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..
Re: Re
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.
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.
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?
Re: Re: Re
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) 🙂
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) 🙂
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.
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.
Originally posted by StyleTimeYou'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.
Re: Re: Re: Re
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re
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.
Originally posted by Mark Question
Makes you susceptible to take downs.
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.
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
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.