Things that make you go HMMMM?

[MJS]

Originally posted by Seig
I am only going to say this once. The UFC was and is a load of crap. The Gracie HYPE is crap. They never pitted one system against another system, they pitted men against men, period. When Royce won his first UFCs he did so because he was physically better prepared to do so. Was it because BJJ was superior to Kenpo? No, Royce was a better fighter than Keith, end of discussion. In that same vein, Keith beat the hell out of a guy three times his size and broke his hand doing so. Why? Because he was the better fighter. When any trained fighter is allowed to do so in his own element, he has the advantage. People, hype is hype, not reality. The Gracie family has produced some world class athletes, as have the Machados, it's what they train for and gear towards. Could I get in the ring with one of them, probably not, I'm not a competition fighter. Can I level the average street punk? History says, yes. That's what I train for and that's what I teach. I hate to say this, because it goes against my nature to agree with DocD), it's not the system, it's the instruction.

Seig--Very good post, and yes, you do make alot of valid points. Just a few questions for you, in you would not mind answering them for me.

In regards to the fighters in the UFC. You mentioned pitting man vs. man. How do you figure? You had fighters from all backgrounds... Judo, Savate, Kung-Fu, Sumo, etc. Isn't that 1 style against another?

In regards to the skill level. You said that you are not a competition fihgter, and I respect that, but don't you think, that if any of these UFC style fighters got into a fight on the street, that they would not be able to defend themselves and fight good?

As for grappling not being better? In the first few fights, you had very few if any good grapplers. By taking a grappler and pitting him against a striker, it did show the importance of learning the ground game. Granted, there were rules prohibiting certain things..groin shots, eye shots...all of which are valid on the street. But, don't you think that the grappler is capable of doing these strikes also? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to eye gouge.

As for the fighter vs. the inst. I agree with you 100%. I have said this before. There is something to learn from every style. However, you're right. It is the student that is learning the material and learns how to properly apply it, that will be the better person.

Mike

 

[kenpo3631]

"Where skill ends, guts and conditioning take over"...

Where have I heard that before?:deadhorse

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by MJS
Seig--Very good post, and yes, you do make alot of valid points. Just a few questions for you, in you would not mind answering them for me.

In regards to the fighters in the UFC. You mentioned pitting man vs. man. How do you figure? You had fighters from all backgrounds... Judo, Savate, Kung-Fu, Sumo, etc. Isn't that 1 style against another?

Absolutely not, a style is a personal interpretation of a SYSTEM. The systems were not fighting each other, the competitors were.

In regards to the skill level. You said that you are not a competition fihgter, and I respect that, but don't you think, that if any of these UFC style fighters got into a fight on the street, that they would not be able to defend themselves and fight good?

I have very little doubt that a good number of those men would be able to defend themselves and do it well on the street. However, the average person, and most of my students are average people, does not train for a cage match.

As for grappling not being better? In the first few fights, you had very few if any good grapplers. By taking a grappler and pitting him against a striker, it did show the importance of learning the ground game. Granted, there were rules prohibiting certain things..groin shots, eye shots...all of which are valid on the street. But, don't you think that the grappler is capable of doing these strikes also? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to eye gouge.

What you have stated here is true. But using that same logic, a good wrestler would also necessarily be a good fighter. Now, if you have studied any kind of Jiu-Jitsu, you know that is flawed because what the wrestler is taught as fundamental the Jiu-Jitsu trained person is taught is anathema; ie, turtleing when in trouble. What is important about being a good fighter, wether stand up or ground, is having a strong set of base skills you use well. A point that several here have touched on but not really followed up on is this, whatever you do, you have to be comfortable doing it, or you will fail. Anyone can groin shot or eye gouge, as you said, but what makes the strike the most effective is the timing of the shot. The other important thing to really remember is this, MOST attackers do not want to be tied up with someone for any length of time. They want to get in and out. In short, they want easy victims. The solution here is to not make yourself look or act like a victim.

As for the fighter vs. the inst. I agree with you 100%. I have said this before. There is something to learn from every style. However, you're right. It is the student that is learning the material and learns how to properly apply it, that will be the better person.

Mike

I think every instructor here will agree with that last statement.

 

[MJS]

Seig- Thanks for the reply! One thing though, in regards to the fighters not being capable of fighting on the street. While there are rules in the cage, and none on the street, I'm sure that these individuals are still able to fight. I train with an Inst in Ct. that has a very successful school. He mostly offers Filipino MA. He also has a very big interest in NHB, and he currently trains people at his school to fight in these events. Now, I'm only speaking on what I have seen, not every MMA fihgter. This individual has alot of fihgt experience and I have no doubt in my mind, that if he got into a fight on the street, that he would have much trouble. I would be happy to post his web site address, so you could see for yourself.

Mike

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by MJS
Seig- Thanks for the reply! One thing though, in regards to the fighters not being capable of fighting on the street. While there are rules in the cage, and none on the street, I'm sure that these individuals are still able to fight. I train with an Inst in Ct. that has a very successful school. He mostly offers Filipino MA. He also has a very big interest in NHB, and he currently trains people at his school to fight in these events. Now, I'm only speaking on what I have seen, not every MMA fihgter. This individual has alot of fihgt experience and I have no doubt in my mind, that if he got into a fight on the street, that he would have much trouble. I would be happy to post his web site address, so you could see for yourself.

Mike

Mike,
Re-read, I did not say they could not fight. I said I doubted that most of them would have any trouble defending themselves.

 

[MJS]

Yup--My bad.

MS

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by howardr
I'd say that you are making several unwarranted assumptions here. No where did I blame educators (which you seem to be equating with teachers themselves) for THE social woes plaguing our society. Where did I say that? I was merely pointing out that some of our current problems in education stem from both the content and methodology in our school systems. You really unreasonably stretched my point to your own liking.

Does my point necessarily require that the primary fault lie with the teachers themselves? No, it does not. Could it be the fault of some of the teachers? Perhaps. Possibly it is the fault of certain teachers but not fundamentally the teachers at the lower end of the educational totem pole. As to the source, I'd be looking more at the vanguards of these social movements - the theoreticians of the PC nonsense that usually reside in the ivory towers of our universities and think tanks.


You say these problems are our responsibility not the teachers. Well, who the heck are the teachers? Are they not equally members of our society? Or do you think they are some separate class that exists apart from the rest us? You wouldn't happen to be in college would you (or maybe a recent graduate)? Your bizarre theories about how the world works coincides perfectly with what is taught in the typical humanities class in our beloved universities.

Howard

Howard,
No, I'm not in school right now but I did graduate about five years ago if that is what you call "recent". Let me make a guess about you... I'll bet you listen to a lot of AM Talk radio. Al Franken has a lot of interesting things to say about those types of people but one thing is for sure is that they feel as if they are the most well informed when in fact they are the most ill-informed group of people. I fancied working in criminal justice for a while and took intro to corrections an intro to juevenile justice. We were force fed lots of empirical data about whom is being arrested and for what. Also, we were told why things work the way they do and why the problems that exist are so hard to solve. I know the words "liberal propaganda" are already forming on your lips so I won't take up to much of your time. Your talk of "ivory towers" and the evils of education smack of fear. You would rather see public education destroyed than fixed. Teachers get payed almost nothing. Is that a myth comming from the "Ivory Towers"? NO!
So the Teachers aren't lock stepping with the current right wing fanatisisms. So what? Why the rich have you fighting so valiantly for there cause is what perplexes me. I guess telling us to not trust education is their first step.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, hell. I'm pretty much agreeing with a guy who claims to live in a trailer park.

To quote David Byrne, "Here comes the twister."

 

[Touch Of Death]

If it makes you feel any better, its a manufactured home park.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Old Fat Kenpoka
Anybody ever see a fight that started in one place and moved to several others? Let's say it started in a bar, then moved to the parking lot, then wound up in another bar, then wound up at somebody's house, then continued at the local jail, etc.?

Wasn't that an old Clint Eastwood Movie??

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Actually, the incident I'm thinking about was a manufacturing supervisor who attacked one of his employees at the last party that the company ever served alcohol. Amazing thing is that the supervisor didn't get fired and nobody got sued. Ahh...all the stuff we used to be able to get away with in the 80's...

 

[howardr]

Touch'O'Death wrote:

Howard,
No, I'm not in school right now but I did graduate about five years ago if that is what you call "recent". Let me make a guess about you... I'll bet you listen to a lot of AM Talk radio. Al Franken has a lot of interesting things to say about those types of people but one thing is for sure is that they feel as if they are the most well informed when in fact they are the most ill-informed group of people. I fancied working in criminal justice for a while and took intro to corrections an intro to juevenile justice. We were force fed lots of empirical data about whom is being arrested and for what. Also, we were told why things work the way they do and why the problems that exist are so hard to solve. I know the words "liberal propaganda" are already forming on your lips so I won't take up to much of your time. Your talk of "ivory towers" and the evils of education smack of fear. You would rather see public education destroyed than fixed. Teachers get payed almost nothing. Is that a myth comming from the "Ivory Towers"? NO!
So the Teachers aren't lock stepping with the current right wing fanatisisms. So what? Why the rich have you fighting so valiantly for there cause is what perplexes me. I guess telling us to not trust education is their first step.

What can I say to such a clearly written, sagacious retort?

You got me. I surrender.

Howard

 

[Touch Of Death]

Good... next.

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Fastmover
Thanks for the post as it was very insightful.

One thing I have been doing is a little re-search on the subject of change within the Kenpo system by looking at old Parker interviews and such. It has proved very interesting because Mr Parker spoke alot about incorporating methods and ideas to fit the fighting of the day which I believe is what lead him to change. Of course as his skill and knowledge grew over the years, he felt the need to incorporate this into the system. A lesson for us I think.

Mr Parker said this which fits us all,

"When it comes down to the end, Parker said, "what is true for one person may not be true for another. The real, truth for both lies in the moment of actual combat."

Take Care

John

To fit the fighting of the day, at least what I see, would mean we would all have to train against 5 or more opponents, either standing or on the ground. Too many 5 on 1 fights going on now a days....:shrug:

 

[Michael Billings]

We do three on one in the normal course of training, and my students (and myself) have a hard enough time with doubles or triple opponents. 5:1 ratio would be close to impossible, without inflicting real physical damage to ensure that opponent was "out".

Training suggestions for this, this would make me go "Hmmmm...."?

 

[jeffkyle]

Originally posted by Michael Billings
We do three on one in the normal course of training, and my students (and myself) have a hard enough time with doubles or triple opponents. 5:1 ratio would be close to impossible, without inflicting real physical damage to ensure that opponent was "out".

Training suggestions for this, this would make me go "Hmmmm...."?

I have done 2 on 1 before as well. And I agree with you totally. Hmmmmmmmm....