who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you.

[ballen0351]

You don't understand the concepts. Even argus had an idea of the mechanics that are occurring.

Why would you be training someone if you don't understand the subject?

You not understanding the answers has nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic. You can't train a rock they are too dense

 

[drop bear]

I don't want to trade punches with anyone ever of I can avoid it.

What is "real hard" my real hard is different then your real hard. I want to hit hard enough to get a desired reaction.

Who ever claimed hitting was a dorm of escape?

I will trade punches if I am hitting harder or in a better position. So if I am in mount I will happily trade. The risk of me loosing that is small.

The desired reaction would be they would say "ouch" and get off. Even. Falling unconscious like that video would be nice. Also kind of hilarious. The undesired reaction would be responding with elbows.

And as to who thinks hitting is a form of escape. That would be hitting effectively unless for some reason you want to leaves the guy sitting on top of you. And I cant think of why you would leave a guy there in a fight.

 

[drop bear]

Again trying to change the questions to fit the answer you want. The guy on top is irrelevant. The guy on bottom doesn't have perfect mechanics or body position so according to you strikes are not effective. Well that's just not the case

What on earth are you on about. Leg lock is not a top position. The other guy is not on the bottom.

 

[drop bear]

You not understanding the answers has nothing to do with his knowledge of the topic. You can't train a rock they are too dense

Nobody understands his answers. They are too mysterious. Seriously read them. They are just vague references. You can't discuss a vage reference.

 

[ballen0351]

I will trade punches if I am hitting harder or in a better position. So if I am in mount I will happily trade. The risk of me loosing that is small.

I don't fight for fun. I'm not trading anything I'm winning.

The desired reaction would be they would say "ouch" and get off. Even. Falling unconscious like that video would be nice. Also kind of hilarious. The undesired reaction would be responding with elbows.

There are plenty of desired reactions. What I find hilarious is you can't admit you were wrong when you started this thread

And as to who thinks hitting is a form of escape. That would be hitting effectively unless for some reason you want to leaves the guy sitting on top of you. And I cant think of why you would leave a guy there in a fight.

A form of escape no. Using it to set up an escape technique absolutely

 

[ballen0351]

What on earth are you on about. Leg lock is not a top position. The other guy is not on the bottom.

He's on his back and has to punch the guy above him. Call it what you want

 

[drop bear]

He's on his back and has to punch the guy above him. Call it what you want

Above him when he punched?

 

[ballen0351]

Above him when he punched?

Yep it's not a Complicated thing here. He had to sit up off the mat sonce he was on the ground or lower tgen the other guy to reach the guy who's head was higher or above him.

 

[ballen0351]

Nobody understands his answers. They are too mysterious. Seriously read them. They are just vague references. You can't discuss a vage reference.

I understand him fine. Stop trolling and maybe it will make sense

 

[drop bear]

I don't fight for fun. I'm not trading anything I'm winning.

There are plenty of desired reactions. What I find hilarious is you can't admit you were wrong when you started this thread

A form of escape no. Using it to set up an escape technique absolutely

Trading punches can either be for fun or for serious. It is when you and the other guy are punching at about the same time.

Setting up an escape would be escaping wouldn't it?

Look if someone could make bottom position punching actually something I could do then I would admit I am wrong. The best we have is that someone has done it.which is different.

I mean people have finished fights jumping off walls or using flying triangles and all sorts of crazy stuff. But that does not mean you or I could pull that off with any reliably.

 

[ballen0351]

Trading punches can either be for fun or for serious. It is when you and the other guy are punching at about the same time.

Again I don't fight for fun.

Setting up an escape would be escaping wouldn't it?

Could be or it could be used to set up a different technique. Like using body shots to set up a head shot. Use strike from the bottom to set up something else. Or using strikes from the bottom to cause the top guy to adjust his position so you can do something else.

Look if someone could make bottom position punching actually something I could do then I would admit I am wrong. The best we have is that someone has done it.which is different.

I mean people have finished fights jumping off walls or using flying triangles and all sorts of crazy stuff. But that does not mean you or I could pull that off with any reliably.[/QUOTE]
Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it's not a viable technique. There are things I can't due because of my size, age, Injury history or I'm just not talented enough to do. That doesn't make them bad techniques.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yep it's not a Complicated thing here. He had to sit up off the mat sonce he was on the ground or lower tgen the other guy to reach the guy who's head was higher or above him.

Yeah, no. You're talking about something completely different here. Arlovski was not underneath his opponent or in an inferior position when he threw that punch. The two fighters were pretty much in an equal position. The other guy's head might have been slightly higher when he started the punch, but that doesn't mean he was on top. It's more like if they were standing and one fighter was a bit taller than the other.

No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours. What we're saying is that when one fighter on the ground has a dominant top position, then the fighter on the ground is overwhelmingly likely to lose if he makes it a striking contest. We're saying that because we have a lot of experience with those particular positions.

You don't have to agree with us. You're free to ignore the experience of those who have intense specialized training in those particular aspects of a fight and train however you want. However, bringing up an example like that Arlovski fight is just a non sequiter that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're just inventing your own idea of what our words mean and arguing against that idea without making any effort to understand our actual meaning. It's as if we were talking about weather in Alaska saying "it's cold up there in the north" and you were to respond by saying "Nonsense! It's 90 degrees in North Richland Hills, Texas."

 

[ballen0351]

Yeah, no. You're talking about something completely different here. Arlovski was not underneath his opponent or in an inferior position when he threw that punch. The two fighters were pretty much in an equal position. The other guy's head might have been slightly higher when he started the punch, but that doesn't mean he was on top. It's more like if they were standing and one fighter was a bit taller than the other.

Nonsense you see what you want because well that's what you have been doing this whole thread.

No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours.

That's exactly what DB and Haz have been saying all along. That may not be what YOUR saying but again the forum doesn't revolve around you and not every post is about you.

What we're saying is that when one fighter on the ground has a dominant top position, then the fighter on the ground is overwhelmingly likely to lose if he makes it a striking contest. We're saying that because we have a lot of experience with those particular positions.

As do I and I also have NEVER said punching should be your go to. I said it can be a viable option and have given proof to back up the claim

You don't have to agree with us. You're free to ignore the experience of those who have intense specialized training in those particular aspects of a fight and train however you want.

Well you might want to rethink all your "experience" since you are wrong.

However, bringing up an example like that Arlovski fight is just a non sequiter that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You're just inventing your own idea of what our words mean and arguing against that idea without making any effort to understand our actual meaning. It's as if we were talking about weather in Alaska saying "it's cold up there in the north" and you were to respond by saying "Nonsense! It's 90 degrees in North Richland Hills, Texas."

Again nonsense but I expect nothing less from the BJJ mafia around here.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You don't understand the concepts. Even argus had an idea of the mechanics that are occurring.

Why would you be training someone if you don't understand the subject?

ahh. but I do, however you do not.... but this is now getting rather childish so you continue to rail at windmills if you like, but I see no further reason to allow you to waste my time.

 

[Xue Sheng]

@Hanzou

A better answer, although you likely will not like it, I was rather annoyed last night with things in real life and should have waited for today to respond.

First, why the continued question about striking; I suspect that you feel a strike can only be made with a foot or a closed fist and that is simply not the case from a CMA perspective, if you reread my post #100 you will see that I already said this and you still did not respond to my question to discover what you are calling a strike, and defining a word with the same word is not acceptable. I tried to explain why I was asking and yet you still seem to take offense to that post. In CMA there is a saying is “the body is a fist”, this means you can strike with just about everything. Also there are multiple hand configurations that are not closed fist that are also strikes.

In addition, I never said striking would work on all postures supplied (see post #81 for clarification) by Tony in post #89. As a matter of fact I did say that a couple of them befuddle me (I can’t figure out how you would get out of them). But I doubt I would see either of those outside of a BJJ school or a grappling competition so knowing how to get out of them is not really a priority for me. However if I ever have the opportunity to learn how I would most certainly take advantage of that opportunity, and since I never said striking would get you out of all of them I do not understand the continued request to tell you how striking would work on all of them, however in some situation it is an option. I also said that qinna might be a better choice (see post #100)

Now, I also said in post #100 that in CMA there is no “If you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since it all depends on the force coming at ‘B’. Also since Tony posted the pictures in post #89 I have been having a discussion with a BJJ person who is rather well trained, has rather high rank in BJJ, who is quite skilled and whose view on this I respect and I have discovered that in some cases my response may not work and in others it may but in all striking tends to be secondary. Also the pictures provided, although good, are not the way that the specific mount will be done every single time, there are variations. Therefore, once again, there is no “you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since ‘A’ is not always the same. So, after discussion with the BJJ person I mentioned, I do see that my thoughts on how to get out may be wrong on a couple of them, especially “high mount”, but I would like to try what I was thinking, to see if it would work someday. Now back to the postures in the pictures; Of the postures provided most I do not see striking as the way to get out of them, although it is a possibility in a couple of them and in one of them I see it as having a rather high success rate, assuming the posture is done exactly the same way as shown in the picture. But this is not a kick with a foot of a closed fist punch (that is why what you view as striking is so important to the discussion, and as I previously said defining a word with the same word is simply not acceptable).

I also discovered in my discussion that the art I do and the one I use to do (that was my favorite actually) can be categorized as standup grappling. But my favorite one also was quite interested in strikes that hit like a truck too.

That is the best answer I can give you based on still photos

Now as for Drop Bear’s lack of knowledge on power generation, and telling me I am copping out, and don't know, that you seem to agree with, I will say this and only this, look into Fajin. But I will not discuss it or teach him, you or anyone else on the web.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

No one is saying you can't strike effectively on the ground. No one is saying you can't strike effectively against someone whose head is higher than yours.

That's exactly what DB and Haz have been saying all along.

Nope. That might be what you thought they were saying, but it absolutely not what they said and not what they meant. Feel free to ask them if they meant anything of the sort.

If you can find a quote from either one of them saying that you can't strike effectively on the ground or that you can't strike someone whose head is higher than yours, then I will post a new thread on the forum entitled "I, Tony Dismukes, am a big ugly Stupid-Head."

Since both of them have stated repeatedly that it is possible to strike effectively on the ground and neither have said anything about striking someone whose head is higher than yours, I'm not too worried about having to make that post. (BTW - "on top of" can indicate multiple situations, but all of them involve more than just one persons head being higher than the other.)

 

[ballen0351]

Here is 1 of several posts from Hanz

don't rely on desperation tactics like trying to punch someone in the head who is sitting on your chest. Why shouldn't you rely on such tactics? Because they're not effective.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd post more but I'm on a phone so the multiquote doesnt work and well I don't care that much

 

[Hanzou]

@Hanzou

A better answer, although you likely will not like it, I was rather annoyed last night with things in real life and should have waited for today to respond.

First, why the continued question about striking; I suspect that you feel a strike can only be made with a foot or a closed fist and that is simply not the case from a CMA perspective, if you reread my post #100 you will see that I already said this and you still did not respond to my question to discover what you are calling a strike, and defining a word with the same word is not acceptable. I tried to explain why I was asking and yet you still seem to take offense to that post. In CMA there is a saying is “the body is a fist”, this means you can strike with just about everything. Also there are multiple hand configurations that are not closed fist that are also strikes.

In addition, I never said striking would work on all postures supplied (see post #81 for clarification) by Tony in post #89. As a matter of fact I did say that a couple of them befuddle me (I can’t figure out how you would get out of them). But I doubt I would see either of those outside of a BJJ school or a grappling competition so knowing how to get out of them is not really a priority for me. However if I ever have the opportunity to learn how I would most certainly take advantage of that opportunity, and since I never said striking would get you out of all of them I do not understand the continued request to tell you how striking would work on all of them, however in some situation it is an option. I also said that qinna might be a better choice (see post #100)

Now, I also said in post #100 that in CMA there is no “If you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since it all depends on the force coming at ‘B’. Also since Tony posted the pictures in post #89 I have been having a discussion with a BJJ person who is rather well trained, has rather high rank in BJJ, who is quite skilled and whose view on this I respect and I have discovered that in some cases my response may not work and in others it may but in all striking tends to be secondary. Also the pictures provided, although good, are not the way that the specific mount will be done every single time, there are variations. Therefore, once again, there is no “you do ‘A’ I do ‘B’” since ‘A’ is not always the same. So, after discussion with the BJJ person I mentioned, I do see that my thoughts on how to get out may be wrong on a couple of them, especially “high mount”, but I would like to try what I was thinking, to see if it would work someday. Now back to the postures in the pictures; Of the postures provided most I do not see striking as the way to get out of them, although it is a possibility in a couple of them and in one of them I see it as having a rather high success rate, assuming the posture is done exactly the same way as shown in the picture. But this is not a kick with a foot of a closed fist punch (that is why what you view as striking is so important to the discussion, and as I previously said defining a word with the same word is simply not acceptable).

I also discovered in my discussion that the art I do and the one I use to do (that was my favorite actually) can be categorized as standup grappling. But my favorite one also was quite interested in strikes that hit like a truck too.

That is the best answer I can give you based on still photos

Now as for Drop Bear’s lack of knowledge on power generation, and telling me I am copping out, and don't know, that you seem to agree with, I will say this and only this, look into Fajin. But I will not discuss it or teach him, you or anyone else on the web.

Well just FYI, I do know that a strike doesn't need to just be closed fists or kicks. I did do JMA which includes many unorthodox striking techniques. One of the strikes in Bjj is the head butt after all.

That said, I think part of the issue here is theory versus application. The reason I agree so much with Drop Bear is that we come from similar perspectives. If someone tells me that x is effective, I need to see x being used on a semi-regular basis in some form of fighting. One thing I notice about CMA is that it uses a lot of theory and concepts, but I see little of those concepts being used on a regular basis anywhere, even in Chinese-based MMA or Chinese street fighting where CMA is being applied. So when you told me to look into "Faijin", I pulled up this video;

And I simply find stuff like that to be suspect, because not only does it look incredible, but I've never seen it applied in an uncontrolled environment. You would think something like that would be used constantly, and anyone utilizing such skills would be dominating in fighting contests, or people who wanted to dominate in such contests would be falling over themselves to learn those concepts. The fact that no one has casts doubts on their validity.

Again, simply a difference of perspectives. I think that is the root of the disagreement here. Sort of a science vs religion sort of thing I suppose. No disrespect to anything you do Xue. I'm simply a bit skeptical at stuff like that in the vid.

 

[Buka]