Macyoung talks straight from his nalgas.
My dissection of one of macyoung's articles:
The original article has quote on the top and brackets on the bottom of each
section I dissect.
Quote:
I have taken extreme flak from people about my views on grappling. Usually
these people are grappling proponents and believe that my answers to grappling
challenges are re too simplistic. >>>
That and they're just plain wrong.
Quote:
Well, as long as we are talking about simple, I have three basic standards:
1) If you end up on the ground against someone trying to seriously hurt you,
you ****ed up
2) Get up immediately
3) Submission fighting is to be used only on people who you want to control,
*not* hurt (e.g. a drunk friend) >>>
All wrong.
Quote:
Does this mean I am "against" grappling? Does it mean I don't think it's worth
learning? Does this mean I am inexperienced on the ground? >>>
Yes. Yes. Name the groundfighting school you learned at, please.
Quote:
No.
What it does mean, however, is that I have experience with issues that
grappling's "true believers" don't like to look at. Those experiences --
including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the
ground (he spent six months in the hospital) -- makes me a little leery about
the universal applicability of groundfighting in so-called "real fights." >>>
Of course whatever it is "the animal" teaches will get you out of trouble when
20 guys want to stomp your head in.
Quote:
In fact, my experiences with being on the ground, tend to make me far, more of
a savage than most people feel comfortable with.>>>
Oooohhh, spoooky...
Quote:
But that isn't what this page is about, what it is about is should you cross
train? >>>
It's about me not wanting to lose students to MMA gyms.
Quote:
Why is grappling effective?
In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if
an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the
Crusades. The premise of the book was that these aliens had become extremely
adept at long-range, artillery-type warfare. They were shocked and confused
when the knights, instead of hanging back and attempting to do battle at a
distance, charged them and overwhelmed their positions. This simple, savage
strategy worked only because the aliens had lost the ability to effectively
fight at close quarters.>>>
He talks about "REAL STR33TFIGHTING" and his main arguement comes from a SCIFI
BOOK? OMG! WTF! BBQ!
Quote:
The success of grappling is due, in a large part, to the failure of
sports-based martial arts in the West. >>>
Actually it's due to the success of sports based martial arts in brazil.
Quote:
Ever since the introduction of gloved boxing, sport fighting has moved away
from the old "bare knuckle/London rules" form. That kind of pugilism was
designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other
vicious in-close tricks associated with their version of grappling. >>>
So you're telling me bare knuckle boxers didn't grapple? Despite the fact that
we've seen plenty of pictures of it? Despite the existence of throws in BKB?
Despite the fact that groundfighting was illegal in many BKB matches? Have you
even read the history of wrestling and jiujitsu vs boxing challenge matches?
They go back to the turn of the century. Read those.
Quote:
The addition of padded gloves prevented many of these moves. And in time, sport
fighting became a "sniping" game. Opponents do not rush each other, but hang
back and exchanged blows and kicks from a distance. >>>
Except for the thais.
Quote:
And in doing so, they forgot that an opponent could charge in and take them
down.
Wrestling and grappling are very popular sporting events in South America,
however. "Brazilian" Jujitsu matches are events. These fighters hadn't
forgotten about charging in -- but it was still a sport. And that means it had
events, rules, weight division, safety equipment and organizations to give
ranks, belts and titles. >>>
Why yes. That's why they're called sport jiujitsu matches. However, a sport
jiujitsu competitor will still kick your ***, macyoung.
Quote:
In the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, Northern Hemisphere fighters were
just run over. Like the aliens in Anderson's book, they had forgotten that this
kind of fighting even existed, much less had the vaguest idea how to counter
it. >>>
There's that scifi metaphor again.
Quote:
People flocked to the Gracie Jujitsu Academy(s), other so-called "Brazilian"
Jujitsu schools and Val Tudo institutes to fill this hole in their training.
>>>
It's spelled ValE tudo. And thanks for the patronising quotes.
Quote:
You will notice, however, their reputation made, the Gracies withdrew from the
later UFC events. >>>
...To go fight in pride, a more prestigous event with more skilled opponents,
which they are still doing. They may not be undefeated but they are still a
huge force to be reckoned with in NHB.
Quote:
We can safely assume that by that time, Northern Hemisphere fighters had begun
to watch tapes, study their moves to discover ways to counter what had at first
flummoxed them. >>>>
Translation: You either learn how to grapple, or you get the hell out of the
cage.
Quote:
A point proven by the fact that later UFC champs had names like Shamrock and
Severson.>>>
First of all it's dan SEVERN. Not SEVERSON.
Second, they are both experienced grapplers.
Third, neither has ever beaten a gracie.
Quote:
In short, both the shock -- and the new -- had worn off and people once again
remembered that grappling was an issue to be dealt with. >>>
Damn straight. "Dealt with" as in "Learned how to do".
Quote:
This is not to disparage the Gracies, they are fine athletes and, in their
time, they ruled the ring. >>>
They still fight NHB. And I bet helio's great grandsons could kick your ***.
Quote:
But, as they introduced a new and evolutionary change to sports fighting, other
people have continued to evolve and introduce new developments -- including
ways to counter their changes. Thus is the cycle of the martial arts, they is
always changing and evolving to meet "new" influences. >>>
Translation: They learned how to grapple and groundfight.
Quote:
It is never static, it is always changing. And sometimes what is "new" is
something that is actually old, but left behind because people had found a
counter way back then. Often until the counter is "rediscovered" this will
create the latest fad in martial arts training. >>>
Translation: I know nothing about taoism, but let me try to sound like bruce
lee for a second here.
Quote:
Where doesn't submission fighting work?
While it is important to know how to keep your head when you go to the ground,
let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies
would lie down when they fought. >>>
This has got to be one of the most assinine statements ever published.
First of all a STR33TFIGHT is not a BATTLEFIELD. Soldiers SHOOT EACH OTHER.
They don't slug it out. THEY USE GUNS.
Second of all, any grunt or jarhead can tell you they spend plenty of time
crawling on their bellies.
Quote:
As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use submission
holds and mounting positions to defeat the other army's soldiers. >>>
I take it back. THIS is the most assinine statement ever.
Quote:
Since that is not the case, we must assume that grappling is not as universally
effective as its proponents would claim.*
>>>
So, because it's easier to shoot the enemy than to figh him hand to hand that
makes grappling innefective? Wouldn't that apply to ALL unarmed martial arts
then? Including yours?
Quote:
To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand
where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).
1) In a one-on-one confrontation
2) In an open, but limited, space
3) On padded, clear surfaces
4) Without weapons
5) With rules
6) When people aren't trying to kill each other
>>>
All wrong.
Quote:
In otherwords, in a sporting event.
We can also say that it works under *very* limited conditions in a so-called
'real' fight. But it has to be a very specific kind of confrontation. In fact,
it could be termed "a friendly" fight. But you can't rely on an altercation
being of this self-limiting, non-destructive type. >>>
Jargon.
Quote:
So let's look at the elements, or more specifically the issues that *will*
undermine submission fighting's effectiveness.
>>>
Yes, let's.
Quote:
Multiple opponents - Trouble most often runs in packs. If you don't plan to
face multiple opponents, you are not really training for self defense. Seldom
will a friend watch another friend be defeated without making at least a token
effort to join help. That is human nature, and ignoring it is a dangerous
mistake -- especially since a friend's help can often be in the form of a
bottle or a rock. Since you are involved on the ground in a one-on-one contest
with all your limbs engaged and limited mobility you are vulnerable to a second
attack from above. There is also the issue -- in less reputable locations -- of
spectators joining in and kicking you both ... just for the fun of it.>>>
First of all macyoung makes the false assumption that "grappling" always means
"groundfighting".
Second of all, if onlookers or friends are going to join in, how is striking
any more usefull than grappling? You're gonna get stomped either way.
Third, he doesn't address the knee on stomach position, ideal for keeping a
lookout for friends while eliminating the fighting ability of one opponent
(which striking doesn't do!)
Continued:
Fourth he doesn't address another advantage of grappling when you're being
jumped: Hostage taking.
Fifth he assumes that all grapplers will immediately go to the ground, rather
than asess the situation and determine wether it's appropriate
Sixth, He doesn't address the fact that a joint lock will put an opponent
IMMEDIATELY and permanently out of commision.
Seventh he doesn't address the issue of standing submissions.
Quote:
In a not so open space, e.g. furniture, curbs and other people - While the
floor work itself may not take a lot of room, going down usually does. Objects
such as tables, chairs and bystanders pose chances of serious injury if you
fall onto them -- especially if you have someone else's body weight driving you
there. >>>
Wrong. Furniture and closed in space is good for grappling. See we're not gonna
be the ones falling. With grappling you can drive your opponent INTO the
obstacles.
Striking, however (besides elbows and knees), is much harder to do in an
enclosed space.
Quote:
In a truly open space - Since "grappling" made it's name in the UFC, we need to
look at the circumstances of that event. You will see in many of the take downs
that the "victim" had run out of room when it came to backing up. He was
trapped against the "ropes." It's amazing how hard it is to catch someone, much
less take them down, who has lots of room to backpedal or dodge.
>>>
So which is it, macyoung? Closed space or open space? Is there furniture and
obstacles there or not?
Quote:
Asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc. - Many "going to the ground" techniques are
designed to work on pads, mats and smooth floors. Seldom do these conditions
exist outside the dojo. >>>
We WANT asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc.
Because when we shoot a double leg it's our OPPONENT who has his face in it.
Quote:
A slap fall on asphalt will not only tear up your hand, but it can result in a
shattered bones.
>>>
I'll leave this to the judoka.
Quote:
Hitting concrete with another person landing on top of you is a painful --
often fight stopping -- experience. Now you may think "that is the idea," but
that is assuming that you are controlling the fall. A cagey fighter might not
let you land on top of him, and that makes it as much your problem as his. >>>
I don't care if he's a "cagey fighter". If he can't grapple, he goes down.
Quote:
Then there is the issue of bottles and glasses that you might land on. While
you might at first think, "there aren't glasses/bottles/etc laying on the floor
of the bar," that's under normal conditions, but if someone tackles you and you
run into another person or tip over a table, those items can and will be
knocked to the ground at the same speed as you. >>>
See my closed in space commentary.
Quote:
Without weapons - This is even more dangerous misconception than assuming that
you will only be fighting one person at a time. Once weapons come into play, it
is no longer fighting, it's combat. >>>
More sppppoooooookiiiineeeessss.
Quote:
The ground is the absolute *last* place you want to be with an armed opponent.
Under those circumstances, all your so-called "advantage" turns against you
because you cannot escape or avoid a weapon attack fast enough when you are on
the ground. >>>
Actually a high top mount, with your knees in his pits, is the best place to be
with an armed opponent (assuming you can't run). From there you have his arms
totally controlled, making it very hard for him to pull a weapon.
Secondly any weapon defense worth it's salt relies on some grappling, seeing as
you must CONTROL THE WEAPON HAND.
Thirdly for an example of grappling's effectiveness when both sticks and knives
are employed, one need only look to the dog brothers.
Quote:
Rules - Although the UFC was touted as "no rules," or more specifically "no
holds barred," many of the more nasty and brutal moves were banned. >>>
Wrong. For the first few UFCs there truly were no rules (although you could be
fined for one or two things), and there are still competitions that ban two,
one or no techniques. The later introduction of rules is the fault of ignorant
congressmen.
Quote:
Until you have endured these moves, it is easy to assume that you can "tough
them out." Experience proves differently. Many of these techniques are so
savage that people don't believe others would stoop so low -- and are therefore
unprepared to handle them. This utterly undermines the assertion of many
grapplers that "Well, we can do them too!" >>>
We can. We can do them better than you. The man in the SUPERIOR position has
the option to bite or not.
Not the guy getting his face pounded from under knee on belly.
Quote:
It isn't a matter of doing it "too" it is a matter of who does it first -- as
many of these moves are fight stoppers. >>>
I have scads of video evidence of people trying to use such "deadly" moves
which proves you very wrong.
Quote:
Not trying to kill each other - Grappling is probably best understood as
"dominating" your opponent. >>>
Also "humiliating", "putting into a position of total helplessness" and
occasionally "making you my prison wife".
Quote:
It is used to subdue and force him to submit. In terms of "fighting" hat is a
social function, it is not, however, combat. In combat, you are not trying to
prove anything, you are not trying to force compliance. You are trying to kill
him before he kills you. >>>
Macyoung seems entirely ignorant of the fact that a submission taken all the
way will break a bone or put you to sleep.
Quote:
There are severe psychological differences in intent. And you fight totally
differently. A fight with a drunken friend that you are trying to control (or
prove he is out of line) is not the same as some evil ******* coming at you
with intent to kill you. The same standards apply to the difference between
fighting and self-defense. >>>
What this has to do with grappling, i'm not sure
Quote:
If you know where groundfighting is effective, you can then deduce where it
isn't safe -- and why. >>>
Go fight a grappler, macyoung.
Return to top of page
Quote:
Don't fight his fight
Staying in a ground fight with a grappler is guaranteed to get your *** kicked.
>>>
Finally, he gets SOMETHING right. But remove "ground".
Quote:
It is where his fighting style is designed to work best. He has the home field
advantage, and all the moves that will trap you. On top of that most
"grapplers" are in mighty fine physical condition. >>>
You know it.
Quote:
The longer you stay on the ground with a grappler, the more chances you give
him to use these tactical advantage against you.
This is where my first two rules regarding grappling come into effect.
If you couldn't stop or avoid the rush, you weren't in control of your
long-range weapons. Lack of control can be directly traced to a lack of
understanding about those very tools. You didn't control the range, nor did you
understand those things that could have saved you from being taken down
(structure and mobility). These elements while critical in a real fight, are
not needed or understood in sport fighting -- where a ref will separate you if
you clinch. >>>
Translation: I can suggest some vague "principles" but no actual counters to a
double leg, seeing as I don't know any.
Quote:
But those issues are a massive can of worms and is beyond the scope of this Web
site. What I can say is, most often, the error wasn't in what you did per se,
but rather in your training. If your instructor doesn't know it, there is no
way he could teach you. >>>
More specifically in your training under a charlatan like marc macyoung.
Quote:
What I can tell you, is that the second rule applies in spades. You need to get
out of the grappler's preferred range. Even if the person you are fighting is
not a grappler, the "get-up" rule still applies due to danger from his friends
and vicious on-lookers. >>>
So marc, tell us how to escape mount.
Quote:
To this end, I heartily recommend you inflict some kind of intense and savage
pain. While he is reeling from it, you use the opportunity to scramble back up
to your feet. That is going to be your only window of opportunity. >>>
And you do this from under mount...how? Magically grow arms that are six feet
long and can't be armbarred?
Again, every time we've seen a "deadly streetfighter" fight a grappler, we find
the tactics that macyoung suggests DO NOT WORK.
Quote:
This is significantly different than trying to fight your way out of the
situation. If you attempt to fight through his tactics, you will be defeated.
Remember, these are his strengths, contesting them is not going to work unless
you are a superior grappler. Your safest strategy is *not* to play his game.
Get back to where your strengths are. >>>
Like writing horrible essays on the internet.
<snipped section, where he points out that grappling is good for subduing
people without harming them>
Quote:
However, when you have several sociopathic gangbangers coming at you, a
knife-wielding mugger threatening your life or are in a large, unruly crowd,
you *don't* want to try to grapple. >>>
You want to try to *run*. Not use whatever it is macyoung teaches you.
Quote:
In fact, you don't even want to try to fight. Escape should be your number one
priority. Charging in and wrestling him to the ground, doesn't conform to the
definition of escape. >>>
Nor does slugging it out.
Return to top of page
Quote:
When not to use grappling
Basically don't use it in a "self-defense" situation.
You are not there to engage an opponent. You are not there to fight an
opponent. In a self-defense situation you are seeking to protect your life or
prevent "grievous bodily injury" to yourself. That is not time to be thinking
about fighting, you need to concern yourself more with getting the hell out of
there and to safety. Most legitimate self-defense situations are not single
adversary or without weapons. >>>
I think I can figure out how to be a complete wuss by myself, thanks.
Quote:
Even if it is a one-on-one situation, a basic problem arises if you are
attempting to subdue someone in a self-defense situation: After you have him in
a nice submission hold, how are you going to get to the phone to call the
police? >>>
Well first of all I don't screw around with 5-0.
But if I wanted to, I would get up, watching him clutch his shattered joint as
he screams in pain (HURF, SO MACHO). Then I would go make the call.
Quote:
This is just one of the problems that arises out of not knowing the difference
between self-defense and fighting, much less the difference between martial
arts and fighting.. >>>
This is also one of the problems with not knowing what the hell you're talking
about.
Quote:
And while we are on the subject, it's probably not the best idea to use it in a
fight either.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are serious legal consequences
about fighting. What's worse is, even if the other guy "started it ," if your
actions "go over the top" abpit what a "reasonable" person would consider
"self-defense" you are in deep trouble. While it may be acceptable to do a knee
mount and strike a downed opponent in the ring, sitting on someone's chest and
jack-hammering his head off off the concrete isn't going to pass for anybody's
definition of "self-defense." In many states, a choke hold is considered use of
lethal force.
>>>
So in essence you're saying "don't fight him, you might get in trouble".
Wouldn't this apply just as much to standup striking?
Quote:
You're going to be in some deep legal trouble if you use your hardcore,
kick-*** grappling techniques on someone and they suffer serious injury. Which
is really likely if you are sitting on his chest punching him. >>>
I'm confused. Didn't you say grappling isn't lethal at all?
Return to top of page
<snip macyoung covering his ***>
