UFC proves KF useless

[Rook]

That being said, what are your thoughts on MMA and weapons?

Mike

I think there are proven tactics for the use of weapons, usually based on police statistics. It is best to learn the use of a weapon if desired from a qualified professional firearms instuctor rather than as a part of a modified traditional fighting system.

 

[MJS]

I think there are proven tactics for the use of weapons, usually based on police statistics. It is best to learn the use of a weapon if desired from a qualified professional firearms instuctor rather than as a part of a modified traditional fighting system.

Thanks for your reply. I thought you had missed this post.

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the MMAist, is fully capable of a) defending against a weapon and b) this type of training is included in their training?

Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Folks---

I really don't think this thread is, or need be interpreted as, a sequence of disguised flames and counter-flames. The people posting are all experienced MAists, and at least some have been involved in real, brutal, dirty fights. I think the underlying question, the one this thread is really about, is, are you willing to inflict the most horrible damage on another person that you're capable of, using the tools your MA almost certainly makes available to you (in abundance) to carry out that kind of damage? Are you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack?

If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life possibly in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is willing to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the chance to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that in general the grappler will be able to block every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver? And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
more likely to win as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist.

But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:



That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by anyone, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is still a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?

Well, this is something that I've said before. There are many people who successfully defend themselves and nothing is taped. Personally, I dont care if my defense is taped or not. What matters to me, is that I defended myself and came out safe.

Good points BTW!

Mike

 

[exile]

This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques. A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.

...The evidence has been the no-rules matches. If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now. There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill. Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics. However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better...

I understand your position better but I really don't agree. There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists. I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.

OK, and I understand your position better too---I think we probably are just visualizing different outcomes in the extremely unpleasant circumstances which my scenario involves. As long as my line of thinking is clear, that's as much as I ever hope for in this kind of ongoing debate...:cheers:

 

[zDom]

Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.

Just to sum this up for those who aren't familiar with Rook:

Kevin will accept nothing except video footage as "proof."

So unless I (or some other TMA representative) go out and maim/kill a MMAist and bring along a cameraman, Kevin will simply not believe us

*shrug*

It ain't worth it

The thing is, up until VERY recently, mankind has been accepting things other than video tape as proof... for centuries and centuries and centuries.

(Oh, and in case you don't know: video is not always conclusive proof. I'm not disputing any of the video clips you reference, Kevin, because I believe those are legitimate tapes — especially since they were filmed in front of live audiences, for the most part, but you SHOULD realize that photographs and video footage can be altered/fabricated or situations can be STAGED — after all, what do you think feature films are?)

The point I am getting to is this: I have children that are older than MMA, as you define it. I have been practicing Korean martial arts longer than MMA, as you define it, has even existed.

MMA is the latest fad. We'll see if it stands the test of time or is simply just a passing fad, in time.

TMAs have proved themselves over and over and over again before video cameras or even photographs even EXISTED. Sorry you weren't around to witness the proof and sorry there weren't video cameras around to document the days when our martial arts were young and trying to prove themselves effective systems by regularly maiming people.

Heck, I am TRULY sorry that footage doesn't exist. I would LOVE to see films!

But these are modern times. You can say there are "no rules" competitions, but the fact IS: you can't engage in "fights to the death" in civilized countries. They WILL throw you in jail. Authorities don't CARE that you both agreed to a NHB fight; you are breaking the law and you WILL go to jail.

The "vale tudo" and "no rules challenges" that exist today are kiddy versions, make-believe "no rules" engagements, compared to the days when OUR martial arts proved themselves.

Those were barbaric times. Civilized people have grown past the stage where we feel it is necessary to prove a martial art effective to everybody who comes along and says "I don't believe it."

The Brazillians will catch up (if they haven't already). But even at their most brutal, nobody was getting killed. Mostly just bruised egos, neh?

If someone actually DID break out some hard-core stuff and maim or kill someone, they would find themselves in the pokey doing 20 to life. And if they brought a video camera, it would make convicting them in court even easier.

I've learned to live with the fact that I will not be able to convince you of anything without video tape proof that I will probably never be able to get.

You will need to learn to live with the fact that you will probably never get someone willing to go to prison just to convince you.

 

[Rook]

Thanks for your reply. I thought you had missed this post.

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the MMAist, is fully capable of a) defending against a weapon and b) this type of training is included in their training?

Thanks and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Mike

No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Using and defending against a weapon are two different things.

To learn how to use a weapon, you need to seek out a qualified professional instructor of that weapon. While many systems are eager to point out that many of their proponents are camo-wearing gun toting tough men, the use of a weapon is best seperated from any particular unarmed fighting system.

The defense against a weapon, on the other hand, is part of many MMA connected systems. Arts like BJJ do include their own anti-weapons drills. Some arts, like SAMBO, have weapons defenses as a major portion of the curriculum. Others incorporate it out of various methodologies like Bas Rutten's system and various others.

 

[MJS]

No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Using and defending against a weapon are two different things.

To learn how to use a weapon, you need to seek out a qualified professional instructor of that weapon. While many systems are eager to point out that many of their proponents are camo-wearing gun toting tough men, the use of a weapon is best seperated from any particular unarmed fighting system.

I agree. IMO, its just as important to know its use as well as a defense. Certainly a qualified inst. is the best way to go.

The defense against a weapon, on the other hand, is part of many MMA connected systems. Arts like BJJ do include their own anti-weapons drills. Some arts, like SAMBO, have weapons defenses as a major portion of the curriculum. Others incorporate it out of various methodologies like Bas Rutten's system and various others.

So do MMA fighters cover this as part of their training or is mostly empty hand, such as striking, kicking, etc.?

 

[Rook]

So do MMA fighters cover this as part of their training or is mostly empty hand, such as striking, kicking, etc.?

I would say that a strong majority do study weapons defenses. There are probably some that don't, but you'll find that in some TMA training halls too, I suppose.

 

[MJS]

I would say that a strong majority do study weapons defenses. There are probably some that don't, but you'll find that in some TMA training halls too, I suppose.

I guess it is true, that you learn something new every day. I've never seen or heard of that. I'd figure that with all the MMA tapes of guard passes, mount escapes, and the like, that there'd be a weapon defense tape as well.

In any case, I'd be curious to know how in depth the training is. Seeing that weapons are not a part of MMA events, I can't imagine it being worked on that much. Can you list any fighters that do this?

Mike

 

[Xue Sheng]

I really do not want to get into another of these posts, but here I go stepping into the abyss...again

To big philosophical differences between training MMA and training TMA

MMA trains to fight and overcome an opponant in the ring.

TMA trains to fight in the hopes that they never has to. However if you take that, as TMA cannot fight you are very likely in for a big surprise should you attack one.

As to MMA you have to admit these guys train and train hard and they train for competition therefore they are focused on fighting. And the result it they can fight and fight well.

I have had to use my TMA and I am not proud of it, but I do know it can be extremely effective. I have no doubt that MMA can be equally as effective. But the 2 still have a major difference philosophically that makes them hard to compare.

As to films as proof; if an MMA practitioner posts a film of course it is going to make the MMA guy look better. If it was posted by a TMA practitioner same deal.

There is another thread going on about Shaolin do and I just saw on the youtube today a Shaolin do guy put up his fight against a Kung fu guy, and I bet you can’t guess who looked better. He also posted one against a Tai Chi guy, or at least he claimed it was although speaking as a Tai Chi guy I have serious doubts it was, but again guess who looked better.

TMA takes fighting a something very serious and not to be taken lightly. MMA takes fighting very serious in order to beat their opponent. Both viable but different.

I will now do my best to climb out of this abyss and never to return to it, but I make no promises.

 

[Rook]

I guess it is true, that you learn something new every day. I've never seen or heard of that. I'd figure that with all the MMA tapes of guard passes, mount escapes, and the like, that there'd be a weapon defense tape as well.

In any case, I'd be curious to know how in depth the training is. Seeing that weapons are not a part of MMA events, I can't imagine it being worked on that much. Can you list any fighters that do this?

Mike

I don't actually own any of the videos myself, however, Frank Shamrock and Bas Rutten both have video series on weapons defenses. Oleg Taktarov makes a point of mixing weapons and barehand on several videos. The Gracies likewise have show weapons defenses on their instructional videos and in several books.

Ken Shamrock and the Gracies each have a simplified system for military and police use that drills various weapons defenses.

BJJ and SAMBO have standardized weapons defenses for the system.

These are just the high profile people. There are lots of less accomplished MMAists who also have weapons defense materials.

The reason we don't discuss weapons defenses very much is that there is little reliable data about the relative sucess for various disarming tactics. That makes it more difficult to say that one weapons disarming system is significantly better than another.

 

[MJS]

I don't actually own any of the videos myself, however, Frank Shamrock and Bas Rutten both have video series on weapons defenses. Oleg Taktarov makes a point of mixing weapons and barehand on several videos. The Gracies likewise have show weapons defenses on their instructional videos and in several books.

Ken Shamrock and the Gracies each have a simplified system for military and police use that drills various weapons defenses.

BJJ and SAMBO have standardized weapons defenses for the system.

These are just the high profile people. There are lots of less accomplished MMAists who also have weapons defense materials.

The reason we don't discuss weapons defenses very much is that there is little reliable data about the relative sucess for various disarming tactics. That makes it more difficult to say that one weapons disarming system is significantly better than another.

Thanks again for your reply. I don't own any of the videos myself, but I did take the time to look online and came across the set by Bas. I suppose I'd have to see them for myself to really get a feel for them. I'm pretty much sold on the FMA method of weapon defense though, so unless the ones he is showing are something eye opening, I'll stick with what I know.

I recall a Black Belt magazine article with Bas and some Krav guys. Not sure if he's 'borrowing' their stuff or not.

In any case though, I still stand by what I've said in the past....there is stuff to learn from both MMA and TMA. Everyone has their beliefs and its highly unlikely that we're going to change one another.

That being said, I think the most important thing, is to do what we feel is best for us, as we all have different needs, goals, etc.

Mike

 

[Rook]

I recall a Black Belt magazine article with Bas and some Krav guys. Not sure if he's 'borrowing' their stuff or not.

The story I've been hearing up until now is that some is pure krav stuff, others has been modified by Bas in light of his personal experiance and his work with police and military, and other sections are completely unrelated to krav. It's not just going to be krav techniques don't by Bas.

 

[grappling_mandala]

"There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force"

Without a foundation upon which to deliver a spectrum of force and tools, those spectrums of force and tools are non-existant, or perhaps seriously lacking. The stronger the MA's foundational delivery system, no matta what that system is, the higher the chances of them surviving said situation.

When I speak of a delivery system I mean the core mechanics and physics in which the MA's access when making any of their core bodily movements. The stronger their core movements the higher their chances of delivery of any spectrum of force / tools.

GM

 

[tsdclaflin]

You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).

I agree. MMA is still a sport with rules. I would not want to have to fight a MMA athlete, but my TMA has prepared me to defend against anyone. A quick kick to the side of the knee, a strike to the throat and/or eyes and a wrist break may just keep me alive.

MMA is probably the closest sport we now have to a real fight, but it is still a sport.

 

[Rook]

I agree. MMA is still a sport with rules. I would not want to have to fight a MMA athlete, but my TMA has prepared me to defend against anyone. A quick kick to the side of the knee, a strike to the throat and/or eyes and a wrist break may just keep me alive.

MMA is probably the closest sport we now have to a real fight, but it is still a sport.

THis is exactly the sort of stuff that is wrong with not pressure testing things. It is very unlikely, regardless of all the hype about it, that a person can put out a knee with a kick, however well placed. Despite knee kicks being perfectly legal (and frequently employed) in MMA, Muay Thai, and many kickboxing leagues, it is extremely rare that anyone gets any knee injury at all. The throat, too, will not so easy collapse. Despite all the talk of crushing windpipes and such, many MMA contests have been help with throat attacks fully legal and I can think of no instance in which an attack was sucessful in ending the match. The eyes could be seriously injured, but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent, and the effort might be better spent throwing regular punches rather than hitting such a small target.

 

[7starmantis]

haven't you've answered your own question?
If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.

Well that is a logical following of ideas, however the point of the thread was to dicuss if these so called "nasty techniques" would work against a determined grappler. So far it seems the consensus of the grapplers is a resounding no but with only blind faith to support it. The consensus of the TMAers is a yes with only blind faith to support it. I am more interested in discussion specific situational technqiues and their strengths and weaknesses than a blind faith forum on grappling vs anything else.
I stated kung fu would not work in the octagon because of the nature of the sport. What must you do to win in the octagon? What must you do to "win" in a self defense situation? Are the two the same? Is negating a grapplers attempts to submit you and staying away from submissions a win in the sport arena of MMA? is a hard heel kick to the groin and a dropping elbow to the back of the neck a win in this same arena? We can debate (term used loosely) the MMA vs CMA for ever and never really get anywhere. Why not address specific issues such as a specific choke and its strengths and weaknesses as applied to MMA and CMA fighting?

Once again, I didn't mean to set this discussion inside the UFC's octagon or only with its champion fighters. I meant this as a serious discussion about the real issues of a grappler vs a CMA fighter.

I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.

I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.

I’m not sure what to say here. I’m sorry you don’t see my point in this discussion. There are serious implications to real self defense fighting in this type of discussion. What would a grappler do in a certain situation? What would the CMA fighter do? What would be the intent or plan of attack for either? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each type of technique or situation? I haven’t seen any inflammatory posts so far in this thread really, everyone seems polite and respectful….not sure I get your point here. While threads of MMA vs Style X have been done before, it seems that at least 6 pages of discussion has come from this one. Pointless is a subjective term. What you may deem pointless I may gain great insight from. I may not be as skilled or experienced as you are, so allow me my pointless discussion as I may just learn something, eh?

You guys know something, the post that Exile made about the ROK Marines was a great example.

I will use one of my own......I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994. The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.

The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself. You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. In this mindset and situation, how would a CMA fighter deal with the intensity and technique of a grappler? What are the strengths and weaknesses of both? How can each train to better equip themselves with the skills needed for these types of exchanges?

Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.

I’m assuming your speaking of video proof, but there is other proof than video. Your not going to find video of people attempting to push their fingers through each others eye sockets and the like. You can’t seriously be saying that means its not a valid way to discourage an attacker are you?

This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques. A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.

Good, lets take this example then and apply it to a self defense situation. Is it a viable technique when attacked say in a parking lot on cement? What would you consider its strengths against the standpoint of both your arms being tied up choking while the one getting choke will most likely have both hands free to attempt such techniques as jabbing the eyes, groin, etc? What is your opinion of the mindset that purposefully attempting non-lethal techniques such as a choke in a true life or death self defense situation uses more time nad/or effort, or simply ignores more debilitating and quicker fight enders? What about the idea of choking out an opponent who might have a knife you aren’t aware of to slash at your choking arms or face, groin, chest areas? This is more along the lines of the discussion I’m interested in.

The evidence has been the no-rules matches. If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now. There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill. Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics. However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better.

Thats faulty logic at its worst though. Would shooting a grappler or even a Gracie in the chest stop the takedown or submission? It has not been used as of yet, does that means it’s not a valid defense to it? Would video of a shooter missing a Gracie’s chest and still getting submitted prove the gun defense unreliable or ineffective? My example may be absurd, but it shows the flaw in your statement. Of course no one would go to that level of force to win a challenge….but then on the same hand, why would someone go to the level of force of actually rupturing someone’s eyeball, or ripping off of a testicle? Also, your last statement is faulty in its logic as well. The refusal of a challenge match has absolutely no bearing on their ability. I’m not saying your wrong, just that your statement doesn’t hold proof of such either way.

I don't believe this.

Would you mind explaining a bit more your opinion on this matter? What or why do you believe is the MMA fighters advantage against a person willing to kill/maim/etc ? How often do grapplers train without cups? Do they train themselves to take and withstand shots to the groin? Is that just not a valid technique? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I understand your position better but I really don't agree. There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists. I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.

I would love to see your proof of this statement. To say no one has been successful in delivering lethal or deadly force against even a moderately skilled MMAist is just absurd. What kind of source do you have for this statement? What do you feel makes a MMAist invulnerable against lethal force? Could you outline any lethal force techniques you feel are incapable of effecting a MMAist?

THis is exactly the sort of stuff that is wrong with not pressure testing things. It is very unlikely, regardless of all the hype about it, that a person can put out a knee with a kick, however well placed. Despite knee kicks being perfectly legal (and frequently employed) in MMA, Muay Thai, and many kickboxing leagues, it is extremely rare that anyone gets any knee injury at all. The throat, too, will not so easy collapse. Despite all the talk of crushing windpipes and such, many MMA contests have been help with throat attacks fully legal and I can think of no instance in which an attack was sucessful in ending the match. The eyes could be seriously injured, but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent, and the effort might be better spent throwing regular punches rather than hitting such a small target.

I’ve personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella….all from a kick to the knee. This was from a knife fight on the streets of Houston when I was a paramedic there, but to say that no one has ever done that to another fighter in a less than lethal situation means it wont work is again faulty logic and really false premise. Your trying to imply the fighters are attempting to do these types of throat crushing attacks and such which may very well not be the case. In my own martial arts "career" I've seen many badly torn and innjured knees from not only kicks but throws, etc. Also, your assuming these techniques such as the eye strikes are going to be done from a distance as a punch, I usually only apply those types of techniques in extremely close quarters where there is not a lot of movement to deter the technique. I’m just trying to point out that your making pretty large assumptions to discount valid proven techniques. Yes, I have seen people loose their eyes from various objects being inserted into them during altercations….its most assuredly valid and if not fight stopping, definitely gives an advantage.

7sm

 

[Rook]

Well that is a logical following of ideas, however the point of the thread was to dicuss if these so called "nasty techniques" would work against a determined grappler. So far it seems the consensus of the grapplers is a resounding no but with only blind faith to support it. The consensus of the TMAers is a yes with only blind faith to support it. I am more interested in discussion specific situational technqiues and their strengths and weaknesses than a blind faith forum on grappling vs anything else.

I don't see how there is only blind faith. People tried and failed. How is that result only blind faith?

I stated kung fu would not work in the octagon because of the nature of the sport. What must you do to win in the octagon? What must you do to "win" in a self defense situation? Are the two the same? Is negating a grapplers attempts to submit you and staying away from submissions a win in the sport arena of MMA? is a hard heel kick to the groin and a dropping elbow to the back of the neck a win in this same arena? We can debate (term used loosely) the MMA vs CMA for ever and never really get anywhere. Why not address specific issues such as a specific choke and its strengths and weaknesses as applied to MMA and CMA fighting?

I'm not sure where you're going with the different "wins"

Once again, I didn't mean to set this discussion inside the UFC's octagon or only with its champion fighters. I meant this as a serious discussion about the real issues of a grappler vs a CMA fighter.

Are we discussion pure grapplers, ie people with no formal training at all in striking, or are we talking about MMAists? The two are rather different, as grappling is only part of MMA.

I’m assuming your speaking of video proof, but there is other proof than video. Your not going to find video of people attempting to push their fingers through each others eye sockets and the like. You can’t seriously be saying that means its not a valid way to discourage an attacker are you?

I think it is a very limiting tactic. You are unlikely to suceed in striking the eyes of a half-way competent resisting opponent, and even if you do by some miracle, the technique is legally problematic (severe permanent damage).

Good, lets take this example then and apply it to a self defense situation. Is it a viable technique when attacked say in a parking lot on cement? What would you consider its strengths against the standpoint of both your arms being tied up choking while the one getting choke will most likely have both hands free to attempt such techniques as jabbing the eyes, groin, etc? What is your opinion of the mindset that purposefully attempting non-lethal techniques such as a choke in a true life or death self defense situation uses more time nad/or effort, or simply ignores more debilitating and quicker fight enders? What about the idea of choking out an opponent who might have a knife you aren’t aware of to slash at your choking arms or face, groin, chest areas? This is more along the lines of the discussion I’m interested in.

In terms of pure grappling, the position dominence should make it difficult to use a knife while an RNC, for example, is applied (there are video of SAMBO guys doing unscripted but compliant live blide with this stuff). Assuming it is impossible to escape a knife-weilding attacker, there are weapons defenses in BJJ, SAMBO and some MMA systems as well.

Thats faulty logic at its worst though. Would shooting a grappler or even a Gracie in the chest stop the takedown or submission? It has not been used as of yet, does that means it’s not a valid defense to it? Would video of a shooter missing a Gracie’s chest and still getting submitted prove the gun defense unreliable or ineffective?

No. However, you might be able to pull it off a takedown and disarm prior to being shot once but not consistantly... we have video of dozens upon dozens of people trying to rake the eyes and grab the groin and poke the pressure points. There is just a sort of law of averages... with results as consistant as the Gracies have against it, we arn't talking about some freak victory but rather a consistant record of sucess against those techniques.

My example may be absurd, but it shows the flaw in your statement. Of course no one would go to that level of force to win a challenge….but then on the same hand, why would someone go to the level of force of actually rupturing someone’s eyeball, or ripping off of a testicle? Also, your last statement is faulty in its logic as well.

People HAVE tried to go to that level of force. You (and for that matter me) might not want to go for the eyes to prove a point, but there are plently of people on the Gracies tapes who were willing to go that distance.

The refusal of a challenge match has absolutely no bearing on their ability. I’m not saying your wrong, just that your statement doesn’t hold proof of such either way.

I think it goes to the idea of the burden of proof being on someone. If you're not going around saying how great a fighter you are, then no one will ask you to prove it. However, when people talk about how great a fighter they are and yet have no proof, their credibility goes down at least in my eyes.

Would you mind explaining a bit more your opinion on this matter? What or why do you believe is the MMA fighters advantage against a person willing to kill/maim/etc ? How often do grapplers train without cups? Do they train themselves to take and withstand shots to the groin? Is that just not a valid technique? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I have seen SAMBO guys roll with a "submission due to groin" rule where you can grab the testicles and squeeze at a moderate pressure to make the other person give up (and increase pressure until they do). Even under that ruleset, you rarely see people submitted by it. I would not want to roll under those rules for fear of injury, but it is done.

I would love to see your proof of this statement. To say no one has been successful in delivering lethal or deadly force against even a moderately skilled MMAist is just absurd. What kind of source do you have for this statement? What do you feel makes a MMAist invulnerable against lethal force? Could you outline any lethal force techniques you feel are incapable of effecting a MMAist?

Sure. Heart-stopping palm strikes, chin jabs, the ol' tear-out-the-intestines, etc. These "killing techniques" just don't work.

I’ve personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella….all from a kick to the knee. This was from a knife fight on the streets of Houston when I was a paramedic there, but to say that no one has ever done that to another fighter in a less than lethal situation means it wont work is again faulty logic and really false premise. Your trying to imply the fighters are attempting to do these types of throat crushing attacks and such which may very well not be the case. In my own martial arts "career" I've seen many badly torn and innjured knees from not only kicks but throws, etc.

Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike. The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.

Also, your assuming these techniques such as the eye strikes are going to be done from a distance as a punch, I usually only apply those types of techniques in extremely close quarters where there is not a lot of movement to deter the technique. I’m just trying to point out that your making pretty large assumptions to discount valid proven techniques. Yes, I have seen people loose their eyes from various objects being inserted into them during altercations….its most assuredly valid and if not fight stopping, definitely gives an advantage.

7sm

 

[MJS]

I think it goes to the idea of the burden of proof being on someone. If you're not going around saying how great a fighter you are, then no one will ask you to prove it. However, when people talk about how great a fighter they are and yet have no proof, their credibility goes down at least in my eyes.

Just so I'm understanding this correctly. We have two people, person A and person B. Person A states that he is a good fighter and has video proof of this, so therefore, he is what he says. Person B states that he is also a good fighter, has no tape, but has been mugged 3 times, and all 3 times, he has successfully defended himself. Due to no tape, he is not a good fighter?

Mike

 

[MJS]

I’ve personally seen a knee not only misplaced with torn cartilage but even had a completely fractured patella….all from a kick to the knee.

originally posted by Rook

Its exceptionally rare to put out someone's knee with a strike. The muay thai guys get kicked directly in the knees a large of times in some matches and don't get the knees knocked out.

I thought this was pretty interesting.
http://www.dogbrothers.com/

Click on this link. Go to the clip that says Dog Bros. Promo Clip. Specifically look at the clip when it reaches approx 1:58.