanized Kung Fu schools typically bill Chin Na as a form of stand-up grappling.

Originally posted by Darth Angel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk

What he says about Aikido aplies to many TMA. Let's just rephrase Bruce Lee, you should study all martial arts, learn what works, forget what doesn't work. MMA did that, and the only martial arts that doesn't agree are the ones who didn't pass the test obviously.

Now, you can agree with the evidence and the Darwin's aproach of MMA to fighting or you can just believe in each martial art bible, believing that you are invincible until you fight a good boxer who breaks your jaw.

^That's the attitude I'm referring to. All martial arts "work", depending on what's going on; "the right tool for the right job". The reason we don't see Aikido often if ever in MMA, is because it has a lot of lapel grabs and gi throws, which depend on the opponent wearing clothes. And obviously, the guys in MMA are shirtless. When you break it down, Aikido is really just a softer style of Judo.

SpadeKing

Originally posted by StyleTime
Well, there's the same problem that keeps resurfacing. MMA fighters have proven ability. Your Sifu appears to have stories that may or not be true.

Acting like MMAtists can't fight outside the ring is absurd. Not trying to be mean, but are we still going to go through this guys? Seriously

Of course they can fight outside the ring, but the insinuation that people who don't regularly fight competitively can't fight is absurd. Though, then again he does spar on occasion.

I personally take his word for it and not just cause he is my Sifu. I couldn't see the guy ever lying, even as a sarcastic joke.

Quiero Mota

This is a funny video.

kvTxH11O2HU

Nowadays, its kinda hard to believe that a MA book would seriously promote those two cartoonish moves. Then again, the book was written in the 80's when fad-dojos were popping up on every corner. The MA craze of the 70's was still going strong.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How are they inneffective? A martial art specifically designed to maim and hurt is obviously more effective in a real fight, than a martial art that's a combat sport with built-in rules (ie: boxing and wrestling). Many cagefighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, they receive cursory training in Muay Thai and Jiujitsu (watered-down versions, as he pointed out), and then call themselves martial artists? Gimmie a break. An Okinawan Sensei or Shaolin Monk would destroy those arrogant kids, who are only doing it for the money, anyways.

As for the "ground game"; what if you're outnumbered? See, "ground and pound" only works in one-on-one fights, and preferably with a ref present. Ground fighting is ideal in a combat sport, not in a choatic bar brawl.

Hit the nail on the head.

And yeah, I studied Lau Gar for close to five years, and when MMA became big, I saw it the same way - gimmicky and impractical.

They use western boxing which is a more narrow and limited system than the striking techniques found in Gung Fu and even Karate, and I've seen MMA fighters in TV and real life make mistakes in a fight that even a first-year LG student wouldn't make - such as exposing your back after throwing a roundhouse kick or backfist.

I've beaten a few of my friends who practice MMA in sparring matches and always comment they should switch to something more practical, but they're loyal to the stuff.

I can see eye-to-eye with most MMA people staying loyal to their art - I feel the same way about mine.
But it is impractical and generally nowhere near as effective as classical MA.

My two cents.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This is a funny video.

*video snipped

Nowadays, its kinda hard to believe that a MA book would seriously promote those two cartoonish moves. Then again, the book was written in the 80's when fad-dojos were popping up on every corner. The MA craze of the 70's was still going strong.
_1ykNZ7rAcw
Originally posted by NowYouRemember
Hit the nail on the head.

And yeah, I studied Lau Gar for close to five years, and when MMA became big, I saw it the same way - gimmicky and impractical.

They use western boxing which is a more narrow and limited system than the striking techniques found in Gung Fu and even Karate, and I've seen MMA fighters in TV and real life make mistakes in a fight that even a first-year LG student wouldn't make - such as exposing your back after throwing a roundhouse kick or backfist.

But it is impractical and generally nowhere near as effective as classical MA.

My two cents.
That post is mostly incorrect. And Karate is used in MMA.

batdude123

Originally posted by StyleTime
That post is incorrect. And Karate is used in MMA.

Fixed.

StyleTime

I said "mostly" because he said stuff like he studied Lau Gar, which might be true.

I'm trying to be fair and balanced.

uhuh

Edit: Have you noticed that most of the "MMA is impractical" sentiments usually come from Kung Fu stylists? It's strange since kung fu is frequently accused of the same thing by nearly every other style on the planet.

I rarely see legitimate Judo or Karate stylists lash out at MMA. Then again, they have way more representation and successful fighters, so maybe they don't care as much.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by StyleTime
I said "mostly" because he said stuff like he studied Lau Gar, which might be true.

I'm trying to be fair and balanced.

uhuh

Edit: Have you noticed that most of the "MMA is impractical" sentiments usually come from Kung Fu stylists? It's strange since kung fu is frequently accused of the same thing by nearly every other style on the planet.

I rarely see legitimate Judo or Karate stylists lash out at MMA. Then again, they have way more representation and successful fighters, so maybe they don't care as much.

It's highly impractical. Whenever you seek to check your opponent by use of aggression and brute force, you set yourself up for defeat.
There isn't much about most forms of Gung Fu that are impractical - unless they aren't applied properly.

In the variation of Lau Gar I learned, we use sweeping motions with one arm to block incoming strikes and it's very effective.
It's a type of circular motion that some types of Karate also use.
It takes defense to a progressive and kinetically-active level, rather than just standing there and holding one arm up against your head, and waiting for your opponent to decide which part of your body he wants to smash in that particular moment of time.
- That's most of the defense in MMA, which is derived from western boxing.

Typically when I spar against a friend who practices MMA, he does that sort of thing, and it allows me to control the tempo of the fight.
Then he goes in close after I block everything and tries to slap a submission on me, during which time, with his hands planted on my body, I fire a precise strike to an exposed part of his body, or use a joint-lock to break away and re-position myself.

I've noticed that while MMA seems to be mostly very primitive, it is slowly adapting techniques found in Gung Fu, such as foot-stomps or backfists.
I remember seeing a bout where the spectators made a big deal about the backfist, even though in Gung Fu and LG to be sure, you learn it within the first year and it's a casual technique.
What is fantastic to them, is something very mundane in Gung Fu.

Also, if I use MMA and defend myself from an attacker by trying to have a drawn-out boxing match with them - punches to the body and head, that may last minutes, I'm doing myself a disservice.

If I use Lau Gar and defend myself from an attacker, my positioning my body in sync with his, and delivering a single punch to his eye-socket, planting him to the ground in agony, I'm achieving the technical usage of the artform and saving time, motion and energy in the process.

I can see why Judo exponents wouldn't lash out at the MMA world - seeing as many of it's practitioners have that artform blended into their mix, and as a close friend who practices Sanchin-Ryu Karate made me aware, there are a few fighters in professional MMA that practice Karate such as Chuck Liddell and Lyoto Machida.

I think aside from the Shorin-Ryu Sensei at the beginning of this thread, many Karate practitioners don't prefer to bash MMA perhaps because a few of their own favor it, and it might be out of respect.

There are advantages to MMA that many classical arts don't have - number one is the lack of "stickiness" or combat-paralysis that a person typically unfamiliar with the constant and sporadic encounters many MMA people endure, would not have.
Training in a Dojo or Gwoon for an extended amount of time, practicing pre-arranged forms and exercises can construct you into a formidable fighter, but it won't prepare you for a random and hostile environment that MMA practitioners are arguably more used to.

So they do have that going for them. That, and I believe the strength of MMA lies obviously not in it's striking formulas, but in it's ground-fighting capabilities.
The ability to neutralize someone without even landing a single punch, or doing life-threatening damage is invaluable, and MMA fighters do it beautifully.

So, overall is it as affective as Gung Fu?

Not so much - but perhaps in a more diplomatic setting where you can't afford to gouge someones eye out in order to win, MMA might be just what you need.

But before I go, I should address what might be MMA's biggest weakness, and that is it's inability to take on more than one opponent effectively.

Western boxing, where it's striking techniques are chiefly derived from, was mostly developed over time, into an artform that excels and is made for mostly just one opponent.
Add more opponents to the mix, and the techniques start to lose their potency.
Another is the fact that if you go the ground with an opponent, in order to submit him - another person, or three, can quickly come up behind you, kick you in the head, and kill you.

If you use a form of Gung Fu, like LG for example, you keep the fight on your feet to deal with these problems effectively - you use advanced countering techniques with your hands, and you use your available mobility to maintain influence in the situation.

According to a friend who studies a different form of Gung Fu, the northern styles are really good for this and utilise more motion for defense.

In any case, as the years go by and move past in decades, you will see a dramatic change and evolution in MMA, as it will re-acquire and re-adapt different techniues that exist in artforms like those in Gung Fu, and develop and evolve into a more complete and technically-sound organism.

Essentially, the MMA you see today is the animal Gung Fu was thousands years ago.

Hoped this shed some light. smile

WHAAM!

Truth is in MMA Wrestling is very effective in the ring/cage. Due to restrictions some traditional techniques are removed and rightly so. I don't want to see small joint manipulation and eye gougingg it is a sport. Going to the ground on the street is foolish as with multiple opponents it's asking for a football kick to the head, I don't want football kicks to the head in the sport. I remember when they were.
With Boxing we have never seen a top boxer who has cross trained compete in MMA. I do believe, with a takedown defence and defence against muay thai leg kicks, they would dominate like Anderson silva has with his adequate boxing skills and good muay thai and Jui Jitsu. I think a top boxer would do well if he has some defence and some wrestling or BJJ. Karate has a place, Machida has shown this as do most other traditional martial arts, but in the Octagon if you are rely to strongly on one style someone will beat you. Look at Brock. I would not want him charging at me; however, quality stand up exposed him. He is the baddest man in the Octagon if he can take you down. Styles make fights at the end of the day. Cross training is more effective than a single style anywhere; however, on the street anything can happen due to the greater range of variables. In the ring upsets happen but they usually don't, so it's safer and the bookies love it.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
Hit the nail on the head.

And yeah, I studied Lau Gar for close to five years, and when MMA became big, I saw it the same way - gimmicky and impractical.

They use western boxing which is a more narrow and limited system than the striking techniques found in Gung Fu and even Karate, and I've seen MMA fighters in TV and real life make mistakes in a fight that even a first-year LG student wouldn't make - such as exposing your back after throwing a roundhouse kick or backfist.

I've beaten a few of my friends who practice MMA in sparring matches and always comment they should switch to something more practical, but they're loyal to the stuff.

I can see eye-to-eye with most MMA people staying loyal to their art - I feel the same way about mine.
But it is impractical and generally nowhere near as effective as classical MA.

My two cents. Funny.

Edit: And staying loyal to the art has nothing to do with it.

I took JJ for a year as a kid, and TKD for about 5 years. I can easily say that MMA as a combination of the arts is superior than a singular martial art.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Funny.

The truth is stranger than fiction.

Dr. Leg Kick

Same goes for the field of medicine. Nowadays, you can't just be a general practitioner, medicine constantly changes, you either adapt or you lack the knowledge need to treat.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by WHAAM!
Truth is in MMA Wrestling is very effective in the ring/cage. Due to restrictions some traditional techniques are removed and rightly so. I don't want to see small joint manipulation and eye gougingg it is a sport. Going to the ground on the street is foolish as with multiple opponents it's asking for a football kick to the head, I don't want football kicks to the head in the sport. I remember when they were.
With Boxing we have never seen a top boxer who has cross trained compete in MMA. I do believe, with a takedown defence and defence against muay thai leg kicks, they would dominate like Anderson silva has with his adequate boxing skills and good muay thai and Jui Jitsu. I think a top boxer would do well if he has some defence and some wrestling or BJJ. Karate has a place, Machida has shown this as do most other traditional martial arts, but in the Octagon if you are rely to strongly on one style someone will beat you. Look at Brock. I would not want him charging at me; however, quality stand up exposed him. He is the baddest man in the Octagon if he can take you down. Styles make fights at the end of the day. Cross training is more effective than a single style anywhere; however, on the street anything can happen due to the greater range of variables. In the ring upsets happen but they usually don't, so it's safer and the bookies love it.

All good points.

In an octagon, perhaps it is a compilation of many basic techniques from different formulas that will save you - as opposed to from one art.

Cross-training does have it's virtues.

However wouldn't some say that it's the individual that makes the fights - and not the arts he employs?

I was also wondering if you could site some good examples of singular-stylists getting beaten by people who have greatly cross-trained.
That sounds interesting to me.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by NowYouRemember

However wouldn't some say that it's the individual that makes the fights - and not the arts he employs?

Co-sign.

However, the lack of knowledge of the other fields puts the practitioner at risk.

And again, I'm not dissing any singular art, I praise most, but a disadvantage should be apparent for the singular artist. Not saying he has no chance of being the victor, but it's a significant disadvantage.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Same goes for the field of medicine. Nowadays, you can't just be a general practitioner, medicine constantly changes, you either adapt or you lack the knowledge need to treat.

it would still seem to me that many styles of Gung Fu are still more practical for the street than even a multi-layered variation of MMA.

If only for the lack of more extreme counter-measures and the defensive methods needed to stave off an attack from unconventionally violent and or multiple attackers.

I think with the evolution of MMA in perhaps a few decades and some of the more ancient artforms grafted into it's chemistry, you might see MMA as a more effective system for such real life encounters.

Thoughts?

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Co-sign.

However, the lack of knowledge of the other fields puts the practitioner at risk.

And again, I'm not dissing any singular art, I praise most, but a disadvantage should be apparent for the singular artist. Not saying he has no chance of being the victor, but it's a significant disadvantage.

True - LG does lack pretty much ground-fighting techniques, so actually did train in MMA for a little while, to learn how to defend aginst those sort of things...

I hold respect for the ground-fighting capabilities in MMA - I just cringe and shake my head when I see all the primitive striking, and people getting knocked out because they weren't able to attack or defend well enough.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
it would still seem to me that many styles of Gung Fu are still more practical for the street than even a multi-layered variation of MMA.

If only for the lack of more extreme counter-measures and the defensive methods needed to stave off an attack from unconventionally violent and or multiple attackers.

I think with the evolution of MMA in perhaps a few decades and some of the more ancient artforms grafted into it's chemistry, you might see MMA as a more effective system for such real life encounters.

Thoughts? Well technically, MMA is just Pankration fighting with heavy influence of modern wrestling, and BJJ. The artform is ancient.

Incorporating stand up from Gung Fu for instance, CAN be used in MMA, but HOW is the real question. I have minimal knowledge in that art so I can't imagine how the techniques (legal ones of course) can be used to defeat an opponent in the octagon.

In a street fight, that door opens many more questions.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
True - LG does lack pretty much ground-fighting techniques, so actually did train in MMA for a little while, to learn how to defend aginst those sort of things...

I hold respect for the ground-fighting capabilities in MMA - I just cringe and shake my head when I see all the primitive striking, and people getting knocked out because they weren't able to attack or defend well enough. Here's my problem - Many people say this statement, yet they've never been hit with a strike they are not used to. I'm not bashing your style, your credentials or your victories/defeats in training, however - one thing I've noticed from TKD is that the style is very methodical and robotic. I can't compare that to your style, but TKD has only offered about 2 things that can really be useful in MMA.

1. Balance. The balance training in TKD is great. Really helps when throwing strikes.
2. Some of the Kicks. Round house, side kicks, both can be useful in MMA if the proper technique is used.

Then again, this does not help you much. TKD strikers have their arms always low and majority of kicks (besides the round house, side kick, axe kick) are thrown with snaps. Not helpful.

The Nuul

Kung Fu would suck in MMA, you couldnt even use half of its art. You couldnt even use the animal forms and techniques. Some dude will take you down before you even try it.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by The Nuul
Kung Fu would suck in MMA, you couldnt even use half of its art. You couldnt even use the animal forms and techniques. Some dude will take you down before you even try it.

Not so much, but it is true many of the techniques couldn't be employed there.

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Well technically, MMA is just Pankration fighting with heavy influence of modern wrestling, and BJJ. The artform is ancient.

Incorporating stand up from Gung Fu for instance, CAN be used in MMA, but HOW is the real question. I have minimal knowledge in that art so I can't imagine how the techniques (legal ones of course) can be used to defeat an opponent in the octagon.

In a street fight, that door opens many more questions.

Good points. I've always wondered why the ancient eastern arts tend to be more advanced and developed than the western ones.

But yes, many of the techniques used in LG for instance, couldn't be used..

StyleTime

I snipped some of your post. I'm not trying to be rude, but these points have already been addressed in the thread. I can't speak on your personal experiences obviously, but your perception of MMA is fairly innacurate.
Originally posted by NowYouRemember
In the variation of Lau Gar I learned, we use sweeping motions with one arm to block incoming strikes and it's very effective.
It's a type of circular motion that some types of Karate also use.
It takes defense to a progressive and kinetically-active level, rather than just standing there and holding one arm up against your head, and waiting for your opponent to decide which part of your body he wants to smash in that particular moment of time.
- That's most of the defense in MMA, which is derived from western boxing.

I remember seeing a bout where the spectators made a big deal about the backfist, even though in Gung Fu and LG to be sure, you learn it within the first year and it's a casual technique.
What is fantastic to them, is something very mundane in Gung Fu.

Also, if I use MMA and defend myself from an attacker by trying to have a drawn-out boxing match with them - punches to the body and head, that may last minutes, I'm doing myself a disservice.

If I use Lau Gar and defend myself from an attacker, my positioning my body in sync with his, and delivering a single punch to his eye-socket, planting him to the ground in agony, I'm achieving the technical usage of the artform and saving time, motion and energy in the process.

But before I go, I should address what might be MMA's biggest weakness, and that is it's inability to take on more than one opponent effectively.Western boxing, where it's striking techniques are chiefly derived from, was mostly developed over time, into an artform that excels and is made for mostly just one opponent.
Another is the fact that if you go the ground with an opponent, in order to submit him - another person, or three, can quickly come up behind you, kick you in the head, and kill you. If you use a form of Gung Fu, like LG for example, you keep the fight on your feet to deal with these problems effectively - you use advanced countering techniques with your hands, and you use your available mobility to maintain influence in the situation.

Muay Thai is the dominant striking style in MMA. Not boxing.

Things like backfists aren't new. You see the more "exotic" techniques employed in MMA far more regularly than your average non-fan is aware of. Pulling off those same techniques on a world class opponent is extremely difficult though. You're confusing the fans' reaction with the fighters' knowledge.

If it takes you several minutes to dispatch your opponent, he is probably as skilled as you are; he'd neutralize you regardless of style.

A fighter in the street doesn't suddenly gain immunity to ring techniques. Saying MMA is impractical is arguing against mounds of evidence to the contrary. Kung Fu actually has less evidence supporting it in that regard, to be honest. Heck, we just discussed some MMAtists who sent multiple attackers to the hospital a few pages back. Depending on an eye gouge, which can be blocked/parried/dodged in the exact same manner as a punch, is far more impractical than learning to box.

There is no "this style is better at multiple opponents but sucks at one-on one." One on one fighting is a prerequisite multiple opponents. You have to do the former before you can do the latter. Kung fuu doesn't get a 100% damage bonus vs groups.

You needn't always go to the ground to grapple. The fighters in UFC are fighting other skilled fighters, so they "roll around" trying to overcome one another. A regular dude would get his shit wrecked in seconds.

You're welcome to your own personal beliefs of course, but you'll be debating against verifiable data when it comes to MMA/Kickboxing/ValeTduo/Boxing/etc. The styles used in MMA have proven effectiveness in and outside of the ring. There is no disputing that except for those in denial.

Mindset

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
I've always wondered why the ancient eastern arts tend to be more advanced and developed than the western ones.
Huh?

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Here's my problem - Many people say this statement, yet they've never been hit with a strike they are not used to. I'm not bashing your style, your credentials or your victories/defeats in training, however - one thing I've noticed from TKD is that the style is very methodical and robotic. I can't compare that to your style, but TKD has only offered about 2 things that can really be useful in MMA.

1. Balance. The balance training in TKD is great. Really helps when throwing strikes.
2. Some of the Kicks. Round house, side kicks, both can be useful in MMA if the proper technique is used.

Then again, this does not help you much. TKD strikers have their arms always low and majority of kicks (besides the round house, side kick, axe kick) are thrown with snaps. Not helpful.

TKD does have it's great points, though I am wondering why it's practioners keep their hands low?
That would typically provide poor defense, but is it to perhaps lure an opponant in, so you can counter with a kick? (Just a thought)

I suppose one of the higher points about advanced formulas in arts like CMA is that while it's good to be able to take a punch - if you really have to worry about it, that means there is a problem with the way you defend.
In LG for instance, you wouldn't really have to worry about taking a punch, because in most cases you would be able to deflect them easily.

We don't have much in the way of high-kicks however.

Also, I've heard, and seen perhaps some evidence of the fact that kicks, especially ones aimed high, are impractical in street-fighting.

What are your thoughts towards that?

StyleTime

I can't believe we are about to start this again. batdude, you forgot to do your part of the chi gathering ritual, didn't you?

NowYouRemember

Originally posted by StyleTime
I snipped some of your post. I'm not trying to be rude, but these points have already been addressed in the thread. I can't speak on your personal experiences obviously, but your perception of MMA is fairly innacurate.

Muay Thai is the dominant striking style in MMA. Not boxing.

Things like backfists aren't new. You see the more "exotic" techniques employed in MMA far more regularly than your average non-fan is aware of. Pulling off those same techniques on a world class opponent is extremely difficult though. You're confusing the fans' reaction with the fighters' knowledge.

If it takes you several minutes to dispatch your opponent, he is probably as skilled as you are; he'd neutralize you regardless of style.

A fighter in the street doesn't suddenly gain immunity to ring techniques. Saying MMA is impractical is arguing against mounds of evidence to the contrary. Kung Fu actually has less evidence supporting it in that regard, to be honest. Heck, we just discussed some MMAtists who sent multiple attackers to the hospital a few pages back. Depending on an eye gouge, which can be blocked/parried/dodged in the exact same manner as a punch, is far more impractical than learning to box.

There is no "this style is better at multiple opponents but sucks at one-on one." One on one fighting is a prerequisite multiple opponents. You have to do the former before you can do the latter. Kung fuu doesn't get a 100% damage bonus vs groups.

You needn't always go to the ground to grapple. The fighters in UFC are fighting other skilled fighters, so they "roll around" trying to overcome one another. A regular dude would get his shit wrecked in seconds.

You're welcome to your own personal beliefs of course, but you'll be debating against verifiable data when it comes to MMA/Kickboxing/ValeTduo/Boxing/etc. The styles used in MMA have proven effectiveness in and outside of the ring. There is no disputing that except for those in denial.

I hope you could provide some evidence for what you mean then. (Maybe a vid)

And I didn't mean the fans reaction, I meant the reaction of the commentators, who are themselves veterans of the sport.
And unless I am wrong, and I could be, the variation of Mauy Thai used in the octagon seems to be a more primitive variation than some of the other styles I've seen. (Do you know which variation is used by chance?)

And I meant more so the other way around - that some styles excel at one-on-one combat but not multiple opponants, not vice versa.

Also, in most cases on the street, it would be far more helpful to be able to drop an opponant with a single well-placed strike to specific anatomy, than having boxing match.
And I would also like to see some records of MMA stylists fending off multiple attackers in the street, it sounds interesting, given how they're usually more used to fighting against just one opponant.

CMA has records of these types of encounters going back thousands of years, and many CMA styles are built specifically to deal with mutliple aggressors.
Also, the wider range of technique and defensive formula helps to make this possible.

(I have to retire for a bit, but it was great talking with you) smile

Mark Question

Originally posted by NowYouRemember

Also, I've heard, and seen perhaps some evidence of the fact that kicks, especially ones aimed high, are impractical in street-fighting.

What are your thoughts towards that?

Makes you susceptible to take downs.

StyleTime

Originally posted by NowYouRemember
I hope you could provide some evidence for what you mean then. (Maybe a vid)

And I didn't mean the fans reaction, I meant the reaction of the commentators, who are themselves veterans of the sport.
And unless I am wrong, and I could be, the variation of Mauy Thai used in the octagon seems to be a more primitive variation than some of the other styles I've seen. (Do you know which variation is used by chance?)

And I meant more so the other way around - that some styles excel at one-on-one combat but not multiple opponants, not vice versa.

Also, in most cases on the street, it would be far more helpful to be able to drop an opponant with a single well-placed strike to specific anatomy, than having boxing match.
And I would also like to see some records of MMA stylists fending off multiple attackers in the street, it sounds interesting, given how they're usually more used to fighting against just one opponant.

CMA has records of these types of encounters going back thousands of years, and many CMA styles are built specifically to deal with mutliple aggressors.
Also, the wider range of technique and defensive formula helps to make this possible.

(I have to retire for a bit, but it was great talking with you) smile

I'm not sure what part you want a video of in the first sentence.

Not all of the commentators are necessarily veterans themselves. It requires a unique skillset in and of itself. There's no specific variation that'd be shared by all the fighters; some schools even add personalized concepts onto certain things. The standard Muay Thai fighting premise is there though.

Ok. I just hear the reverse logic so much, I mistakenly thought that is what you meant.

That's not what I'm saying. Hitting small targets like the eyes is already difficult when not immobilizing your opponent; a guy who can strike with you is going to present even more challenge. You'd need a solid base in actual striking before attempting an eye gouge, lest ye be knocked out by a spinning side kick.

MMA isn't actually a style though. Most of the styles seen in competition have fairly far reaching histories themselves.

Here's an article on Alistair Overeem's encounter with security personel at a nightclub. http://espn.go.com/extra/mma/blog/_/name/mma/id/4198740
http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/news/viewarticle.php?id=2442

You've probably seen this, but a boxer vs multiple opponents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOeWbVC8MU0

I don't want to turn this into a "share your streets fight videos" thread, but hopefully they help discussion since you asked.

Good night.

The Nuul

The guy is new, probably a troll.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by StyleTime

Muay Thai is the dominant striking style in MMA. Not boxing.

Yes, it's definitely the most effective form of striking in MMA, but boxing is a must in my opinion. Really adds an advantage in your arsenal against opponents.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by NowYouRemember

Also, I've heard, and seen perhaps some evidence of the fact that kicks, especially ones aimed high, are impractical in street-fighting.

Anatomically speaking, kicks produce far greater power than punches. This is where Muay Thai becomes dominant. A leg kick from a seasoned fighter could take down an opponent with a single maybe multiple leg kicks in the same region.

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by StyleTime

You've probably seen this, but a boxer vs multiple opponents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOeWbVC8MU0

By the way, that boxer is of Armenian descent. He was being harassed by Turks.

****ing Turks.

This was a win for Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds and anyone else raped and pillaged by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire.

I know I'm completely off topic, but **** em.

Jackson Pollock

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Yes, it's definitely the most effective form of striking in MMA, but boxing is a must in my opinion. Really adds an advantage in your arsenal against opponents.

That's because it's very simple to become relatively proficient in Muay Thai, whereas boxing is much more difficult to be effective with. Look at Anderson, he has had pro boxing matches and is v good at muay thai, he is not an elite boxer. Both he and Fedor in Fedors prime were competant boxers and it is I believe the superior boxing which allow Fedor to destroy so many Muay Thai and kickboxers.

StyleTime

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Yes, it's definitely the most effective form of striking in MMA, but boxing is a must in my opinion. Really adds an advantage in your arsenal against opponents.
Definitely. A boxer who trains kick defense is an absolute beast, and boxing is practically required at the pro level.

Originally posted by Mark Question
Makes you susceptible to take downs.
thumb up

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
By the way, that boxer is of Armenian descent. He was being harassed by Turks.

****ing Turks.

This was a win for Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds and anyone else raped and pillaged by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire.

I know I'm completely off topic, but **** em.
laughing out loud

batdude123

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
This was a win for Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds and anyone else raped and pillaged by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire.

And Hungarians.

God damn Turks. mad

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by batdude123
And Hungarians.

God damn Turks. mad

By the way, my bday is dec 27 big grin

batdude123

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn116/gogshead/Cheers.gif

Quiero Mota

These are some articles written by Mike Reilly, an MMA instructor based in Bloomington, Minnesota. He does a good job of exposing McDojos and further explains his general resentment of TMA.

"Belts, Bowing and BS" http://bisons.net/training/belts_bowing_bs.html

"The Necessity of Competition" http://bisons.net/training/necessity_of_competition.html

"Pushing to Compete" http://bisons.net/training/pushing_to_compete.html

"Real Traditional Martial Arts" http://bisons.net/real_tma.htm

StyleTime

Forgot about those articles.

They do raise points I agree with mostly. If you don't train in an alive manner, you probably won't fair very well in a fight. I certainly remember the whole "your master is a badass and you must unquestioningly accept that" from my early Tae Kwon Do days too.

I do disagree with one thing in particular. This first article seems to imply that grappling is superior to striking, which is not true. I would have thought that the MMA community was done with the old argument of grappling vs striking but it appears there may still be some hold outs.

BeyondTheGrave

kung fu hurts people? lol.

batdude123

Originally posted by StyleTime
I do disagree with one thing in particular. This first article seems to imply that grappling is superior to striking, which is not true. I would have thought that the MMA community was done with the old argument of grappling vs striking but it appears there may still be some hold outs.

Yeah, the Gracies and Randy Couture sure didn't prove that, am I right? haermm

StyleTime

Originally posted by batdude123
Yeah, the Gracies and Randy Couture sure didn't prove that, am I right? haermm
Originally posted by StyleTime
but it appears there may still be some hold outs.
haermm

srankmissingnin

Grappling is only effective because you aren't aloud to headbutt. stick out tongue

batdude123

Originally posted by StyleTime
haermm

You left yourself an out because you know it's true. biscuits

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Grappling is only effective because you aren't aloud to headbutt. stick out tongue

Headbutting is what made Royce's face look like this.

http://www.mmagospel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/royce_shamrock_2_aftermath.jpg

StyleTime

Originally posted by batdude123
You left yourself an out because you know it's true. biscuits

stick out tongue

In all honesty, I see striking as equal to grappling.

Mindset

Grappling is for queers.

batdude123

Originally posted by StyleTime
stick out tongue

In all honesty, I see striking as equal to grappling.

Striking + take down defense, maybe. We've seen too many times in a contest of pure grapplers vs. pure strikers that strikers are at an obvious disadvantage for me to think otherwise.

I believe it was Shogun who said that a 135 pound high school wrestler would beat Mayweather or Pacquiao in a fight.

StyleTime

I meant more that they are equal as a "primary" style in an MMA environment where everyone is likely skilled in both areas.

I agree with you though. Someone without grappling training would be utterly helpless on the ground, although it is possible for a flash KO.

batdude123

Originally posted by StyleTime
I meant more that they are equal as a "primary" style in an MMA environment where everyone is likely skilled in both areas.

I agree with you though. Someone without grappling training would be utterly helpless on the ground, although it is possible for a flash KO.

Oh, I gotcha now. ermmhappy

StyleTime

Curse that smiley. It is inviting, yet mocking.

Look at me when you smile!

Prep-Man

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
These are some articles written by Mike Reilly, an MMA instructor based in Bloomington, Minnesota. He does a good job of exposing McDojos and further explains his general resentment of TMA.

"Belts, Bowing and BS" http://bisons.net/training/belts_bowing_bs.html

"The Necessity of Competition" http://bisons.net/training/necessity_of_competition.html

"Pushing to Compete" http://bisons.net/training/pushing_to_compete.html

"Real Traditional Martial Arts" http://bisons.net/real_tma.htm

Nice articles. 1st ones great.

0mega Spawn

grappling is gay azz hell LOL
so many illegal moves cater to gay grappling

laughing

thats funny because when i was a kid my mom asked if i wanted to join a martial arts class i said no i'd rather teach myself how to fight by actually getting into fights

and i've taught myself well... but i haven't faught again since being released from juevie for the 6 time for fighting laughing

StyleTime

You are so adorable, Omega Spawn.

Dr. Leg Kick

Very disappointed in my boy Mousasi, but I don't blame him getting taken down. Out here in Glendale he trains with great boxers and kickboxers, and does some Judo/Sambo, and when he's overseas in Netherlands, he trains his boxing and kickboxing.

He needs extensive training in wrestling, and especially on his take down defense.

batdude123

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Very disappointed in my boy Mousasi, but I don't blame him getting taken down. Out here in Glendale he trains with great boxers and kickboxers, and does some Judo/Sambo, and when he's overseas in Netherlands, he trains his boxing and kickboxing.

He needs extensive training in wrestling, and especially on his take down defense.

Your boy has nothing really to hang his head about in that fight. He was whoopin that ass.

Here, I explain my thoughts/views on his fight with Jardine.

http://www.mmalinker.com/forum/mma-discussion/my-thoughts-on-the-mousasi-jardine-fight-t81964.html

Dr. Leg Kick

Originally posted by batdude123
Your boy has nothing really to hang his head about in that fight. He was whoopin that ass.

Here, I explain my thoughts/views on his fight with Jardine.

http://www.mmalinker.com/forum/mma-discussion/my-thoughts-on-the-mousasi-jardine-fight-t81964.html Well said, check your PM

Darth Angel

Mousasi was robbed. In current american MMA the takedown onws all. The takedown, a transitional move that by itself doesn't mean a thing, because what matters is what you can achieve with it (meaning GnP or Submissions). So Jardine was being punch in the face and tkx to some useless takedowns, takedows who weren't followed by a serious threat or any kind of damage, he got a draw...

Ridiculous.

And Nick Diaz rulez

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
Striking + take down defense, maybe. We've seen too many times in a contest of pure grapplers vs. pure strikers that strikers are at an obvious disadvantage for me to think otherwise.

Or if the grappler can't perform a take-down. Case in point: Sotiropilous vs Siver. The Aussie couldn't shoot if his life depended on it, so he got his ass whooped by the German Taekwondo fighter. Sotiropilous kept reaching in, as opposed to tackling and driving. He's excellent once he's on the ground, but lacks the transitional take-down skills required to get there.

Kinda funny, because grapplers (especially BJJ guys) tend to look down on TKD. They view it as a "little kid" style.

Originally posted by batdude123

I believe it was Shogun who said that a 135 pound high school wrestler would beat Mayweather or Pacquiao in a fight.

I don't know about that. An Olympic wrestler maybe, but not some pimple-faced dweeb in a singlet. A kid like that would pose about a big of threat to Pacquiao, as some dorky teen who got his blackbelt after only spending two years in an assembly line-style Mcdojo.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Or if the grappler can't perform a take-down. Case in point: Sotiropilous vs Siver. The Aussie couldn't shoot if his life depended on it, so he got his ass whooped by the German Taekwondo fighter. Sotiropilous kept reaching in, as opposed to tackling and driving. He's excellent once he's on the ground, but lacks the transitional take-down skills required to get there.

Kinda funny, because grapplers (especially BJJ guys) tend to look down on TKD. They view it as a "little kid" style.

This is irrelevant, because Siver is a mixed martial artist. He trained his take down defense extensively for that fight with George. That's why I said striking + take down defense can be as effective.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't know about that. An Olympic wrestler maybe, but not some pimple-faced dweeb in a singlet. A kid like that would pose about a big of threat to Pacquiao, as some dorky teen who got his blackbelt after only spending two years in an assembly line-style Mcdojo.

Why, because of the stigma that the wrestler isn't a professional athlete who gets paid millions and millions of dollars to fight? Lawl. The outcome would be the same if it was an Olympian, or just a really good high school wrestler. Neither Pacman or Mayweather have trained in wrestling or take down defense a day in their lives. Unless they landed a lucky punch, they'd easily be taken down and pounded on.

StyleTime

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
This is irrelevant, because Siver is a mixed martial artist. He trained his take down defense extensively for that fight with George. That's why I said striking + take down defense can be as effective.

It's completely relevant. TD defense wasn't really necessary, because George had no TD skills to begin with. He kept reaching because he doesn't know how to shoot.

And "mixed martial artist" is simply the term for combatants in the sport, whether their background is "mixed" or not. Frankly, I prefer "cagefighter", because "mixed martial artist" can be misleading. Siver's base is Taekwondo, and it served him well. George's knowledge of BJJ might as well have been nonexistant during that fight.

Originally posted by batdude123
Why, because of the stigma that the wrestler isn't a professional athlete who gets paid millions and millions of dollars to fight? Lawl. The outcome would be the same if it was an Olympian, or just a really good high school wrestler. Neither Pacman or Mayweather have trained in wrestling or take down defense a day in their lives. Unless they landed a lucky punch, they'd easily be taken down and pounded on.

You can't seriously compare a highschool wrestler to a professional fighter. A HS state champ might stand somewhat of a fighting chance, but not the majority of HS wrestlers. College and Olympic wrestlers even more so (obviously).

And it wouldn't be a "lucky" blow; it would be a precision knock-out blow. I mean, we ARE talking about the upper echelons of the boxing world, not some pee-wee Golden Gloves champ.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I've noticed that BJJ purists tend to have poor take downs and TD defense. At my club, I usually got(haven't been in a while) double legs fairly easily on them. They don't mind being on their backs though.

We had some wrestlers come in one day and it was an entirely different story. I don't think I ever landed a single take down on them.

Of course, I'm talking just about purists here.

Exactly. During the Sotiropoulis/Siver fight, Rogen even pointed out that unlike All-American wrestlers, BJJ fighters tend to lack good TD skills. They're in their element once they're on the ground, but actually getting there is the problem.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's completely relevant. TD defense wasn't really necessary, because George had no TD skills to begin with. He kept reaching because he doesn't know how to shoot.

No, it isn't relevant at all. It wasn't Siver's taekwondo skills that helped him avoid the take downs from Sotiropoulos. So let's stop pretending like it was, k?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And "mixed martial artist" is simply the term for combatants in the sport, whether their background is "mixed" or not. Frankly, I prefer "cagefighter", because "mixed martial artist" can be misleading.

"My shit doesn't stink, it just smells bad."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Siver's base is Taekwondo, and it served him well. George's knowledge of BJJ might as well have been nonexistant during that fight.

It served him well because he was able to keep the fight standing. And the reason he was able to keep the fight standing had absolutely nothing to do with his taekwondo.

Pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You can't seriously compare a highschool wrestler to a professional fighter. A HS state champ might stand somewhat of a fighting chance, but not the majority of HS wrestlers. College and Olympic wrestlers even more so (obviously).

And it wouldn't be a "lucky" blow; it would be a precision knock-out blow. I mean, we ARE talking about the upper echelons of the boxing world, not some pee-wee Golden Gloves champ.

Pacquiao and Mayweather aren't professional fighters. They're professional boxers. They train a specific way, and under specific circumstances. They don't train for a wrestler who's poised to take them to the ground, and to act like they'd smoke one is just ridiculous. It's not like the wrestler would stand there and trade with them (unless he's retarded). He'd shoot in, close the distance, and once he got his hands on either one of them, they'd be finished. If you're close enough to get tagged by Manny's 67 inch reach (lawl), then you're close enough to go for a double/single leg or a clinch.

I don't know how many times this has to be proven in order for people to shut up about it.

And fyi, Art Jimmerson was ranked as the 10th best cruiserweight in the world at the time when Royce beat him in the first UFC. And Royce has no where near the take down ability of a high school wrestler.

StyleTime

I'm really starting to the think we should move this to the martial arts thread. The stuff we're talking about nowadays has more to do with martial arts in general than it does with the original premise of this thread.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by batdude123
No, it isn't relevant at all. It wasn't Siver's taekwondo skills that helped him avoid the take downs from Sotiropoulos. So let's stop pretending like it was, k?

Of course it was. His hands and feet kept George at bay; and what can that be attributed to? (see: Taekwondo). Even Siver's signature move, the spinning back kick (proper name: reverse side kick) is a move straight from TKD. That's why you don't see Muay Thai guys doing. Its best left in the hands--or rather, feet--of a TKD specialist.

Now add all of ^that against a BBJ guy who has little-to-no take-down skills (ie: George Sotiropoulis), and what you have is nothing short of a turkey shoot.

Originally posted by batdude123
It served him well because he was able to keep the fight standing. And the reason he was able to keep the fight standing had absolutely nothing to do with his taekwondo.

Pretty simple, really.

See above.

Originally posted by batdude123
Pacquiao and Mayweather aren't professional fighters. They're professional boxers. They train a specific way, and under specific circumstances. They don't train for a wrestler who's poised to take them to the ground, and to act like they'd smoke one is just ridiculous. It's not like the wrestler would stand there and trade with them (unless he's retarded). He'd shoot in, close the distance, and once he got his hands on either one of them, they'd be finished. If you're close enough to get tagged by Manny's 67 inch reach (lawl), then you're close enough to go for a double/single leg or a clinch.

I don't know how many times this has to be proven in order for people to shut up about it.

A good wrestler, yes. A HS state champ or some kind of ridiculously good child prodigy wrestler could take out a boxer, no doubt. But take a look at most of the runts on HS wrestling teams; they're children playing a man's game. They're about as harmless as scrawny teenage blackbelts.

Originally posted by batdude123
And fyi, Art Jimmerson was ranked as the 10th best cruiserweight in the world at the time when Royce beat him in the first UFC. And Royce has no where near the take down ability of a high school wrestler.

I know. Because BJJ lacks proper take-downs.

Wrestling (and even Judo) > BJJ, in that respect.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm really starting to the think we should move this to the martial arts thread. The stuff we're talking about nowadays has more to do with martial arts in general than it does with the original premise of this thread.

We're still talking about MMA.

batdude123

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course it was. His hands and feet kept George at bay; and what can that be attributed to? (see: Taekwondo). Even Siver's signature move, the spinning back kick (proper name: reverse side kick) is a move straight from TKD. That's why you don't see Muay Thai guys doing. Its best left in the hands--or rather, feet--of a TKD specialist.

Now add all of ^that against a BBJ guy who has little-to-no take-down skills (ie: George Sotiropoulis), and what you have is nothing short of a turkey shoot.

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Yes, Siver was absolutely kicking George's ass in the striking department. There's no question about that. However, he was able to keep it there (meaning, on the feet) because he trained his take down defense pretty heavily for that fight. You could tell, because every time George got a hold of him, Siver was able to shrug off all his attempts.

And I agree that George's take down ability isn't all that great, but prior to that fight, he was able to take down Joe Stevenson, Kurt Pellegrino, and Joe Lauzon. Siver's grappling defense is what impressed me the most in that fight. Everybody already knew his advantage was striking.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A good wrestler, yes. A HS state champ or some kind of ridiculously good child prodigy wrestler could take out a boxer, no doubt. But take a look at most of the runts on HS wrestling teams; they're children playing a man's game. They're about as harmless as scrawny teenage blackbelts.

Meh, I just assumed you knew I was talking about high school wrestlers who are at least good enough to make the team. If you didn't, I apologize. And really, all that would be needed is a good shot, because they'd (Mayweather and Pacman) offer little to no resistance compared to other wrestlers that he (the wrestler) goes against in practice.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know. Because BJJ lacks proper take-downs.

Wrestling (and even Judo) > BJJ, in that respect.

Absolutely.

That's why I think high-level wrestling + high-level BJJ is one of, if not, the most potent combination in MMA today. Jake Shields is a perfect example of this. He has the ability to dictate where the fight takes place, and he can bring the fight to where he's the strongest: the ground. That's why he's on a 6 year, 15-fight win-streak.