Sport And TMA....Again

[Tenacious_Red]

Nope. It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.

It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.

Thank you for the clarification, and I do indeed concur. Rules are just a separate construction from what dictates a, "fight."

 

[ballen0351]

Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.

I think that's the point a lot of people are trying to make. Nobody says you don't need grappling. They say GJJ isn't the only grappling game in town. I learned some grappling in Goju and in my opinion its enough to use against most people on the street but I'd get crushed by even a 2 or 3 striped white belt in BJJ or a guy with a few months of Judo or even a little college wrestling. So I went out and started learning Judo and BJJ. To me and for me Judo is more appropriate for what I do and what I use it for. Other folks may find BJJ better for them or Wrestling or Aikido or any of the other arts that have grappling in it.
Too much credit is given to the gracies in this regard. Grappling was coming not just GJJ but all forms. The gracies were just the best to market it and were just superior fighters not so much the style but the person. Some people are just better. Ray lewis was one of the best linebackers of all time. Lots of people play the position but he was just better. Not because he trained harder or learned something nobody else knew he just had better instincts and could just see the field differently he was special. I think Gracie in the early UFC was just better he had better instincts and saw openings others may not he was special. For some guys they just have it.

 

[MJS]

My moves have been taught to me by guys who teach special forces, those who teach police tactical response and undercover police. Why would they teach stuff that doesn't work?
:asian:

Oh come on now..you know it won't work, because its not on youtube!

Seriously though....isn't it amazing how these things in our art, work well enough, in real world situations, to keep us alive and able to post here. Just because it's not on YT, just because it's not in competition, doesnt mean that the art is a failure.

 

[MJS]

Ok, so we can for the most part agree that the Gracies did something great and it helped shape and open alot of martial artists eyes but is absolutely not the end all be all in combat or SD.

Agreed.

Now let's talk about these deadly moves and "neck breaks"................ Care to give an example?

I wasn't talking about those things, so I'll leave those comments to others. I will say this though...obviously in training there are things that just can't be practiced, this being one example. I have many Kenpo techs that have a neck or arm break in them. Personally, unless it's really a life and death situation, breaking a neck is hardly warranted over the attacker simply punching you. I can think of numerous other things that I'd do first, before I'd even consider a neck break.

Try these......

The "sport" of MMA, no attempting to injure here......
http://youtu.be/gvc6GHCEAlE


Keith Hackney vs Joe Son
http://youtu.be/gIJLEmITPtg

Nice clips!! As for Keith...yes, I agree with what you said earlier...def. one of the best, most legit fighters in the early days.

 

[TFP]

how so? In the early days, we primarily saw just what the UFC was intended to show...style vs style. 2 strikers, 2 grapplers, a grappler and a striker, etc. As time went on, people smartened up, and realized that everything was important. Rare are the days when we see a 1 dimensional fighter anymore. Royce returned to fight Matt Hughes and despite the small amount of boxing that he had done, Matt dominated Royce with strikes.

Can you remind me what I was discounting there? Or which post # it was?

 

[TFP]

What's to talk about? If you apply a neck crank quickly you can have catastrophic consequences. Applied slowly you have submission. I'll post a small piece from Brian VanCise's blog.

If you practise kata as a fighting system you will find multiple opportunities through the kata for neck cranks.
:asian:

Actually a few legitimate looking holds in there. But I don't believe any are "neck breakers".

 

[TFP]

That is a bit closer to reality but note the referee that steps in when things get too rough for one fighter. In real life there is no guarantee that someone will stop someone from going too far or that tapping out will end the fight. Very entertaining video, some things that can be learned from it:

. The first 15 seconds shows that being on the ground is not a good place to be.
. Striking is very effective.
. Things are more brutal when you don't ban everything.
. Ring girls are hot.
. Not many double leg takedowns when you are allowed to use downward elbows.
. Headbutts make clinching dangerous.
. More victories by striking than grappling.
. The UFC is not what it used to be.



.

Yeah that was some brutal fighting, and no the UFC and Dana's "Ultimate Boxing" is not at all like what it used to be!!!!

If anyone deserves to get hit in the balls it is Joe Son

True! accused of killing his cell mate while serving 15 yeRs for torture, kidnapping & gang rape.

what did you think of Hackneys fighting style? Footwork, movement, etc?

 

[TFP]

It was? By who? It's been so long since I've seen the first UFC, I can't recall.

Are we talking about biting? In the finals of UFC 1.

 

[ballen0351]

Actually a few legitimate looking holds in there. But I don't believe any are "neck breakers".

http://youtu.be/NkMuzwDtSPk

See if this link works this is what I was think about

 

[TFP]

Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.

And Royce was on the Roids for that fight.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Holy ****! The moon and stars really are falling into place..lol...because lately, I've been finding quite a few of your posts that I agree with! I like the dirty tricks, and I'm all for using them, but yes, as I've said myself, I also like to have a backup plan. If that dirty trick doesnt work, and that's all you have to fall back on, well, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.

First of all I would like to point out that the term 'dirty tricks' is a term that sport fighters often use to describe some things that are not allowed in their sport. In self defence there are no such things as dirty tricks, only things that need to be done. Dirty tricks are not meant as finishers, there are mainly used as distractions to allow for the use of the finishers or to get away.

 

[Tenacious_Red]

First of all I would like to point out that the term 'dirty tricks' is a term that sport fighters often use to describe some things that are not allowed in their sport. In self defence there are no such things as dirty tricks, only things that need to be done. Dirty tricks are not meant as finishers, there are mainly used as distractions to allow for the use of the finishers or to get away.

Agreed!

And I kept thinking, "dirty tricks" meant a good Saturday night. *sigh*

 

[MJS]

Probably, yes. Unless you were going into a MMA fight, 6 months to 1 year of dedicated grappling defenses from a skilled grappler (such as a GJJ school), along with maintenance practice, is probably going to cover you in the vast majority of situations the average person is likely to see.

That's what I figured. Yeah, I was talking about SD purposes, not the cage.

Having done (and still doing) both striking and grappling, it's easier for a grappler to learn how to negate (or at least mitigate) most striking than for a striker to learn the basic skill required to mitigate most grappling. Heck, "cover up and crash to clinch, then work on takedown" is a pretty good, well proven, strategy that's way harder to learn how to beat than to learn how to do. Yeah, it can be beaten. But it's kinda like comparing a weapons to armor. The weapon is almost always easier to use and make than the armor required to stop it. That's the way crashing to clinch works. If you're lucky, you'll get in one strike as the person crashing in to clinch (while he's in a "cover up" position). Once he's got clinch he'll start working for the takedown. From that position you need to know how to stop the takedowns (which ain't easy) while either trying to strike effectively from clinch (which ain't easy) or forcing a disengage from the clinch (which is even harder). So, in this limited context, grappling proponents have it "right" (well, sorta).

So, yeah, strikers need to know some grappling and grapplers need to know some striking. But it's way easier to force a fight to grappling (and/or to the ground) than it is to force a fight to stay standing at at range. If the guy who prefers a striking game is much better trained and more skilled than the guy who wants to go to grappling, then he's got a better shot at keeping it in his preferred range.

Great points. Of course, this isn't to say it's impossible for the striker to learn this. If we use Machida (sp) and Liddell (sp) as examples...we really never saw Chuck on the ground.

You know what also forces grapplers to not crash guard to the clinch? A knife. Paradoxically, a knife also forces grappling. No one wants to get stabbed so a knife will typically force a person to stay out of range, which will be punching range or greater (depending on the knife). However, if the other guy is unarmed and, for whatever reason, has to deal with the guy with the knife, the only way to do it successfully is to gain control of the weapon bearing limb. I.E. "grappling."

And here's another spot were RBSD proponents has it right. Grapplers, just because you don't see a knife doesn't mean he doesn't have a knife. Season with other various weapons to taste.

This crap is way to complex and nuanced for many of the overly simplistic pronouncements I've seen in this thread.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Cant' disagree with that.

 

[Steve]

Nope. It was brought up to to show that even war has "rules" and, thus, the claim that the addition of "rules" mean that it's a "game" and not a "fight" is spurious.

It's a smokescreen to distract from the fact that the thesis that "rules = game" is wrong.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that there are rules, overt or implicit, governing just about ever human interaction. Whether called morality, ethics, rules of engagement, code of conduct, courtesy, respect, by laws or whatever else, everything from saying hello politely to war has rules.

So, while there are rules, I think that a distinction can be seen between "war" and "sport." The stakes are much, much higher in a warzone. In the same way, even a formal duel governed by strict rules has a much higher stake at risk than an MMA match.

 

[MJS]

I think it goes deeper than just having a backup plan if the "dirty trick" doesn't work. Many of the dirty tricks are lower percentage than some of the other potential responses. So, potentially, a better plan is to learn and use those other responses as a primary plan and save the "dirty tricks" for the backup plan, or maybe even roll the two together.

I remember in the early "Sport Fighter vs. TMA" arguments, I used to see "I'll just eye gouge or nut grab" him a lot as a response to stopping a grappler. The assumption was that a grappler was unaware that EMFG's existed and couldn't use them at all. But the reality is that a person who is conversant with grappling usually ends up in a superior position to not only prevent an EMFG but is actually in a better position to perform one. Basic grappling skills can actually enhance your ability perform "dirty tricks."

That's the point of not relying on "dirty tricks." It's not that they don't deserve a place in your bag-o-tricks, it's that we need to know how to actually use them and, as it turns out, it's not what a lot of us (myself included) believed they were prior to the "Gracie Revolution."

I haven't given up EMFG's or GroinGrabs from my martial list, I just have better ways to more effectively apply them. They're higher percentage techniques now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

LOL,,,yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Thanks for putting my thoughts into the words I was seeking.

 

[lklawson]

So, while there are rules, I think that a distinction can be seen between "war" and "sport." The stakes are much, much higher in a warzone. In the same way, even a formal duel governed by strict rules has a much higher stake at risk than an MMA match.

I don't disagree at all. My complaint was with the simplistic statement that rules = game.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Flying Crane]

In Bjj, the Triangle Choke re-emerged because a Brazilian was flipping through an old Judo book from the 1920s, and decided to use the technique during a Bjj match. The choke was so effective that it was quickly added into the Bjj curriculum.

BJJ is a derivative of Judo. It was a student of Kano who moved to Brazil and taught the Gracies. I believe his name was Maeda (?). So it"s not at all surprising that a specific Judo tech would be found in BJJ.

 

[MJS]

Matt also dominated with grappling, despite having wrestling as his base, instead of GJJ.

Of course. I didn't mean to sound like I was down-playing his grappling skills.

 

[Flying Crane]

I keep coming back to the striking defense. You would think a lineage of karate, say GOJO or Shorin, would have set ways of dealing with attacks throught the entirety of the system. Sadly you can take 4 different schools from the same Lineage and they will have 4 different applications of the same defense. The fact that karate cant even agree with it self on how to use the defenses is just odd....

This is actually proper karate. The curriculum is meant to teach you how the principles work, and what the techniques are. How one actually uses the techniques in application is wide open, only limited by one's imagination and their vision for what is possible. To believe that a common curriculum must have a single application always in agreement with what everyone else is doing, is simply erroneous and illustrates a lack of understanding. The curriculum teaches you some possibilities, not set solutions. It is meant to help you see what is possible, and help you use that vision to be effectively spontaneous. What you do with it is up to you.

Yet so many places train so softly..

this can be a legitimate criticism, but is more appropriately aimed at the individual, or even the instructor or the school. But not the style itself. Anyone, of any style, TMA or MMA or whatever, can bring the training intensity up, and can train realistically. Or not.

 

[MJS]

Can you remind me what I was discounting there? Or which post # it was?

Sure.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/112643-Sport-And-TMA-Again?p=1614389#post1614389