Sport And TMA....Again

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
729
Location
Perth, Western Australia
http://youtu.be/NkMuzwDtSPk

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

I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,055
I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.

Right not something you can train at full speed. Not something you would use in a comp either
 

Jean Marais

Yellow Belt
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Berlin
To me the sport is a form of simulation. Not bad all things considered. The simulation has to fit the art though. Also, you don't need to test every aspect in the same simulation. For the effectiveness of eye gouging, I would try a dummy, not a person...maybe not as realistic, but we have limits. Nontheless, simulation is an essencial tool for developement, both of an art and of personal abillity. If you want to simulate a fight between two different arts, it will be tricky to come up with a simulation that does not favour one or the other in a reasonably safe way. Anyway, I find testing your art's effectiveness is an important way to be continously improoving it and yourself. You may not be able to test all elements, however more often than not, you will learn something that will advance you.

Some TMA don't "participate" in some of the simulations against other styles, but it doesn't mean that they don't run simulations at all. Finding a common measuring stick simulation that does not hamper some aspects of an art, will probably never happen. There is no such thing as the perfect simulation. We do the best we can and learn as much as we can from those tests.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Australia
Oh please. Stop trying to weasel.

Just man up and admit you were wrong: UFC isn't a "game," it is "real fighting," just fighting with rules. Just like pretty much all "real fighting" has "rules" of some sort.

Depending on the object of the fight. If it is to win a 'sporting contest' it is one thing. If it is to 'destroy' an opponent, it is totally different. The fact that UFC fighters were not trying to kill or permanently disable means that there were unwritten rules as well as the stated rules.

It is a tournament of real punches, kicks and elbows...but it is a competition of wit, physical endurance and strength--like a game.

The punches and kicks were real but the elbows were restricted. As I have stated previously, my most preferred technique in a life threatening situation would be striking with the point of the elbow. Its potential to damage is why it is against MMA rules.

you mean like starting the fight standing, then being stood up by a ref mid fight at his discretion, then having the fight stopped for a minute and it restarting on the feet?

Most fights start standing up. The grapplers strength is to clinch and the strikers objective is yo maintain distance. I would suggest of those two it is easier to achieve the clinch.

If you don't understand how standing up two fighters, one who is primarily a grappler and one who is primary a striker benefits the striker than I believe any amount of factual reasoning will be lost on you.:flushed:

I would like to see your reasoning! Wrestling starts standing and judo starts standing. Why is MMA different.

This is highly debatable IMO. Yes sprawling on a shot and then kneeing benefits the striker, but positions like North South and top Side Control would be insanely dangerous as a grappler if knees were allowed, hell even under side control ala Frank Shamrock vs Renzo.

Thoughts?

Unless the person shooting is highly trained they are likely to get really badly injured against a reasonably trained martial artist. Ballen's post of Tom Hill demonstrates what I mean.

The discussion of deaths is a direct response to what you wrote:
"Mmm! Depends on the intent. There are some rules in conventional warfare. There were rules for duelling. I have a vague idea people died in both. :) So no, rules don't make it a game, just a very violent sport where the rules favour fighters with certain skills and ban some of the more damaging forms of attack."

Note that you write, "I have a vague idea people died in both." Deaths, as a direct result of the event, occur in all of these. The point is that the answer must be far more nuanced than just "deaths" or, as I think we agree, that the addition of "rules" does not mean it's not a "real fight."
Obviously 'vague idea' was tongue firmly placed to the outer region of the oral cavity. But 'real' fight still needs to be defined. If by 'real' it is meant to go all out to win a competition, yes it is real. If by 'real' you mean to injure or totally destroy an opponent, perhaps not so real. As I said, it depends on intent.

In short, what the Gracies and UFC proved is that fighters need to practice grappling skills and that what grappling skills most fighters thought they possessed were either the wrong skills or not practiced in such a manner as to make them functional for the fighter.

In a sporting environment.

Again they are trying to hurt each other not injure. There is a difference. In a sporting event you want to hurt the guy to win not injure him. If they were trying to cause injury then they suck at it

What he said! :)

So may be participation in this thread. ;)

Amen Brother! :cheers:

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. :)

I don't believe there are any dirty tricks. In RBSD there are just techniques. For example I was taught a kick to the groin in my early days. Kin geri to those who know Goju. I barely mention it nowadays. The chance of it doing anything in a real fight is low. If I am in the situation to attack the groin it will be a shin kick. Attacking the eyes is a valid technique, not so much to actually strike the eyes, bonus if that happens, but to elicit the flinch response and get the opponent's arm where I want it. If I am in a choke, sure I will go for the eyes. Spitting does nothing, but it is a distraction. Hair pulling, sure. It can be used to control your opponent's position. As for biting. Whether or not Bas actually said what he is quoted as saying or whether that is folk law, biting may well have a place in self defence. If you are in a choke and you can bite it is a valid distraction.

And if you didn't want to, and even if you still wanted to deny the claims, you and your art were probably looked at as being a chicken, to use a more polite word. :)

Regardless of who beat who, UFC never demonstrated one art was better than another. It demonstrated that, at one particular point of time, one fighter was better than another.

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

Then let's leave it that way. ;) What you don't know won't hurt you. What I teach has no place in sport anyway and FWIW there are numerous neck cranks in each kata.

I remember being taught (by the founder of our school) the first one in the video (the head twist one) at a grading a while back. It would take a large amount of force to break someones neck like that but it is an excellent controlling technique (where the head goes the body follows) and not one you would want to try to resist, you either go down or forget about turning your head left and right for a few weeks.

Actually no. It takes little effort to break the neck. There are certain things that I will not post on an open forum that change the dynamic.

Right not something you can train at full speed. Not something you would use in a comp either
Exactly!
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
North-South? Maybe dangerous for the bottom man. Side-Control? Same thing. The top man has enough control that he can disengage just enough to put his body into a knee shot. Neither are particularly dangerous for the top man if knee shots are allowed. The bottom man is immobilized on his back and simply can't get his body into throwing knee shots. North-South would be a non-starter for knee shots for the bottom man. Side-Control would allow only comparatively weak knee shots for the bottom man, maybe analogous to a jab (maybe). And if the top man sinks his head down on to the bottom man, then the bottom man is going to be hard pressed to make effective shots. Experiment with it yourself and see.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I see what you mean here and it makes sense to you because you have a lack of knowledge of grappling." Here is the problem....... You're assuming the "grappler" is on the bottom in those positions. In reality he grappler is most likely the one on too in North South and on top in side control.

So now rethink those positions from the idea of a grappler taking a striker down, getting on top of him and holding him down while knees to the head are legal. It's kinda terrifying.
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
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.


Thing is, Royce wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 in his family at the time, and here IMO is the big difference, Royce had those qualities over the other fighters because he had to a and tons of real, live combat experience. His ***** was tested and tried and he was battle tested. He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight. No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO. As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts.

you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.

again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
Are you suggesting that Hughes didn't dominate Gracie in every possible way during that fight, that maybe it was just a lucky punch that took him out?
Lol, I'm saying Hughes dominated the whole fight, standing and ground and did so even while Royce Gracie cheated by using illegal performance enhancing drugs which makes that do inaction all the more impressive!
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Australia
He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight. No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.
Now we are back to the OP. It's only taken 89 pages. :)

Fancy forms are for competition. Nothing more nothing less. Anyone that says that it demonstrates technique, balance etc. is missing the point of Kata. Kata can look messy and still be performed well, just as you can drive a dirty car, just a dirty car won't win a car show.

Throwing in forms like this demonstrates your ignorance of TMAs. We have had threads discussing kata so I won't waste time going deeply into it here. Suffice to say, in karate, kata are fighting systems. Every technique is designed to be a finishing move, if that move fails the next technique is your fail safe and so on. Kata is designed to show you how to disable or kill your attacker (and don't throw up the 'more deadly' stuff). That is just the way it is. What happens in MMA might be 'real' fighting in a sporting sense. Kata gives you the tools to fight in a real life or death situation, providing you have learned to use it that way. To most people kata are just what you see performed in competition and what you need to grade. If that is what your training teaches you then forget kata as it is a total waste of time, or get yourself a better teacher.
:asian:
 

ballen0351

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,055
Thing is, Royce wasn't even in the top 3 or 4 in his family at the time, and here IMO is the big difference, Royce had those qualities over the other fighters because he had to a and tons of real, live combat experience. His ***** was tested and tried and he was battle tested. He knew how to fight and what worked in a fight. No fancy forms and flows for him, just real fighting.
So you don't think shamrock was tried and tested? All of the hard work and trading is part of it but natural ability rises to the top.
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
.


Most fights start standing up. The grapplers strength is to clinch and the strikers objective is yo maintain distance. I would suggest of those two it is easier to achieve the clinch.

True most fights start standing, my problem is the the ref choosing to bring the fight back to the fight whenever he wants and also the fact that there are rounds which also disrupt the grappling and gives the standup guy a free ride back to his feet

I would like to see your reasoning! Wrestling starts standing and judo starts standing. Why is MMA different.

Starting standing is fine, but once the fight hits the ground it should be the fighter who gets himself back up off the mat, not the ref and not the end of a round.

Unless the person shooting is highly trained they are likely to get really badly injured against a reasonably trained martial artist. Ballen's post of Tom Hill demonstrates what I mean.
not sure I remember that one, I will go back and look.
Thanks
 

TFP

Blue Belt
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
233
Reaction score
2
So you don't think shamrock was tried and tested? All of the hard work and trading is part of it but natural ability rises to the top.

Not sure what you mean here. Yes Ken was somewhat seasoned, but again he was a grappler and a fighter. There is no absolute, I think in Kens case he was out grappled by Royce and GJJ's system. Ken was a much, much better natural fighter, but Royces system (GJJ) and his experience got him thru that first fight with a win, after that Ken's mind failed him. To put it simply, Royce was in Ken's head big time and Ken never recovered mentally from that first defeat.
 

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
729
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO.

:bs:


As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts. you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.

In the UFC maybe, in real life highly debatable. Define pure striker. Grappling is fine and good and should be a part of any well rounded martial art, but all the grappling in the world will not help you if you get knocked out trying to go for a clinch. If you think that no striker can control the distance when faced with a grappler you are sadly mistaken.

again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.

:bs:

You know what they say about opinions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJS

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
729
Location
Perth, Western Australia
True most fights start standing, my problem is the the ref choosing to bring the fight back to the fight whenever he wants and also the fact that there are rounds which also disrupt the grappling and gives the standup guy a free ride back to his feet

Starting standing is fine, but once the fight hits the ground it should be the fighter who gets himself back up off the mat, not the ref and not the end of a round.

The fights usually get restarted when nothing starts happening on the ground and the audience starts to get bored. If the grappler can not finish their opponent on the ground withing a few seconds then the grappling is inefficient.
 

RTKDCMB

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
729
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Actually no. It takes little effort to break the neck. There are certain things that I will not post on an open forum that change the dynamic.

Leverage for one, forcing the neck to move in a way it is not designed another. My point is it would not be very likely for the neck to be broken by moving it in a direction it was designed to do by accident. If it was then there would be a lot more accidental deaths and serious injuries in professional and amateur wrestling. It would definitely not be as easy as it is in the movies. You would have to do it on purpose and with a lot of force. Still something to be carefully practiced though.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Australia
Leverage for one, forcing the neck to move in a way it is not designed another. My point is it would not be very likely for the neck to be broken by moving it in a direction it was designed to do by accident. If it was then there would be a lot more accidental deaths and serious injuries in professional and amateur wrestling. It would definitely not be as easy as it is in the movies. You would have to do it on purpose and with a lot of force. Still something to be carefully practiced though.
This is not the place to discuss the how, but yes, we practise it slowly and carefully.
:asian:
 
OP
M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
30,187
Reaction score
427
Location
Cromwell,CT
Thanks, yeah that is 100% false IMO. As pure arts go, grappling has been proven time and time again, by a large margin to dominate the striking arts.

you take a pure striker vs a pure grappler and the grappler dominates because the striker cannot control the distance and has little to no know leg of the clinch and ground.

again I love striking arts, but they are inferior to grappling arts IMO.

Well, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, mainly for the reasons that RTKDCMB already listed.
 
Top