UFC proves KF useless

[grappling_mandala]

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.

... and it's rare for professional surfers to drown?

but it is difficult to hit the eyes of a moving and resisting opponent,

Never doubt you can do anything in a fight. Deliver the message that needs to be delt.

It always happens when I shoot a rubber band at a friend, it hits him in the eye! Ouch!

 

[Kensai]

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

That seems to be it. Video evidence proves that someone is a good fighter. Apparently...

 

[Hand Sword]

I dunno, seems like everyone, trained, and untrained, kid to grandparent seems to always critique and mention how they would win against who they're watching. I hear it constantly--LOL! So I guess it really shows how bad a fighter is

.

 

[Kensai]

I dunno, seems like everyone, trained, and untrained, kid to grandparent seems to always critique and mention how they would win against who they're watching. I hear it constantly--LOL! So I guess it really shows how bad a fighter is

.

Yep, same here. Same with sports, my mates, and sometimes myself yelling advice to some of the best athletes on the planet. Go figure.

Agree with the sentiments of the post too.

 

[7starmantis]

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

Well, basically its the aquisition of action or "potential action" through the accomplishments of another. There are a couple of things wrong with your statement here. First, no one on this thread has setup a drill where they attempt a submission against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Thats blind faith in the actions of another person (the Gracies). Second, none of the Gracies have seriously faced a life or death situation in their challenges against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Ask them, they will tell you the same. A challenge is only as good as the restrictions placed on it, be they written or assumed (ie legal/moral restrictions). So therefore, I refered to "blind faith" in that the posts on this thread have no personal experience behind them when dealing with these "nasty techniques". To say they are ineffective because someone who is skilled has defended against them is the same as the TMA guys crying that their super grand master could do it. Just my own personal opinion of course. However, I think you should look deeper into the "Gracie Challenges" and learn from them what they were and are actually about before using them as a basis for a personal belief about your own skill or the skill of practitioners of their style of fighting.

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

What I'm trying to show is the difference in mentality over what is defined as usefull or a "win". For example, a standing rear naked choke resulting in a plung backward onto the mat with your opponents weight landing on top of you can be determiend a win in the octagon, but in a dimly lit parking garage with cement parking curbs and broken glass, it might not be considered a win, in my opinion. What I'm saying is from your standpoint a defense is useless if it does not submit the opponent, from my standpoint its useful if it stops my opponent from submitting me. While a "grappler" is looking for submissions and chokes, a CMA fighter is looking for breaks and throws. Just different strategies for different goals. My main point was that alot of MMAist will overlook a technique as useless if it doesn't lead towards their goal. As would most MAist. So, to a grappler a technqiue that breaks contact with an opponent in order to escape a choke may be useless, but to a stirker or kicker, that may be leading directly to thier goal. I'll address this a bit later on when I reply to another post of yours.

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.

No I tend to use the term grappler to mean one who would indend to take a fight to the ground in order to apply submissions and chokes, etc. Its not really so important to define it per se. As a MMAist one would be familiar and even confident on taking a fight to the ground in order to stop it. And the sad truth is most MMAist running around the street are simply looking for and will force at the cost of alot a takedown and fancy submission. I can't tell you how many "MMAist" I have trained with that had nothing at all if you could defend their takedowns, most of which were poorly executed at that. Now that may be a poor group to base my point on, but isn't that the same thing you said wasn't an excuse to the TMA guys? I understand your point about grappling being only a part of MMA as grappling is only a part of my system of fighting as well. So, we can say we are refering to MMAist not just a grappler with absolutely no training or skill in anything but grappling.

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).

I disagree that its limiting in any case, but I allready said I was not refering to a strike to the eyes as in a punch that hits the eyes. If its really that limiting why are so many UFC fights stopped at least for a Dr. check for eye strikes? Why are so many UFC fighters using the "thumb in the eye" excuse for loosing? However, that being what it is, I'm refering (as I said earlier) to more of a close quarters pushing into the eyes, not a distance strike to the eyes. Your correct about the legally problematic issue to this technique, but that is conflicting with your own statements about it not working as you cited the Gracie Challenge for proof. Does the fact that it has legal issues mean its not valid? Certainly not. However shooting someone is legally problematic yet I carry my handgun and am legally allowed to use it. See, the problem is the crossing over of the sport mentality to the life or death mentality. There arises many issues that are hard to deal with when doing so. Thats why I said I dont believe there have been many if any "challenge" matches (Gracie or not) that have been against an opponent seriously intent on performing these types of techniques. You gave the reasoning yourself.

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.

Ok, I've tried to get specific allready, but lets try with this example. What position dominence protects the choking arm from slicing with a knife? What about overhead stabbing motions with a knife towards the head of the choker? What about sideways stabbing motions towards teh ribs or back of the choker? All assuming we are talking about RNC here. What position dominence assures protection from these types of attacks?
Escape is a great tool when dealing with an attacker stupid enough to show you his blade, what about those you dont know have a blade until your being cut? Surely ever MA style has to deal with this issue, but many grappling techniques leave you a bit more exposed and for a longer period of time than some. How would a MMAist deal with the "weakness" of those types of attacks?

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.

Thats a good point and yet you yourself gave the reason it is flawed. The "legally problematic" issue that go along with really putting out a fighters eye. Then again your basing a whole method of fighting on the skill of a few elite fighters.....sort of similar to the "super duper grand master" theory, no? I hate to be disagreeable, but in a real life or death situation the "law of averages" does not apply. The myriad of posibilities and the weight of your actions when dealing with your life, the life of your family, or the life of strangers, makes fighting on the law of averages from elite fighters or your teacher, a big mistake. Everyone must stand on their own skill, especially when life or death is on the line. If you think those gracie fights would be the same if either or both fighters seriously believed they were going to be killed, your fooling yourself.

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.

I think you need to study what the "gracie challenge" was really about. Also, you have no way of knowing what level of force a person was willing to go to, you simply can't support that statement. Its an appeal to authority.

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.

Thats fine, but its a bit mistake to underestimate someone simply because of lack of proof. One of the biggest mistakes made in fighting, in my own opinoin, is the assumption.

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.

This is where I will revisted the earlier statement about "wins". I'm not talking about submitting someone with a groin squeeze, thats absurd. who is going to just sit there and waite for you to squeeze hard enough to make them tap out? Thats exactly my point though. No one is! So, a nice twisting or ripping tear or pull ot the groin will make the opponent react and most likely loosen up the choke or what have you. My fighting style is heavily based on reactions of the opponent. Like I said early, I'm not aiming for a tapout from grabbing your groin, I'm hoping for a reaction that allows me another attack. With two hands free, one could theoretically crush a testicle and gouge an eye at the same time. Do you seriously believe there is anyone who would continue a choke during either of those? Sure a tap to the groin wont release a choke, but doesn't it prove a further level of force was available there? Will a raking of the eyes stop a submission? Of course not, but would the explosion of the ocular membrane and possible damage or destruction of the optic nerve cause a reaction that would allow a release of the submission? Based on the law of averages and current medical information I would say yes.

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

HAHA, I completely agree with you. I'm sorry we have gone this long with you thinking I was reffering to the poison buddah palm and such from kung fu flicks. If you seriously believe that a skilled, experienced, and intent CMA fighter fighting for his/her life is going to attempt a poison buddah palm or whatever, your sadly mistaken. Thats a huge issue with the attitude towards TMA or even CMA. Misunderstanding. There are no organ exploding techniques or reaching through the chest to pull out the beating heart techniques in true CMA. Sorry to disapoint. However, I have put serious study into the human body (I'm currently seekign a masters degree in physical therapy) and I understand how the body works (ex-paramedic). There are fatal or dibilitaing actions one person can take on another in a fight. These are not possible to build an immunity to even if you are a MMAist.

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 agree. It all depends on angle and mass, speed, etc. Again, a fairly in depth knowledge of the human body can show one how these types of attacks can be effective. Just look up the knee joint (synovial) and learn its structure....you would be surprised to learn how fragile it actually is if attacked correctly. Again we fall back to intent and legally problematic issues. Yet I still agree, it would be difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible and total destruction may not be neccessary to elicit a response or reaction that would allow another attack.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

All of that being said....I think we are a little off topic.

Lets talk about the positional control of the RNC. Would you, or how would you attempt to position the hands of the opponent when performing this technique to lessen the possibility of attacks by the hands while you are performing the choke? Does it matter? I assume the legs would be used to keep the body close to the opponent to avoid groin attacks?
What about the head? Would you attempt to pull it back enough to be out of range of facial attacks?

7sm

 

[Rook]

Well, basically its the aquisition of action or "potential action" through the accomplishments of another. There are a couple of things wrong with your statement here. First, no one on this thread has setup a drill where they attempt a submission against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Thats blind faith in the actions of another person (the Gracies). Second, none of the Gracies have seriously faced a life or death situation in their challenges against a person truly intent on killing or maiming. Ask them, they will tell you the same.

I disagree with this. Some of the people have been extremely aggressive and I don't doubt the genuine intent of the people who went for their eyes etc.

A challenge is only as good as the restrictions placed on it, be they written or assumed (ie legal/moral restrictions). So therefore, I refered to "blind faith" in that the posts on this thread have no personal experience behind them when dealing with these "nasty techniques". To say they are ineffective because someone who is skilled has defended against them is the same as the TMA guys crying that their super grand master could do it. Just my own personal opinion of course. However, I think you should look deeper into the "Gracie Challenges" and learn from them what they were and are actually about before using them as a basis for a personal belief about your own skill or the skill of practitioners of their style of fighting.

The difference, I believe, is that the Gracies have done what they say. Now, the Gracies are not nearly the top of the MMA food pyramid; none of them are even ranked anymore in any of the major organization. With the exception of Rickson, most of them are not ultra-athletes. They are normal people who trained very long and very hard and actually have proven victories. That makes what they do attainable for others who are equally motivated and hardworking.

The problem with the grandmasters who don't fight is that their level is matter of pure speculation. Some of them, no doubt, are quite good, others are rather unimpressive and are still venerated by legions of sheep (just look at Emin Botzpe (sp) and William Cheung, or Ron Van Cleif or that video of the Tai Chi vs. Red fist fight from the fifties). I would guess that there are far more second rate ones than good ones. When they make extravagent claims about their abilities but don't back up their statements, in my eyes they just look absurd.

What I'm trying to show is the difference in mentality over what is defined as usefull or a "win". For example, a standing rear naked choke resulting in a plung backward onto the mat with your opponents weight landing on top of you can be determiend a win in the octagon, but in a dimly lit parking garage with cement parking curbs and broken glass, it might not be considered a win, in my opinion. What I'm saying is from your standpoint a defense is useless if it does not submit the opponent, from my standpoint its useful if it stops my opponent from submitting me.

Some failed submissions could still provide a fair window to escape from harm. While someone recomposes themselves after escaping a choke, you can take off running, for instance.

While a "grappler" is looking for submissions and chokes, a CMA fighter is looking for breaks and throws. Just different strategies for different goals. My main point was that alot of MMAist will overlook a technique as useless if it doesn't lead towards their goal. As would most MAist. So, to a grappler a technqiue that breaks contact with an opponent in order to escape a choke may be useless, but to a stirker or kicker, that may be leading directly to thier goal. I'll address this a bit later on when I reply to another post of yours.

Ok.

No I tend to use the term grappler to mean one who would indend to take a fight to the ground in order to apply submissions and chokes, etc. Its not really so important to define it per se. As a MMAist one would be familiar and even confident on taking a fight to the ground in order to stop it. And the sad truth is most MMAist running around the street are simply looking for and will force at the cost of alot a takedown and fancy submission. I can't tell you how many "MMAist" I have trained with that had nothing at all if you could defend their takedowns, most of which were poorly executed at that.

Thats true. Now that the UFC has gone mainstream, there are alot of people who are just begining BJJ (only 1 of the 4 main component arts) and already think they are gods. A good fighter should have a muay thai component and a boxing component for his standup, and should have western wrestling for his takedowns, but understandably, many people are not really that serious about it.

Now that may be a poor group to base my point on, but isn't that the same thing you said wasn't an excuse to the TMA guys? I understand your point about grappling being only a part of MMA as grappling is only a part of my system of fighting as well. So, we can say we are refering to MMAist not just a grappler with absolutely no training or skill in anything but grappling.

The thing is, there is a poor group of MMA guys, there are better ones and then there are some really great fighters. So far, I don't see anyone who isn't an MMAist who gives the indications of being able to beat these ranked guys.

I disagree that its limiting in any case, but I allready said I was not refering to a strike to the eyes as in a punch that hits the eyes. If its really that limiting why are so many UFC fights stopped at least for a Dr. check for eye strikes? Why are so many UFC fighters using the "thumb in the eye" excuse for loosing? However, that being what it is, I'm refering (as I said earlier) to more of a close quarters pushing into the eyes, not a distance strike to the eyes. Your correct about the legally problematic issue to this technique, but that is conflicting with your own statements about it not working as you cited the Gracie Challenge for proof.

Well, let me put it this way. The eyegouge is probably a moonshot to pull off, and if by some miracle it works, then you'll have to deal with the legal issues.

Does the fact that it has legal issues mean its not valid? Certainly not. However shooting someone is legally problematic yet I carry my handgun and am legally allowed to use it. See, the problem is the crossing over of the sport mentality to the life or death mentality. There arises many issues that are hard to deal with when doing so. Thats why I said I dont believe there have been many if any "challenge" matches (Gracie or not) that have been against an opponent seriously intent on performing these types of techniques. You gave the reasoning yourself.

Ok. Let me try a comparison. You may have some sort of defense for, say, someone holding a knife to your throat from behind. Lets say someone tried to attack you and you sucessfully used the technique. What they did was both illegal and unsucessful, but it doesn't mean that no one tried or that the defense never happened or that the defense is invalid.

Ok, I've tried to get specific allready, but lets try with this example. What position dominence protects the choking arm from slicing with a knife? What about overhead stabbing motions with a knife towards the head of the choker? What about sideways stabbing motions towards teh ribs or back of the choker? All assuming we are talking about RNC here. What position dominence assures protection from these types of attacks?

I'll see if I can find a picture later.

Escape is a great tool when dealing with an attacker stupid enough to show you his blade, what about those you dont know have a blade until your being cut? Surely ever MA style has to deal with this issue, but many grappling techniques leave you a bit more exposed and for a longer period of time than some. How would a MMAist deal with the "weakness" of those types of attacks?

A good positon gives you a huge leverage advantage and may make accessing the weapon difficult for your opponent, but like all styles, grapplers still would be at a disadvantage unarmed against a weapon.

Thats a good point and yet you yourself gave the reason it is flawed. The "legally problematic" issue that go along with really putting out a fighters eye. Then again your basing a whole method of fighting on the skill of a few elite fighters.....sort of similar to the "super duper grand master" theory, no? I hate to be disagreeable, but in a real life or death situation the "law of averages" does not apply. The myriad of posibilities and the weight of your actions when dealing with your life, the life of your family, or the life of strangers, makes fighting on the law of averages from elite fighters or your teacher, a big mistake. Everyone must stand on their own skill, especially when life or death is on the line. If you think those gracie fights would be the same if either or both fighters seriously believed they were going to be killed, your fooling yourself.

I believe in a law of averages, and using techniques that are most statistically likely to suceed as much as possible. I don't and wouldn't train moonshot techniques as much as bread-and-butter techniques (some people don't know the difference between their own style's long shot and regular techniques).

I think you need to study what the "gracie challenge" was really about. Also, you have no way of knowing what level of force a person was willing to go to, you simply can't support that statement. Its an appeal to authority.

I think it is clear that they were trying seriously to damage eyes, groin etc.

Thats fine, but its a bit mistake to underestimate someone simply because of lack of proof. One of the biggest mistakes made in fighting, in my own opinoin, is the assumption.

I'm going to mention this stuff on the thread in General martial arts about having a record latter.

This is where I will revisted the earlier statement about "wins". I'm not talking about submitting someone with a groin squeeze, thats absurd. who is going to just sit there and waite for you to squeeze hard enough to make them tap out? Thats exactly my point though. No one is! So, a nice twisting or ripping tear or pull ot the groin will make the opponent react and most likely loosen up the choke or what have you. My fighting style is heavily based on reactions of the opponent. Like I said early, I'm not aiming for a tapout from grabbing your groin, I'm hoping for a reaction that allows me another attack. With two hands free, one could theoretically crush a testicle and gouge an eye at the same time. Do you seriously believe there is anyone who would continue a choke during either of those? Sure a tap to the groin wont release a choke, but doesn't it prove a further level of force was available there? Will a raking of the eyes stop a submission? Of course not, but would the explosion of the ocular membrane and possible damage or destruction of the optic nerve cause a reaction that would allow a release of the submission? Based on the law of averages and current medical information I would say yes.

The assumptions is still that you could get a finger in the eye or a hand on the groin... and it just isn't happening in the TMA vs. MMA fights I have seen.

HAHA, I completely agree with you. I'm sorry we have gone this long with you thinking I was reffering to the poison buddah palm and such from kung fu flicks. If you seriously believe that a skilled, experienced, and intent CMA fighter fighting for his/her life is going to attempt a poison buddah palm or whatever, your sadly mistaken. Thats a huge issue with the attitude towards TMA or even CMA. Misunderstanding. There are no organ exploding techniques or reaching through the chest to pull out the beating heart techniques in true CMA. Sorry to disapoint. However, I have put serious study into the human body (I'm currently seekign a masters degree in physical therapy) and I understand how the body works (ex-paramedic). There are fatal or dibilitaing actions one person can take on another in a fight. These are not possible to build an immunity to even if you are a MMAist.

What are you thinking of with these lethal techniques? Almost everytime people start saying "lethal technique" I start wondering about evidence...

I agree. It all depends on angle and mass, speed, etc. Again, a fairly in depth knowledge of the human body can show one how these types of attacks can be effective. Just look up the knee joint (synovial) and learn its structure....you would be surprised to learn how fragile it actually is if attacked correctly. Again we fall back to intent and legally problematic issues. Yet I still agree, it would be difficult, but difficult does not mean impossible and total destruction may not be neccessary to elicit a response or reaction that would allow another attack.

7sm

I don't think it is impossible, but I doubt that anyone could put out knees with much consistancy. They would easily sweep the muay thai and international style kickboxing world if they could.

 

[7starmantis]

I disagree with this. Some of the people have been extremely aggressive and I don't doubt the genuine intent of the people who went for their eyes etc.

I believe some of the challengers were very aggressive and even looking to hurt the gracies, but I think you need to really look into what the challenges were and why they were started. You spoke yourself about legally problematic issues with seriously doing some of the techniques we're discussing. I think your fantasizing them a bit to believe either fighter was in fear of their life or were intent on taking the life of the other fighter. The truth is there is really no way of knowing the intent of the fighters, either of them. However the fact still remains you are basing your beliefs of effectiveness from the actions of another person. An elite martial artist in their element, no less. That is what I meant by blind faith.

The difference, I believe, is that the Gracies have done what they say. Now, the Gracies are not nearly the top of the MMA food pyramid; none of them are even ranked anymore in any of the major organization. With the exception of Rickson, most of them are not ultra-athletes. They are normal people who trained very long and very hard and actually have proven victories. That makes what they do attainable for others who are equally motivated and hardworking.

The problem with the grandmasters who don't fight is that their level is matter of pure speculation. Some of them, no doubt, are quite good, others are rather unimpressive and are still venerated by legions of sheep (just look at Emin Botzpe (sp) and William Cheung, or Ron Van Cleif or that video of the Tai Chi vs. Red fist fight from the fifties). I would guess that there are far more second rate ones than good ones. When they make extravagent claims about their abilities but don't back up their statements, in my eyes they just look absurd.

You have a good point, but it's not complete. The Gracies have done what they said, but you only know that because you have seen some footage and heard the stories. To say others have not backed up their claims because you haven't seen or heard of it is absurd. That's a major logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.Just because you have no proof doesn't mean something is wrong or doesn't work.There are plenty of fighters, MMA, TMA, and neither that have "proved" their skill or training methods, just because you dont know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I can see the beauty of seeing someone you respect successfully use techniques you train or successfully defend techniques you believe to be useless, but also remember that skilled fighters should be able to defend quite well many different types of attacks. Saying because a Gracie successfully defended a certain technique means all MMAist can defend that technique or that the technique is useless is another big logical fallacy, its called a hasty generalization. But we have already determined that none of the challenge matches were seriously "to the death" so some of that doesn't apply. I have no doubt that martial artists at the skill level of some of the gracies could defend many types of attacks but what does that mean for you and me? Can you or I defend such techniques? Just because a skilled dodge ball player can successfully avoid getting hit by the balls doesn't mean throwing the balls is ineffective.

Some failed submissions could still provide a fair window to escape from harm. While someone recomposes themselves after escaping a choke, you can take off running, for instance.

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. What kind of escape of a choke requires a person to have to recompose themselves? And why were you choking if running was your intent? That's my point in the different intents of the methods of fighting. CMA train grappling from the idea of escaping while MMA trains grappling in the idea of submitting. Just different ideas and methodologies.

The thing is, there is a poor group of MMA guys, there are better ones and then there are some really great fighters. So far, I don't see anyone who isn't an MMAist who gives the indications of being able to beat these ranked guys.

Well that's my point though. Who do you see at all aside from MMA guys and the nut jobs that come chasing them? Again, just because you don't see someone who can beat them doesn't mean there aren't people who can. Also, we are talking about elite athletes and MAist here. Are there phenomenal runners out there who are extremely talented and probably faster than most of the world and still get beat or don't even make it to the Olympics? I don't care so much about rank, but I have yet to see anyone who is not a CMA (or is a CMA fighter for that matter) who is able to beat some of the ranked fighters in the organization I belong to. One of the schools I'm affiliated with has an open challenge, which they have yet to loose. I could say that I haven't seen any of your ranked guys coming to fight there, so obviously they couldn't win anyway. See the problem with that line of reasoning?

Well, let me put it this way. The eyegouge is probably a moonshot to pull off, and if by some miracle it works, then you'll have to deal with the legal issues.

I disagree. It's not a moon shot at all if trained and not done as some amazing spinning 360 reverse eye poke. Also, I don't agree with expecting anything to end the fight, I would keep going until the threat is removed. The legal issues are there if and when the fight starts regardless of eye gouge. If you're legally protected and right in defending yourself, the eye gouge isn't going to change that. That's why fighting for your life and fighting for your ego are two completely different things, complete with jail time. If I'm fighting, it's for my life and I'm not going to worry about the legal issues associated with it until I'm free of the threat. In fact, I use pretty much the same table of force I would with my concealed handgun.

Ok. Let me try a comparison. You may have some sort of defense for, say, someone holding a knife to your throat from behind. Lets say someone tried to attack you and you sucessfully used the technique. What they did was both illegal and unsucessful, but it doesn't mean that no one tried or that the defense never happened or that the defense is invalid.

I don't quite get your point here.

I'll see if I can find a picture later.

A good positon gives you a huge leverage advantage and may make accessing the weapon difficult for your opponent, but like all styles, grapplers still would be at a disadvantage unarmed against a weapon.

That would be great. I would love to get into specific technical discussion on this thread. I was starting to think it wasn't possible. Are you attempting to trap or lock the arms or hands when doing the RNC? I understand your statement about leverage, but are you attempting to leverage yourself so far the opponent's arms are not able to reach his own body? Is it relying on the quickness of the choke to combat the free arms of the opponent? Another point to look at is getting into position for the choke, how would you set that up? Are you looking for a takedown to get on top and then choke? Are you looking to get behind the opponent while standing?

I'm not talking about being at a disadvantage against a weapon, but trying to pull off techniques that actually put you in a more dangerous position against a weapon. Again, the differences of fighting for your life I guess. But weapon or not there are some serious issues with some submission techniques that if applied in a no rules environment would be lacking heavily. One point is the tying up both arms and/or legs while not controlling the opponent's arms or legs.

I believe in a law of averages, and using techniques that are most statistically likely to suceed as much as possible. I don't and wouldn't train moonshot techniques as much as bread-and-butter techniques (some people don't know the difference between their own style's long shot and regular techniques).

I agree. I think we just disagree on what is a moonshot and what is not. Also, training something makes you more statistically likely to succeed in the technique. One major issue I have with this line of reasoning is the separation of statistics. Your talking about statistically likely to succeed but basing that on elite martial artists like the Gracies fighting in their element in less than lethal environments. That flaws the statistic as it's not complete or doesn't involve the issues we are dealing with in this type of discussion. Plus it doesn't take into consideration the millions of different issues present in a life or death struggle. Not all attacks are the same even ones that are using the same techniques.

I think it is clear that they were trying seriously to damage eyes, groin etc.

Ok, why do you believe that? What makes you think they were intent on doing serious harm or damage? What makes you think they were intent on taking the level of force beyond what would have been needed to simply release the choke/hold/submission?

The assumptions is still that you could get a finger in the eye or a hand on the groin... and it just isn't happening in the TMA vs. MMA fights I have seen.

It's not an assumption unless it's also an assumption that you can keep someone from getting their finger in the eye. Is it an assumption that you could win the fight? We can argue semantics all day, but in fights where these techniques are not allowed we aren't going to see them trained. And in legal matches where gouging of the eye is still illegal, we aren't going to see them trained or applied either. Again, I'm not saying rely on these techniques as the definitive fight stopper, but they are extremely useful in a real situation. Also, you must ask yourself why you ended up in the position of getting choked in the first place.

What are you thinking of with these lethal techniques? Almost everytime people start saying "lethal technique" I start wondering about evidence...

Well a good start is the list of illegal moves for the UFC. Those types of techniques would fall under what I would consider "lethal" I guess. We could actually use the term potentially lethal, probably better phrasing. Targeting specific areas of the body, eyes, throat, base of the skull, spine area, groin, small joint manipulation, targeting the fingers, ripping or inserting the fingers into orifices of the body or open cuts, etc. Targeting the knee from angles, stomping the knee against its normal angle of movement, stomping or kicking the head of downed opponents. The problem is most MMAist here these terms and immediately go on the defense and say they wont work and aren't successful. However its smart to realize (and many people who spout about relying on them don't either) they are not "show stoppers" but are very valid techniques to use in the whole picture of the fight. As we have seen even in the UFC fights, a finger in the eye even accidentally or a kick in the groin, even while wearing a cup does actually stop the fight. If these techniques are so useless why are these elite athletes stopping the fight because of them?

I don't think it is impossible, but I doubt that anyone could put out knees with much consistancy. They would easily sweep the muay thai and international style kickboxing world if they could.

That doesn't make sense at all. How would someone who could perform this technique necessarily sweep competitions that do not allow the technique in a society that holds such techniques as illegal and morally wrong unless in a life threatening situation? Take for example the Hughes vs. St. Pierre fight this past weekend. Do you remember the leg sweep St. Pierre got on Hughes when Hughes lifted his front leg to avoid the shin kick? Do you think a pushing kick hitting the knee from the front (or even the side), pushing it backward would not have hurt the knee? Especially when all the weight is on the joint, those types of techniques are actually very valid, even if it doesn't destroy the knee, it certainly would have given an advantage, no?

This discussion has gone the way I guess everyone at the beginning said it would. I would love to see the picture you referred to and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a specific issue such as that one. What I was really trying to get at in this thread is the inconsistency of the match up between a MMAist and a CMAist. When fighting in a non lethal environment a MMAist can still apply their techniques at full power, full intensity and most likely they will. However, a CMAist can't apply their techniques at full power and intensity especially those listed in the rules for MMA events. When those vary techniques may be the ones needed to protect against the intensity of the MMAist. So then how can we really judge how a CMAist and a MMAist would fight against each other? There would have to be a level of respect and humility between two fighters to train and be completely honest with each other and themselves in what works, what doesn't, and how and why. That's just way too far apart in my opinion in the martial arts as a whole and sorry to say it but most MMA circles I run across.

7sm

 

[Rook]

I believe some of the challengers were very aggressive and even looking to hurt the gracies, but I think you need to really look into what the challenges were and why they were started. You spoke yourself about legally problematic issues with seriously doing some of the techniques we're discussing. I think your fantasizing them a bit to believe either fighter was in fear of their life or were intent on taking the life of the other fighter. The truth is there is really no way of knowing the intent of the fighters, either of them.

I think we've reached an impasse on this one. I don't agree, but we're not getting anywhere.

However the fact still remains you are basing your beliefs of effectiveness from the actions of another person. An elite martial artist in their element, no less. That is what I meant by blind faith.

Well, I know that I personally can't do what the Gracies can. I do know that what they do is attainable because I have seen it done.

You have a good point, but it's not complete. The Gracies have done what they said, but you only know that because you have seen some footage and heard the stories. To say others have not backed up their claims because you haven't seen or heard of it is absurd. That's a major logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.Just because you have no proof doesn't mean something is wrong or doesn't work.There are plenty of fighters, MMA, TMA, and neither that have "proved" their skill or training methods, just because you dont know about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I can see the beauty of seeing someone you respect successfully use techniques you train or successfully defend techniques you believe to be useless, but also remember that skilled fighters should be able to defend quite well many different types of attacks. Saying because a Gracie successfully defended a certain technique means all MMAist can defend that technique or that the technique is useless is another big logical fallacy, its called a hasty generalization.

I didn't say that everyone could do it. Surely even the majority of people training in MMA gyms are not at the level of the Gracies.

But we have already determined that none of the challenge matches were seriously "to the death" so some of that doesn't apply. I have no doubt that martial artists at the skill level of some of the gracies could defend many types of attacks but what does that mean for you and me? Can you or I defend such techniques? Just because a skilled dodge ball player can successfully avoid getting hit by the balls doesn't mean throwing the balls is ineffective.

Well, what it means to me is that there is a training system and a method by which I, or others, could, with sufficient work, negate or nearly negate certain techniques. I know that the method is valid because of the very consistant results it has had at what it claims.

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. What kind of escape of a choke requires a person to have to recompose themselves? And why were you choking if running was your intent?

Presumably, there was not initially an opening to run, and while the person regains their breath after being choked, you have an opportunity to take advantage of the opening.

That's my point in the different intents of the methods of fighting. CMA train grappling from the idea of escaping while MMA trains grappling in the idea of submitting. Just different ideas and methodologies.

A big part of submissions is being able to escape them. Not knowing how submissions work makes it difficult to know how to counter them.

Well that's my point though. Who do you see at all aside from MMA guys and the nut jobs that come chasing them? Again, just because you don't see someone who can beat them doesn't mean there aren't people who can. Also, we are talking about elite athletes and MAist here. Are there phenomenal runners out there who are extremely talented and probably faster than most of the world and still get beat or don't even make it to the Olympics? I don't care so much about rank, but I have yet to see anyone who is not a CMA (or is a CMA fighter for that matter) who is able to beat some of the ranked fighters in the organization I belong to.

Would you consider posting a challenge to www.Bullshido.com? They have, on occasion, flown low-level pro-fighters to other people's training halls in response to open challenges. I would be eagar to see the video.

One of the schools I'm affiliated with has an open challenge, which they have yet to loose. I could say that I haven't seen any of your ranked guys coming to fight there, so obviously they couldn't win anyway. See the problem with that line of reasoning?

I encourage you to post their challenge where it is more visable and I am confident someone will respond. If you post wins over low-level MMAists, some better ones will surely respond in time to try to straighten the record.

I disagree. It's not a moon shot at all if trained and not done as some amazing spinning 360 reverse eye poke. Also, I don't agree with expecting anything to end the fight, I would keep going until the threat is removed. The legal issues are there if and when the fight starts regardless of eye gouge. If you're legally protected and right in defending yourself, the eye gouge isn't going to change that. That's why fighting for your life and fighting for your ego are two completely different things, complete with jail time. If I'm fighting, it's for my life and I'm not going to worry about the legal issues associated with it until I'm free of the threat. In fact, I use pretty much the same table of force I would with my concealed handgun.

I think we may have reached an impasse on this point as well.

I don't quite get your point here.

Just because something is both illegal and ineffective doesn't mean that someone won't try it.

That would be great. I would love to get into specific technical discussion on this thread. I was starting to think it wasn't possible. Are you attempting to trap or lock the arms or hands when doing the RNC?

If desired you can trap them with your legs. Its pretty hard to reach a target while being choke from there even with the standard version though.

I understand your statement about leverage, but are you attempting to leverage yourself so far the opponent's arms are not able to reach his own body?

I will try to find the photo I am thinking of with Oleg Taktarov where one of his legs has the opponents left arm pinned to his body and his other arm is can't touch his body because it is trapped by his arms (one wrapped under the upper arm) while he applies his choke. I don't remember where I saw it but if I find it again I'll post it.

Is it relying on the quickness of the choke to combat the free arms of the opponent? Another point to look at is getting into position for the choke, how would you set that up? Are you looking for a takedown to get on top and then choke? Are you looking to get behind the opponent while standing?

Either one of those could work, although clinching and tripping could work well with both hands free to try to tie down the hand with the weapon.

I'm not talking about being at a disadvantage against a weapon, but trying to pull off techniques that actually put you in a more dangerous position against a weapon. Again, the differences of fighting for your life I guess. But weapon or not there are some serious issues with some submission techniques that if applied in a no rules environment would be lacking heavily. One point is the tying up both arms and/or legs while not controlling the opponent's arms or legs.

The best place to have this answered would be a seminar on SAMBO knife defenses. I'm not sure that I can adequately explain how difficult it is to move around underneath someone who knows what they are doing over the internet.

I agree. I think we just disagree on what is a moonshot and what is not. Also, training something makes you more statistically likely to succeed in the technique. One major issue I have with this line of reasoning is the separation of statistics. Your talking about statistically likely to succeed but basing that on elite martial artists like the Gracies fighting in their element in less than lethal environments. That flaws the statistic as it's not complete or doesn't involve the issues we are dealing with in this type of discussion. Plus it doesn't take into consideration the millions of different issues present in a life or death struggle. Not all attacks are the same even ones that are using the same techniques.

I think this recaps most of teh arguement we have been having.

Ok, why do you believe that? What makes you think they were intent on doing serious harm or damage? What makes you think they were intent on taking the level of force beyond what would have been needed to simply release the choke/hold/submission?

Some of them tried to bite/eyegouge while not being choked or submitted but just caught in guard or bottom mount. Others during the standup portion tried finger jabs and flicks to the eyes or tried to grap the throat one handed or kicked and punched to the groin. Some bit during the clinch prior to takedown (the Gracies mostly used clinch and trip in the early videos to show how little takedown defense people had).

It's not an assumption unless it's also an assumption that you can keep someone from getting their finger in the eye. Is it an assumption that you could win the fight? We can argue semantics all day, but in fights where these techniques are not allowed we aren't going to see them trained. And in legal matches where gouging of the eye is still illegal, we aren't going to see them trained or applied either. Again, I'm not saying rely on these techniques as the definitive fight stopper, but they are extremely useful in a real situation. Also, you must ask yourself why you ended up in the position of getting choked in the first place.

I think we have another impasse...

Well a good start is the list of illegal moves for the UFC. Those types of techniques would fall under what I would consider "lethal" I guess. We could actually use the term potentially lethal, probably better phrasing. Targeting specific areas of the body, eyes, throat, base of the skull, spine area, groin, small joint manipulation, targeting the fingers, ripping or inserting the fingers into orifices of the body or open cuts, etc.

The thing is that all of these things were ok in the Gracie challenge, they were ok in the CHute Boxe Challenge, they were ok in the other no rules challenge matches, they were ok in some of the early vale tudos - all no rules.

They still are ok in Combat SAMBO total. (Only rule is a fine for each bit or attempted eye attack).

They mostly still ok in Finnfight (Only rule no biting or eyegouging).

Yet NO ONE has made much use of them...

When they were banned for the sport version, everyone complained, while ignoring that the challenges were still open to them.

Targeting the knee from angles, stomping the knee against its normal angle of movement,

I challenge you to find on any of the lists of PRIDE and UFC rules that TMAists are so fond of posting any restriction against knee attacks. There are none in any major MMA organization. There are none in Muay Thai. There are none in many international style kickboxing organizations. I can count on one hand the number of broken knees I have seen in MMA.

stomping or kicking the head of downed opponents.

Only illegal in American and western European promotions. Perfectly ok in PRIDE and the other Japanese organizations, the Brazil and Russia and Eastern Europe tournaments etc.

The problem is most MMAist here these terms and immediately go on the defense and say they wont work and aren't successful. However its smart to realize (and many people who spout about relying on them don't either) they are not "show stoppers" but are very valid techniques to use in the whole picture of the fight. As we have seen even in the UFC fights, a finger in the eye even accidentally or a kick in the groin, even while wearing a cup does actually stop the fight. If these techniques are so useless why are these elite athletes stopping the fight because of them?

The fighters who get hit bring it to the attention of the refs if the ref doesn't see it more because it gets the opponent penalized on points than because it prevents him from carrying on.

That doesn't make sense at all. How would someone who could perform this technique necessarily sweep competitions that do not allow the technique in a society that holds such techniques as illegal and morally wrong unless in a life threatening situation?

They could sweep all the tournaments were knee kicks are legal. I would advise them to start winning international style kickboxing matches, and then go to one of the K-1 feeder tournaments and then to K-1.

Take for example the Hughes vs. St. Pierre fight this past weekend. Do you remember the leg sweep St. Pierre got on Hughes when Hughes lifted his front leg to avoid the shin kick? Do you think a pushing kick hitting the knee from the front (or even the side), pushing it backward would not have hurt the knee? Especially when all the weight is on the joint, those types of techniques are actually very valid, even if it doesn't destroy the knee, it certainly would have given an advantage, no?

It would have been legal.

This discussion has gone the way I guess everyone at the beginning said it would. I would love to see the picture you referred to and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a specific issue such as that one. What I was really trying to get at in this thread is the inconsistency of the match up between a MMAist and a CMAist. When fighting in a non lethal environment a MMAist can still apply their techniques at full power, full intensity and most likely they will. However, a CMAist can't apply their techniques at full power and intensity especially those listed in the rules for MMA events. When those vary techniques may be the ones needed to protect against the intensity of the MMAist. So then how can we really judge how a CMAist and a MMAist would fight against each other?

I keep saying it. No rules challenges. Not in someone's tournament; not in an MMA cage (although I think the result would be the same) or in a kung fu tournament.

There would have to be a level of respect and humility between two fighters to train and be completely honest with each other and themselves in what works, what doesn't, and how and why. That's just way too far apart in my opinion in the martial arts as a whole and sorry to say it but most MMA circles I run across.

7sm

Sadly true.

 

[7starmantis]

I think we've reached an impasse on this one. I don't agree, but we're not getting anywhere.

I guess we have. However, allow me to offer a caution if I may. Don’t take things you see or hear at face value. Look into them; use sensitivity to determine the whole picture and the far reaching effects of the statements or such. What you’re referring to is illegal in the U.S. at least and simply isn't what the Gracies themselves refer to the challenge as being about.
However, we can disagree and continue to believe what we both want to; I don’t see how it really effects this discussion either way.

Well, what it means to me is that there is a training system and a method by which I, or others, could, with sufficient work, negate or nearly negate certain techniques. I know that the method is valid because of the very consistant results it has had at what it claims.

Isn't that the idea of all martial arts systems? To negate or nearly negate others techniques? Be careful placing your faith in a system vs. a fighter. A style is only as good as the fighter who trains in it. Negating techniques is the core of martial arts in every system. Negating certain specific techniques is what training is for. Certainly one who trains in takedowns and submissions will be very effective at them and at defending their defense. However, one who trains in defending takedowns and attacking will be very effective at that aspect as well. I have certainly not seen any factual proof from you or any other source that really shows a distinct advantage to the "grappler" or MMAist aside from hard work. It seems the comparison is always about working harder than the next guy, but it’s always assumed the next guy isn't working harder than you. I've seen nothing that shows an advantage to the grappler on core stylistic technique. The Hughes/Pierre fight shows the effects of hard work and how it’s not really a style vs. style debate, but a fighter vs. fighter debate.
What I was attempting to do what discuss specific techniques a MMAist might use against a CMAist and vice versa. I can see thats a futile request. That is sad in my opinion. I train with as many MMAist and grapplers as I can, some of which are extremely humble and we can exchange ideas. It’s sad that that mentality is not the norm in martial arts.

A big part of submissions is being able to escape them. Not knowing how submissions work makes it difficult to know how to counter them.

I wouldn't say not knowing how they work makes it difficult but certainly knowing how they work is beneficial. What I don’t understand is the mentality that one cannot learn to defend against or learn to escape or learn "how they work" without training in BJJ or some form of ground fighting. My system has a lot of ground fighting in it and I study it and learn to apply it by fighting against other styles of groundfighters. I'm not interested in semantics or the traditional vs. modern, TMA/MMA, Ground/Standup debate, but specific discussions of ground techniques. The problem is most MMAist are too caught up in their titles and semantical arguments that they won’t even discuss things with you unless you claim to also be a MMAist. They just assume you’re on a lower level then they are or are simply not going to understand their amazing knowledge of techniques. Sad really.

Would you consider posting a challenge to www.Bullshido.com? They have, on occasion, flown low-level pro-fighters to other people's training halls in response to open challenges. I would be eagar to see the video.

Couple things about this.

1. It’s not my challenge. I've always maintained that I will fight with anyone at anytime as long as there is a mutual respect and a lack of ego. Problem is that’s hard to find, especially on sights like bullshido.
2. I've already discussed the issues with a CMA fighter seriously fighting a MMAist or grappler. The nature of the techniques is different. The MMAist or grappler can apply their techniques at full speed/power/intent. That is because the techniques are not really designed to seriously injure or even kill. However, to defend that level of intent and attack one would need to also rise to that level of speed/power/intensity. The problem is many of the techniques to be used in defending the MMAist and/or grappler would have to be ones that do seriously injure. I personally am not willing to rise the level of force to that level and don’t believe there are really many who would seeing that doing so would result in breaking the law and possible civil and even criminal charges. As I said before, the conundrum of meeting the two fighting methodologies.
3. I'm not interested in hurting anyone or getting hurt, I'm interested in serious learning and training. I doubt you'll find many expecting the same on your site you listed. I'm always up for training with anyone of any style as long as we can leave ego out. For example, I don’t need to really need to rupture a testicle to understand that when you squeeze them hard enough the other person lets go. Now that’s just an example, but it shows the difference between the styled techniques. you can effectively apply all of your technique at full power and intent as you most likely will not seriously hurt the other fighter, not so on my end. Can I really start trying to rupture your eyes or burst testicles? Can I really start targeting the spine and base of the skull? Can I really attempt to break joints and dislocate bones? You keep saying "sure" it would be ok, but that ignores the "legally problematic" issues following such actions not to mention the moral issues of really trying to do those types of things for an ego match.

I think we may have reached an impasse on this point as well.

I guess we have, and that’s ok. I stand by my experiences of having seen them work but I can see the issue with them as again we must address moral and legal issues if bringing them into play. I've even seen them used where serious injury was not present (with control) I've even seen someone pulled down to the sacred ground by their eye sockets from two fingers. I don’t really expect you to believe me or accept it even so, but we can disagree on our training and still discuss or share ideas.....can't we?

Just because something is both illegal and ineffective doesn't mean that someone won't try it.

I'm still not following you point. It sounds more like my point.

If desired you can trap them with your legs. Its pretty hard to reach a target while being choke from there even with the standard version though.

I will try to find the photo I am thinking of with Oleg Taktarov where one of his legs has the opponents left arm pinned to his body and his other arm is can't touch his body because it is trapped by his arms (one wrapped under the upper arm) while he applies his choke. I don't remember where I saw it but if I find it again I'll post it.

What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke? What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC? How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?

Either one of those could work, although clinching and tripping could work well with both hands free to try to tie down the hand with the weapon.

So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker? Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position? Do you address escape from a ground position? You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?

The best place to have this answered would be a seminar on SAMBO knife defenses. I'm not sure that I can adequately explain how difficult it is to move around underneath someone who knows what they are doing over the internet.

You don’t have to, I know it from experience...everyday. But that actually falls more in line with my point than your own. I'm not seeking answers really, but a discussion on what a MMAist would train for in this type of situation. Do you not address these types of situations in your own training?

Some of them tried to bite/eyegouge while not being choked or submitted but just caught in guard or bottom mount. Others during the standup portion tried finger jabs and flicks to the eyes or tried to grap the throat one handed or kicked and punched to the groin. Some bit during the clinch prior to takedown (the Gracies mostly used clinch and trip in the early videos to show how little takedown defense people had).

That’s my point though. You assume they were trying to the full force of each technique. Grant it they failed, but we also didn't see the gracies get an eye put out and still submit anyone, did we? Punches and kicks to the groin are actually relatively easy to defend, I do it everyday. Strikes and flicks to the eyes are also pretty easy to defend. Like I said before, an athlete and a MAist at the level of the gracies should most certainly be able to defend these types of attacks. It’s the close quarters stuff that’s more difficult.

The thing is that all of these things were ok in the Gracie challenge, they were ok in the CHute Boxe Challenge, they were ok in the other no rules challenge matches, they were ok in some of the early vale tudos - all no rules.

Again you use a false dilemma to prove your point. Because something is ruled as “ok” and then is not used, means it’s not a valid technique. Do you see the problem with this reasoning? It’s assuming that if something is ruled “ok” it will be used. It also assumes that something being said to be “ok” has no other implications for its usage. If we say its “ok” then that removes all the other far reaching implications of using said technique. That’s just incorrect to begin with. However I would challenge your initial statement. You seem to rely on this type of reasoning to prove your point when there are many other ways to prove your point. I don’t think you can correctly say these types of attacks were “ok” in the challenges. The simple truth is that regardless of what anyone said, or what any fighter agreed to there are laws regulating these types of matches both legal and moral that override and supercede these “agreed rules”. Your incorrect that they were “no rules”. They were termed that but were actually “few rules”. The bottom line is that regardless of it these techniques are “ok” they are still not legal/moral and thus hold a restriction beyond what is “agreed upon”. You say striking the eye is ok in some fights, but think through what would happen if a fighter actually ruptured the eyeball striking their finger all the way through the eye socket? What about nerve and brain damage of such attacks? Do you think that because no one has actually taken the level of force to that point that its impossible?

They still are ok in Combat SAMBO total. (Only rule is a fine for each bit or attempted eye attack).

They mostly still ok in Finnfight (Only rule no biting or eyegouging).

Yet NO ONE has made much use of them...

When they were banned for the sport version, everyone complained, while ignoring that the challenges were still open to them.

Ok, your own statements contradict themselves. “They are ok, but with fines or ok but banned”. Once again, you’re basing your ideals on the fact that no one has taken it to that level so it’s not possible. That’s absurd. Again, no one has choked someone to death in the matches, so I guess that’s not possible either, eh? Oh sure, they stop before reaching that level of force, right? But that couldn’t be the explanation for why none of these fighters are walking around with no eyes or no testicles. Permanent damage is frowned upon to say the least, but your absolutely wrong and a bit naïve if you believe that level of force is simply not possible because it hasn’t been done in these matches.

I challenge you to find on any of the lists of PRIDE and UFC rules that TMAists are so fond of posting any restriction against knee attacks. There are none in any major MMA organization. There are none in Muay Thai. There are none in many international style kickboxing organizations. I can count on one hand the number of broken knees I have seen in MMA.

Again, you’re basing your beliefs on the fact that:

• You haven’t seen it
• It hasn’t been done

That actually has no bearing on its validity at all. Regardless of the rules you think hyper extending the knee to a point of tearing or breaking wouldn’t be considered unsportsmanlike conduct? You think the fighter would continue to receive fights? You think the fighter wouldn’t be sued? We need to at least address realistic issues here.

The fighters who get hit bring it to the attention of the refs if the ref doesn't see it more because it gets the opponent penalized on points than because it prevents him from carrying on.

Is that why Matt Hughes fell to his knees discontinuing his fighting and/or defense, twice? Is that why they stop the fight and have a doctor check the eyes of the one getting struck? SO your saying those were all fakes? Are you seriously saying you could withstand any type of groin attack and continue on in your fighting like nothing happened? Same with eye attacks?

They could sweep all the tournaments were knee kicks are legal. I would advise them to start winning international style kickboxing matches, and then go to one of the K-1 feeder tournaments and then to K-1.

Of course because you should do whatever needs to be done to win, including breaking legal and moral laws regarding your opponent’s safety. You should permanently injure your opponent as much as possible to get that win, right? Knee kicks are legal, taking \it beyond a kick and damaging someone’s knee is not “legal” by the rules or the law.

It would have been legal.

I keep saying it. No rules challenges. Not in someone's tournament; not in an MMA cage (although I think the result would be the same) or in a kung fu tournament.

Legal and right are two different things. “No Rules” challenges do not exist. There are at the very least some sort of acceptable behavior that is governing the matches. Are bricks ok to use in the matches? How about small blades that stick between the fingers? Is grabbing the trachea and actually damaging it to the point of death or emergency tracheotomy acceptable behavior? You keep basing your ideas of what is available on what has been done or what is acceptable. In a life or death situation those rules change, trust me, been there. You can’t ignore the physiology of the human body because you have never seen anyone take advantage of its strengths or weaknesses. That is what I termed “blind faith”.

Bottom line, the discussion would be much better focused on these questions I posted earlier in my post:
So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker?
Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position?
Do you address escape from a ground position?
You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?
What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke?
What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC?
How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?


Answer me these and we will have a good discussion going.

7sm

 

[zDom]

Great answers, 7starmantis, even though I think you have reached the same impasse I came to a month or two ago.

On a different note, I keep hearing it said that eye gouges and groin kicks "just aren't that effective" and that video proof is needed.

Truth is, there is plenty of "proof" on video for those willing to see it.

Hasn't Tito Ortiz been complaining about how he lost his match to Liddell because an unintentional thumb to the eye caused him to see nothing but black, allowing Liddell to come in with a flurry of punches?

It didn't even require a burst eyeball or any permanent damage to be effective — just a little bump in the eye!

As for groin shots, just ask Matt Hughes how effective they are. The unitentional groin shots Hughes received from GSP were definately a contributing factor.

And Hughes almost lost a fight to Frank Trigg after getting socked in the winky.

The value of a really, really hard leg kick was also demonstrated in the UFC with a fighter (forget which one) WINNING a match by TKO with a strong roundhouse to the high thigh — delivered with the TMA chambered (using quadriceps as part of the kick) as opposed to the MT straight-leg kick that is often described as a "superior" kick by MMA types.

We often only see what we want to see.

 

[Xue Sheng]

We often only see what we want to see.

Agreed and that should pretty much end the argument right there, But I doubt it will

 

[Rook]

I guess we have. However, allow me to offer a caution if I may. Don’t take things you see or hear at face value. Look into them; use sensitivity to determine the whole picture and the far reaching effects of the statements or such. What you’re referring to is illegal in the U.S. at least and simply isn't what the Gracies themselves refer to the challenge as being about.
However, we can disagree and continue to believe what we both want to; I don’t see how it really effects this discussion either way.

Ok.

Isn't that the idea of all martial arts systems? To negate or nearly negate others techniques? Be careful placing your faith in a system vs. a fighter. A style is only as good as the fighter who trains in it. Negating techniques is the core of martial arts in every system. Negating certain specific techniques is what training is for.

Let me put it this way. We have seen ways to negate or very much reduce the incidence of various techniques that still are staple of combat. Other techniques nearly disappear because of how rare it is to sucessfully use them. For instance, you can train for a long time against a boxer's jab (pro boxers do just that), but the technique is still very effective and works a large percentage of the time. It hasn't disappeared from the tournaments where it is legal through the consistancy of counters. On the other hand, there are techniques that have.

Certainly one who trains in takedowns and submissions will be very effective at them and at defending their defense. However, one who trains in defending takedowns and attacking will be very effective at that aspect as well. I have certainly not seen any factual proof from you or any other source that really shows a distinct advantage to the "grappler" or MMAist aside from hard work.

I don't believe that MMA has any sort of monopoly on hard work. Royce Gracie and Rickson Gracie fought numerous people who were physically far superior athletes who were larger than they were to very swift victories. There is no shortage of either sports stylists, be they boxers, kickboxers, western wrestlers, etc who fell before MMA, and there have been no shortage of hardworking non-sports fighters who didn't get far (just look at Keith Hackney and Jason DeLucia in his pre-MMA training days... very good shape).

It seems the comparison is always about working harder than the next guy, but it’s always assumed the next guy isn't working harder than you. I've seen nothing that shows an advantage to the grappler on core stylistic technique.

I say what follows very respectfully. Grappling is very technical affair and wins and losses between skilled grapplers often hinge on subleties not visable to people who aren't trained in grappling. Heck, lots of times I or even good BJJ people are showed how little of it they know watching a match. For instance, to most people, Royce and Antonio Rodrigo Noguera probably look like they are on the same level - they are nowhere close.

The Hughes/Pierre fight shows the effects of hard work and how it’s not really a style vs. style debate, but a fighter vs. fighter debate.
What I was attempting to do what discuss specific techniques a MMAist might use against a CMAist and vice versa. I can see thats a futile request. That is sad in my opinion. I train with as many MMAist and grapplers as I can, some of which are extremely humble and we can exchange ideas. It’s sad that that mentality is not the norm in martial arts.

I can't really describe the ways alot of techniques work in words or even pictures if I had them. Techniques are hard to describe I guess... I'm sorry I couldn't convey the image I wanted to.

I wouldn't say not knowing how they work makes it difficult but certainly knowing how they work is beneficial. What I don’t understand is the mentality that one cannot learn to defend against or learn to escape or learn "how they work" without training in BJJ or some form of ground fighting.

With punching, say, avoiding where the fist is going to be is a intellectually simple affair. How a slip might work might be hard to describe but easy to see and understand. Slipping punches or kicks in one style has a great degree of carry over. Submissions are very specific movements that have very specific counters to escape. If someone doesn't even know what is being done to them (a fairly common occurance for me as a low-level grappler) its impossible to know the proper counter, let alone be able to execute it. It might be possible to muscle out or to see something coming and move to avoid it, but that will probably only work so long. Sometimes the counters are very subtle and really have to be felt to be understood. (If you watch the Fedor-Noguera fights, you see Fedor make counters that probably look like almost nothing or like he just happens to be moving out of the way - he has an insane skill at submissions escapes and counters that half of the MMA board guys, myself included, can't even begin to understand.)

My system has a lot of ground fighting in it and I study it and learn to apply it by fighting against other styles of groundfighters. I'm not interested in semantics or the traditional vs. modern, TMA/MMA, Ground/Standup debate, but specific discussions of ground techniques. The problem is most MMAist are too caught up in their titles and semantical arguments that they won’t even discuss things with you unless you claim to also be a MMAist. They just assume you’re on a lower level then they are or are simply not going to understand their amazing knowledge of techniques. Sad really.

Let me try this. Think about explaining a very very complicated set of machines to someone who has no idea what any of them are. Maybe like explaining what a "drivetrain" is to someone who says "what the heck is an engine?" I am not an engineer and I am not a master grappler; to explain something that I am only begining to understand the physics fo myself to someone who has never felt it at all is really just beyond me without a common set of terminology. I'm not really sure where I could begin and I'm afraid that I will grossly misrepresent techniques with bumbling and rambling explanations.

Couple things about this.

1. It’s not my challenge. I've always maintained that I will fight with anyone at anytime as long as there is a mutual respect and a lack of ego. Problem is that’s hard to find, especially on sights like bullshido.

Ok. I think you will find the professionals to be much less charged then the people who speak on their behalf, but really it is always your choice.

I've already discussed the issues with a CMA fighter seriously fighting a MMAist or grappler. The nature of the techniques is different. The MMAist or grappler can apply their techniques at full speed/power/intent. That is because the techniques are not really designed to seriously injure or even kill. However, to defend that level of intent and attack one would need to also rise to that level of speed/power/intensity. The problem is many of the techniques to be used in defending the MMAist and/or grappler would have to be ones that do seriously injure. I personally am not willing to rise the level of force to that level and don’t believe there are really many who would seeing that doing so would result in breaking the law and possible civil and even criminal charges. As I said before, the conundrum of meeting the two fighting methodologies.

Ok. I think that many are willing to accept the risk, but if the legal issues are a concern, then I guess there isn't much I can say.

I'm not interested in hurting anyone or getting hurt, I'm interested in serious learning and training. I doubt you'll find many expecting the same on your site you listed. I'm always up for training with anyone of any style as long as we can leave ego out. For example, I don’t need to really need to rupture a testicle to understand that when you squeeze them hard enough the other person lets go. Now that’s just an example, but it shows the difference between the styled techniques. you can effectively apply all of your technique at full power and intent as you most likely will not seriously hurt the other fighter, not so on my end. Can I really start trying to rupture your eyes or burst testicles?

I think you can. I have seen people invited to try and go at the pros all out and it doesn't make much of a difference. I know that it seems crazy to you, but people like the Gracies and like the pro fighters on Bullshido aren't really that worried that you'll actually connect with their eye or get a good hold on their groin.

Can I really start targeting the spine and base of the skull? Can I really attempt to break joints and dislocate bones? You keep saying "sure" it would be ok, but that ignores the "legally problematic" issues following such actions not to mention the moral issues of really trying to do those types of things for an ego match.

I suppose so.

I guess we have, and that’s ok. I stand by my experiences of having seen them work but I can see the issue with them as again we must address moral and legal issues if bringing them into play. I've even seen them used where serious injury was not present (with control) I've even seen someone pulled down to the sacred ground by their eye sockets from two fingers. I don’t really expect you to believe me or accept it even so, but we can disagree on our training and still discuss or share ideas.....can't we?

Sure.

I'm still not following you point. It sounds more like my point.

Well, my point was that there can be very reliable defenses which make movement that are both illegal and ineffective countered.

What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke? What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC? How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?

I would say the chances are rather low. Thats why anyone is at a disadvantage to a blade. There are a huge variety of SAMBO and BJJ weapons defenses but I am not sure I could describe step by step how to do them in words. Maybe someone posted part of the Gracies instructional tapes, but I haven't seen it.

So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker?

If possible, yes. Top position, higher leverage, reduced movement all good things. Throws or half-takedowns (begining the takedown and then disengaging to allow the other person to fall while you remains standing) could be good too.

Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position? Do you address escape from a ground position? You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?

You shouldn't be going for bottom position. Pulling guard or otherwise taking bottom position is intended more for a last resort against an unarmed opponent.

You don’t have to, I know it from experience...everyday. But that actually falls more in line with my point than your own. I'm not seeking answers really, but a discussion on what a MMAist would train for in this type of situation. Do you not address these types of situations in your own training?

I don't know how to describe the defenses in words. Maybe Andrew Green or Marty if he's still around can help me, but i really can't think of how to explain it.

That’s my point though. You assume they were trying to the full force of each technique. Grant it they failed, but we also didn't see the gracies get an eye put out and still submit anyone, did we? Punches and kicks to the groin are actually relatively easy to defend, I do it everyday. Strikes and flicks to the eyes are also pretty easy to defend. Like I said before, an athlete and a MAist at the level of the gracies should most certainly be able to defend these types of attacks. It’s the close quarters stuff that’s more difficult.

I think we've reached an impasse on this one too. I am confident there were people going with genuine intent for eyegouges and bites and groin attacks at all ranges, and I really can't convince you that this was the case.

Again you use a false dilemma to prove your point. Because something is ruled as “ok” and then is not used, means it’s not a valid technique. Do you see the problem with this reasoning? It’s assuming that if something is ruled “ok” it will be used. It also assumes that something being said to be “ok” has no other implications for its usage. If we say its “ok” then that removes all the other far reaching implications of using said technique. That’s just incorrect to begin with. However I would challenge your initial statement. You seem to rely on this type of reasoning to prove your point when there are many other ways to prove your point. I don’t think you can correctly say these types of attacks were “ok” in the challenges.

Perhaps the Gracie challenge could have had legal implications, although I don't think the Gracies are/were the types to sue. The others I listed (Chute Boxe in Brazil, Vale Tudo in Brazil, Combat SAMBO total and AFC in Russian, challenges in Brazil) there would have been no legal issues as there is a different standard for "mutual combatants in those countries that would have made injury in the mutually consented to challenges a non-issue. There would have been no legal reason to hold back and I have difficulty believing that all the vital points attacks were halfhearted.

The simple truth is that regardless of what anyone said, or what any fighter agreed to there are laws regulating these types of matches both legal and moral that override and supercede these “agreed rules”. Your incorrect that they were “no rules”. They were termed that but were actually “few rules”. The bottom line is that regardless of it these techniques are “ok” they are still not legal/moral and thus hold a restriction beyond what is “agreed upon”. You say striking the eye is ok in some fights, but think through what would happen if a fighter actually ruptured the eyeball striking their finger all the way through the eye socket? What about nerve and brain damage of such attacks? Do you think that because no one has actually taken the level of force to that point that its impossible?

See above. THere would have been no legal issues in Brazil and Russia, and still wouldn't be under such conditions today. I don't think that the Gracies would sue in America (although that part is only my guess).

Ok, your own statements contradict themselves. “They are ok, but with fines or ok but banned”. Once again, you’re basing your ideals on the fact that no one has taken it to that level so it’s not possible.

I should have split up the different techniques you listed further. The idea was that in places like FInnfight, where eyegouges and biting is banned, you would still have full legal freedom to go for groin attacks, etc.

That’s absurd. Again, no one has choked someone to death in the matches, so I guess that’s not possible either, eh? Oh sure, they stop before reaching that level of force, right? But that couldn’t be the explanation for why none of these fighters are walking around with no eyes or no testicles.

No one has been choked to death because there is no need to in order to win. The opponent is sleeping and that is enough. An eyegouge is different in that a miss does not fully accomplish the goal in the way taht a choke does. Am I making sense?

Permanent damage is frowned upon to say the least, but your absolutely wrong and a bit naïve if you believe that level of force is simply not possible because it hasn’t been done in these matches.


Again, you’re basing your beliefs on the fact that:

• You haven’t seen it
• It hasn’t been done

That actually has no bearing on its validity at all. Regardless of the rules you think hyper extending the knee to a point of tearing or breaking wouldn’t be considered unsportsmanlike conduct? You think the fighter would continue to receive fights? You think the fighter wouldn’t be sued? We need to at least address realistic issues here.

In a sanctioned fight? Like Hughes? No legal issue at all - in a sanctioned fight anything allowed under the athletic commission rules can't be grounds for lawsuits - thats the whole idea. No unsportsmanlike conduct either. Sakuraba, one of the few people I have ever seen pull someone's arm out of the socket, is one of the best loved and most demanded fighters in the world and not one person has questioned his sportsmanship on the MMA boards.

Is that why Matt Hughes fell to his knees discontinuing his fighting and/or defense, twice? Is that why they stop the fight and have a doctor check the eyes of the one getting struck? SO your saying those were all fakes? Are you seriously saying you could withstand any type of groin attack and continue on in your fighting like nothing happened? Same with eye attacks?

No. I'm saying that the fighters don't try to "suck it up" and push on because it helps them points wise to be hit in the groin or the eye and have it come to the attention of the ref. In the early UFCs, TMA people routinely got hit in the groin and pressed on.

Of course because you should do whatever needs to be done to win, including breaking legal and moral laws regarding your opponent’s safety. You should permanently injure your opponent as much as possible to get that win, right? Knee kicks are legal, taking \it beyond a kick and damaging someone’s knee is not “legal” by the rules or the law.

In a santioned fight? No legal issues for doing something completely legal in the rules.

Legal and right are two different things. “No Rules” challenges do not exist. There are at the very least some sort of acceptable behavior that is governing the matches. Are bricks ok to use in the matches? How about small blades that stick between the fingers?

I pointed out earlier about it being unarmed. That would be a problem for your knife-wielding man.

Is grabbing the trachea and actually damaging it to the point of death or emergency tracheotomy acceptable behavior?

Or trying to? People routinely tried and kept getting matches without either suceeding or being penalized, so I don't see a problem.

You keep basing your ideas of what is available on what has been done or what is acceptable. In a life or death situation those rules change, trust me, been there. You can’t ignore the physiology of the human body because you have never seen anyone take advantage of its strengths or weaknesses. That is what I termed “blind faith”.

I don't think its blind faith to see someone try and fail repeatedly and conclude as I have.

Bottom line, the discussion would be much better focused on these questions I posted earlier in my post:
So you would be in favor of going to the ground out on the cement of the street with a weaponed attacker?

Under certain conditions? Yes.

Do you address multiple attackers from a ground position?

Yes.

Do you address escape from a ground position?

Absolutely one of the most fundamental aspects of grappling.

You mentioned before escaping while they recomposed themselves, How quickly do you attempt to escape from being under someone?

Depends on the specifics of the opponent.

What are the statistical probabilities of trapping both hands of an opponent everytime you do a choke?

Low.

What would be your setup to achieve position to apply the RNC?
How do you attempt to reach the back of the opponent either standing or on the ground?

rear mount.

Answer me these and we will have a good discussion going.

7sm

Ok.

 

[MJS]

I would say the chances are rather low. Thats why anyone is at a disadvantage to a blade. There are a huge variety of SAMBO and BJJ weapons defenses but I am not sure I could describe step by step how to do them in words. Maybe someone posted part of the Gracies instructional tapes, but I haven't seen it.

This is a rather interesting comment. Now, someone can say that they have ground defense in their art, and most likely you will come back and say that BJJ is superior to that. Now, while there may be weapon defense in the arts you mention, I could say the same about a weapon based art, such as Kali, Arnis, etc. Just because BJJ, Sambo, etc. have weapon defense, does not mean that its superior to the weapon based arts.

Mike

 

[Rook]

This is a rather interesting comment. Now, someone can say that they have ground defense in their art, and most likely you will come back and say that BJJ is superior to that. Now, while there may be weapon defense in the arts you mention, I could say the same about a weapon based art, such as Kali, Arnis, etc. Just because BJJ, Sambo, etc. have weapon defense, does not mean that its superior to the weapon based arts.

Mike

That is true. A person armed with a weapon has a very great advantage over an unarmed man, and a person with a better weapon would have a greater advantage still. Put him against a person trained to fight with a knife, while himself being unarmed, and MMA fighter would be facing long odds. Of course, a person with a knife would be at a disadvantage to a kenjutsu master (a swordsman) who would probably be at a disadvantage to a man with a handgun, who would be at a disadvantage to a man with a scoped rifle who would be at a disadvantage to a man with an attack helicopter... and so forth.

We can evaluate unarmed fighting in the Octagon. It doesn't prove who would win a gun fight or a knife fight or who is most likely to be able to buy an attack helicopter. It can only tell us who would win an unarmed fight.

 

[MJS]

That is true. A person armed with a weapon has a very great advantage over an unarmed man, and a person with a better weapon would have a greater advantage still. Put him against a person trained to fight with a knife, while himself being unarmed, and MMA fighter would be facing long odds. Of course, a person with a knife would be at a disadvantage to a kenjutsu master (a swordsman) who would probably be at a disadvantage to a man with a handgun, who would be at a disadvantage to a man with a scoped rifle who would be at a disadvantage to a man with an attack helicopter... and so forth.

We can evaluate unarmed fighting in the Octagon. It doesn't prove who would win a gun fight or a knife fight or who is most likely to be able to buy an attack helicopter. It can only tell us who would win an unarmed fight.

It proves who wins an unarmed fight in a controlled setting. As its been said countless times Kevin, I highly doubt agruments like this, although they make for a damn good read, will never be solved. Fact of the matter is, is a real street encounter will not be what you see in the octagon. As I said in my thread in the GMA section regarding records, I could care less about having one and by the looks of some of the replies of some here, seems to me like they dont care either. Just because someone chooses not to have a record or fight in the cage, does not mean that they can't defend themselves. The quesion I always ask, and the one that always goes unanswered, is the fact that there are many people in the real world that use their MA skill to save their butt.

There are many arts out there, arts that have been around longer than BJJ has been here in the states, and they're still running strong, the schools are filled with students who love to train. BJJ was the fad of the 90's, just like Ninjutsu was the fad of the 80's. Did it open the eyes of people? Sure. Hell, it opened mine, and again, I'll say that I add grappling, MMA concepts, etc., to my training, but I still love the art of Kenpo. I didn't abandon my art and jump on the BJJ bandwagon. Not saying BJJ is a bad art, but its not the end all-be all. There was mention of mult. attackers. I think it was in this thread. I'd be interested to hear how BJJ deals with someone whom they have tied up in the guard, while someone else is kicking the BJJ guy in the head. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on that.

Mike

 

[Rook]

It proves who wins an unarmed fight in a controlled setting. As its been said countless times Kevin, I highly doubt agruments like this, although they make for a damn good read, will never be solved. Fact of the matter is, is a real street encounter will not be what you see in the octagon.

I think we've been here before, but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it? There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.

As I said in my thread in the GMA section regarding records, I could care less about having one and by the looks of some of the replies of some here, seems to me like they dont care either. Just because someone chooses not to have a record or fight in the cage, does not mean that they can't defend themselves. The quesion I always ask, and the one that always goes unanswered, is the fact that there are many people in the real world that use their MA skill to save their butt.

Let me put it this way. In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win. Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system. In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself. However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.

There are many arts out there, arts that have been around longer than BJJ has been here in the states, and they're still running strong, the schools are filled with students who love to train.

THats true.

BJJ was the fad of the 90's, just like Ninjutsu was the fad of the 80's. Did it open the eyes of people? Sure. Hell, it opened mine, and again, I'll say that I add grappling, MMA concepts, etc., to my training, but I still love the art of Kenpo. I didn't abandon my art and jump on the BJJ bandwagon. Not saying BJJ is a bad art, but its not the end all-be all.

Agreed. At the moment, SAMBO, Judo, Catch wrestling and good submission wrestling are doing every bit as well as BJJ on the ground, and the full MMA system tends to beat pure grapplers rather consistantly.

There was mention of mult. attackers. I think it was in this thread. I'd be interested to hear how BJJ deals with someone whom they have tied up in the guard, while someone else is kicking the BJJ guy in the head. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on that.

Mike

A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.

 

[7starmantis]

Great answers, 7starmantis, even though I think you have reached the same impasse I came to a month or two ago.

On a different note, I keep hearing it said that eye gouges and groin kicks "just aren't that effective" and that video proof is needed.

Truth is, there is plenty of "proof" on video for those willing to see it.

Hasn't Tito Ortiz been complaining about how he lost his match to Liddell because an unintentional thumb to the eye caused him to see nothing but black, allowing Liddell to come in with a flurry of punches?

It didn't even require a burst eyeball or any permanent damage to be effective — just a little bump in the eye!

As for groin shots, just ask Matt Hughes how effective they are. The unitentional groin shots Hughes received from GSP were definately a contributing factor.

And Hughes almost lost a fight to Frank Trigg after getting socked in the winky.

The value of a really, really hard leg kick was also demonstrated in the UFC with a fighter (forget which one) WINNING a match by TKO with a strong roundhouse to the high thigh — delivered with the TMA chambered (using quadriceps as part of the kick) as opposed to the MT straight-leg kick that is often described as a "superior" kick by MMA types.

We often only see what we want to see.

I had to quote this just to say what a great post it was. I think your right, there seems to be an impasse here that is hard to get around. Great points in this post by the way.

Let me put it this way. We have seen ways to negate or very much reduce the incidence of various techniques that still are staple of combat. Other techniques nearly disappear because of how rare it is to sucessfully use them. For instance, you can train for a long time against a boxer's jab (pro boxers do just that), but the technique is still very effective and works a large percentage of the time. It hasn't disappeared from the tournaments where it is legal through the consistancy of counters. On the other hand, there are techniques that have.

That’s true, yet you also have to look at the ability to teach or learn that technique. The basic boxer's jab is a very simple and basic technique that is easily taught and easily learned and easily practiced. That comes into play when you start talking about why it hasn't disappeared. However what has disappeared is whole fights where two opponents stand and deliver jabs to each other until one has had too much and gives out. People have had to learn to adapt and make changes due to the boxer's jab. The most effective defense of the jab is not the jab. That’s my point. The reasons why harder more technical techniques have disappeared from high image sport fighting based on revenue and ratings is not quite a simple as you make it out to be. You would be hard pressed to prove that CMA or any techniques for that matter have disappeared from the aforementioned fighting simply because of their consistent countering.

With punching, say, avoiding where the fist is going to be is a intellectually simple affair. How a slip might work might be hard to describe but easy to see and understand. Slipping punches or kicks in one style has a great degree of carry over. Submissions are very specific movements that have very specific counters to escape. If someone doesn't even know what is being done to them (a fairly common occurance for me as a low-level grappler) its impossible to know the proper counter, let alone be able to execute it. It might be possible to muscle out or to see something coming and move to avoid it, but that will probably only work so long. Sometimes the counters are very subtle and really have to be felt to be understood. (If you watch the Fedor-Noguera fights, you see Fedor make counters that probably look like almost nothing or like he just happens to be moving out of the way - he has an insane skill at submissions escapes and counters that half of the MMA board guys, myself included, can't even begin to understand.)

I can't agree. There are not special techniques that require a specific and special defense. There are complicated techniques that require alot of skill to defend, but there is not only one way to defend submissions. That’s simply not true. Techniques do not require a technique to dissolve them. From the mindset of a specific style or so maybe there is a "correct" and an "incorrect" counter, but in a true situation anything that stops the attack is valid. Sure there is only one way to slip a RNC and reverse into a crucifix but saying that’s the "correct" or "appropriate" counter is simply assuming the crucifix is what I want to end up in. There are alot of assumptions in saying there are only one correct way to counter various techniques. From the mindset of looking for a submission there may be only one way to counter something, but there are many different ways to escape, counter, defend various techniques. I just can't agree with you on this one. I'm glad you spoke of them being felt. That is the basis of my whole style of fighting. Having the ability to feel your opponent’s weight and balance and feel which way they are pushing, moving, pulling, etc is a huge part of successfully defending. That’s why I'm saying it’s not true that there is only one defense. I may be able to feel you starting to roll your shoulder and I can then move my weight out from under yours and relax my arm and slip out of the hold you were attempting. That’s the basis of my training in fighting, feeling. If you put yourself fin situations enough your body will learn to feel them and react to them or escape them before it even happens. By the way, the feel thing is not a new thing nor exclusive to MMA or any one art for that matter.

Let me try this. Think about explaining a very very complicated set of machines to someone who has no idea what any of them are. Maybe like explaining what a "drivetrain" is to someone who says "what the heck is an engine?" I am not an engineer and I am not a master grappler; to explain something that I am only begining to understand the physics fo myself to someone who has never felt it at all is really just beyond me without a common set of terminology. I'm not really sure where I could begin and I'm afraid that I will grossly misrepresent techniques with bumbling and rambling explanations.

I think we do have a common set of terminology….once again the mindset I spoke of earlier about assumptions others don’t have a clue what they are talking about. I’ve been rolling with pure grapplers and serious MMAist for years, I do understand the intricacies of and the feel of MMA techniques and being in and out of submissions and chokes. I’m there everyday, that’s why I’m even interested in these types of conversations. Don’t assume because someone refuses a certain label that they have or do not have any set of experiences, knowledge, or skill. That can be a huge mistake.

No one has been choked to death because there is no need to in order to win. The opponent is sleeping and that is enough. An eyegouge is different in that a miss does not fully accomplish the goal in the way taht a choke does. Am I making sense?

Yes, that is exactly my point, thank you. There is no need to take a choke to the level of force needed to kill or do serious injury for it to work but the very nature of some of the other techniques we are talking about do have to be taken to that level to work. That is why they are rarely seen, rarely is anyone wanting, needing, willing to take it to that level. On the idea of a miss, a miss is a miss, eyegouge or choke. And a missed eyegouge can still be very effective if it causes a reaction (tears, physical reaction, etc). I get what you’re saying but a missed choke doesn’t put anyone to sleep either. A miss is still a miss in a choke or anything else. You can still miss a choke. I have become quite effective at defending the initial attack of a choke and thus can negate most choke attempts I come into contact with…..are chokes then ineffective? See, its all about the fighter, not the styles. The situation of a fight can change so rapidly and in so many different ways, a technician can be left wondering what to do next when an experienced fighter with feel can simply move on to the next situation. Am I making any sense?

In a sanctioned fight? Like Hughes? No legal issue at all - in a sanctioned fight anything allowed under the athletic commission rules can't be grounds for lawsuits - thats the whole idea. No unsportsmanlike conduct either. Sakuraba, one of the few people I have ever seen pull someone's arm out of the socket, is one of the best loved and most demanded fighters in the world and not one person has questioned his sportsmanship on the MMA boards.

That’s not exactly true and no I’m not talking about sanctioned fights….your challenge matches. And as far as sanctioned fights and unsportsmanlike conduct, enter UFC rule #22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.

I think we've been here before, but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it? There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.

Your right and you’re actually describing many different fighting systems, not just MMA. To assume that what you are exposed to and what you know is all that is out there is a large assumption. Many systems of CMA were developed by just that, mine being one of them, except they were not “few” rules but were many times to the death. Oh, and usage in combat was most of the time life or death as well. Your comparing a sport arena to something you really have no facts about. Take a MMAist and a serious CMAist who train on the same level, fight the same amount of fights, are the same relative age, weight, etc and you have a better example. Especially if you put them in a fight to the death in private back in some field or parking lot. Lots of things change then and if you can’t see that, it simply means you haven’t had to experience that just yet and I hope you never do…..but things change. Many kung fu styles consistently come out on top in arenas unlike your UFC sports arena. To say that is the only testing or proving ground is naïve.

Let me put it this way. In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win. Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system. In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself. However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.

I agree with you, but if we are going to start talking about length of fight, injury of winning fighter, economy of energy or “tiring” fighting I don’t think you can support those by claiming MMA. The very nature of sport fighting is to continue the fight to withstand the rules. As a fight continues the statistical probability of injury increases significantly. Just look at the UFC fights for that. The economy of energy or movement or the difference of “tiredness” is extremely exaggerated in MMA fighting. That’s the whole idea of most CMA systems, quickest kill or removal of threat, least injury to yourself, least expenditure of energy. I’ve never heard a MMAist claim those at staples of their training regiment.

A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.

I still just don’t understand why good takedown defense is reserved for good MMAist and can not be had by other martial artists. It’s so assuming to say MMA teaches takedown defense better than systems that focus on remaining standing. In fact, my system teaches takedown defense heavily and then focuses ground fighting to escaping and regaining your feet quickly. Why the assumption that MMAist can do that better than others who train it as well is beyond me. Oh, and I wouldn’t recommend sitting in guard while multiple attackers are kicking, swinging things, and punching/pulling you.
What makes you feel a MMAist could do these things better than most other people? I mean like what specific skills or training methods give you that impression?

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

Wow... I been around less for a little while to move and finally get back in here, yikes... lots of reading

Anyways I want to go at a couple of themes:

Intent - MMA trains for different intent then CMA. Ok, if that is the case then both are equally as "wrong" in terms of the real world. Intent is purely situation driven, Sometimes you need to hurt, sometimes injure, sometimes restrain and possibly even sometimes cripple or kill.

Self-defence, the physical aspect, is not about one type of situation, it is about a wide spectrum. By saying CMA and MMA train for a specific intent in there attacks means they are both only looking at a narrow band on that spectrum.

Drunk guy on street looking for change grabs wrist asking for some change, you need to release and walk away is very different then someone attacks you, not threatens, attacks you with a weapon.

Approaching them with the same intent will either get you seriously injured or in serious legal trouble. Intent is situation dictated, not style based.

This relates closely to rules of the sport. TKD is not confined by the rules of Olympic sparring, a Kung Fu club that competes in open tournaments is not confined by the sparring rules of them, and a MMA school is not confined by the rules of a MMA event.

They may choose to focus there training in that way to maximize results in competition at the expense of other things, but that is there choice. Not a requirement of training to fight under those rules. There is nothing preventing a MMA school from covering joint breaks rather then controlled submissions, 2 on 1 fighing, illegal attacks, weapons and anything else. Some will choose not too, others will choose to do them.

I still just don’t understand why good takedown defense is reserved for good MMAist and can not be had by other martial artists. It’s so assuming to say MMA teaches takedown defense better than systems that focus on remaining standing. In fact, my system teaches takedown defense heavily and then focuses ground fighting to escaping and regaining your feet quickly.

I would never claim that any skill set is reserved for a specific style, however there are certain training methods that best develop certain skills. Paintball and target shooting involve the same basic concept, shoot something, but training one in the way you would train another will not get you far.

Takedown defence is best learned through a certain type of training, to get really good at it this method is pretty much required. And, it is also the same type of training that most skills relelvant to the MMA style of sport fighting uses.

Other skills of course require different training methods, some of which are largely irrelevant to MMA fighting and not often done in those clubs, if ever.

 

[7starmantis]

Intent - MMA trains for different intent then CMA. Ok, if that is the case then both are equally as "wrong" in terms of the real world. Intent is purely situation driven, Sometimes you need to hurt, sometimes injure, sometimes restrain and possibly even sometimes cripple or kill.

Self-defence, the physical aspect, is not about one type of situation, it is about a wide spectrum. By saying CMA and MMA train for a specific intent in there attacks means they are both only looking at a narrow band on that spectrum.

Drunk guy on street looking for change grabs wrist asking for some change, you need to release and walk away is very different then someone attacks you, not threatens, attacks you with a weapon.

Approaching them with the same intent will either get you seriously injured or in serious legal trouble. Intent is situation dictated, not style based.

I have to pick at this a little bit. I dont think intent is situationally dictated. Action is situationally driven, but intent should be there across the spectrum in my opinion. Of course I'm coming from a purely self defense mindset, but the intent must be there. The control afforded a martial artist not to kill when hurting would work is not what I consider intent. Now this may be semantical but I believe you cannot know the intent of your attacker to a high enough probability to really rely on with any safety. Therefore, your intent better be to its fullest extent even with the drunk grabbing the wrist, you truley do not know his intent, or really the situation. A book I read called "Deep Survival" really changed the way I think about situations. Its so easy to make assumptions like, "this guy is drunk, he is wanting change, his is just going to grab my wrist" when these exact assumptions are what set you up for serious danger. Now I'm not talking about no control, but your intent better be there. That is why I say MMA normally trains with moer intent than CMA schools. They take their techniques to execution, they usually fight with more intent than scoring points, etc. The control of action is still present, but the intent is being trained into "muscle memory" if you will.

This relates closely to rules of the sport. TKD is not confined by the rules of Olympic sparring, a Kung Fu club that competes in open tournaments is not confined by the sparring rules of them, and a MMA school is not confined by the rules of a MMA event.

They may choose to focus there training in that way to maximize results in competition at the expense of other things, but that is there choice. Not a requirement of training to fight under those rules. There is nothing preventing a MMA school from covering joint breaks rather then controlled submissions, 2 on 1 fighing, illegal attacks, weapons and anything else. Some will choose not too, others will choose to do them.

Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport.

I would never claim that any skill set is reserved for a specific style, however there are certain training methods that best develop certain skills. Paintball and target shooting involve the same basic concept, shoot something, but training one in the way you would train another will not get you far.

Takedown defence is best learned through a certain type of training, to get really good at it this method is pretty much required. And, it is also the same type of training that most skills relelvant to the MMA style of sport fighting uses.

Other skills of course require different training methods, some of which are largely irrelevant to MMA fighting and not often done in those clubs, if ever.

I agree but what I was addresing was the mentailty and near blind quoting of ideas that anything outside the MMA circle doesn't train for those or trains ineffectively for those situations. I would not agree that those skills are "most relevent to the MMA style of sport fighting". Those skills are relevent to anyoen who is looking to avoid takedowns. And the methods of training them are not new or exclusive. Getting good at takedown defense is required for any serious fighter in my opinion, not just the MMA sport fighter.


7sm