Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Mixed Martial Arts

By jmzero in Culture
Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 08:59:11 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

I've never had too much interest in watching sports, and I suspect perhaps that's a common trait here.  I'll play a game of pickup - and I may watch the Superbowl - but I've never been terribly concerned with players, teams, or trophies.  There is one sport, though, which I find positively fascinating.  


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Fighting is hardly a new sport, but its modern, popular incarnation as "mixed martial arts" is still in its infancy.  For many North Americans and Europeans, the first Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC 1, back in 1993) represented the birth of a new sport.  "No holds barred" (or Vale Tudo) style sport-fighting had been popular in many parts of the world (particularly Brazil and Japan) for a long time previous, but competition was sporadic and usually confined to small events with local participants.  

What are the rules?

Among modern promotions, there is considerable variance in rules.  In general, rules prohibit only such unpleasantries as eye-gouging, fish-hooking and finger breaking.  Some promotions ban kicks to a downed opponent, elbow strikes delivered from certain angles, or strikes to the back of the head.  Fights continue until a fighter submits, is knocked out, until the contest is stopped by a referee, or is decided by judges at the end of a few 5 or 10 minute rounds.

Uhhh... So what sort of people do this?

The first North American events (such as the UFC) were designed to showcase a broad range of styles and fighters.  A wide variety of highly decorated experts volunteered:   Kung-Fu practitioners, champion Tae Kwon Doe stylists, Sumo wrestlers, and submission specialists.  The first events quickly demonstrated the effectiveness of certain techniques, and the stunning failures of others.  Initially, it seemed as though striking in general was pitifully ineffective against a skilled grappler.  In particular, the practitioners of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu met with little resistance in controlling, choking, and otherwise humiliating their opponents.  Royce Gracie, a member of the family that invented this form of fighting, would prove to be a dominant fighter for years to come.    

The emphasis on chokes and joint manipulation came as quite the shock to those who expected bloody, action-packed fights, to students learning striking arts like Tae Kwon Doe, and to anyone who'd seen Bloodsport.

But wouldn't some huge brawler or boxer just smash everyone?

David vs. Goliath matches have been a staple of the sport from the beginning.  Initially, small fighters versed in submission techniques had no trouble dispatching their unskilled biggers.  Professional wrestlers, boxers, football players and power-lifters have all tried their hand at fighting.  In a recent competition, 150 pound fighter Genki Sudo was able to defeat 350 pound, heavy-hitting boxer Butterbean in 41 seconds via Heel Hook.  Despite Butterbean's size and legitimate boxing skills, this result came as a surprise to very few followers of the sport.  Fighters, whatever their background or physical resources, must have certain skills in order to compete at a high level.  All this notwithstanding, size and strength are becoming more important as differences in skills become less pronounced.  Early competitions were typically "open weight", but the major promotions now organize fighters into weight classes for their title competitions.  Currently, female fighters are extremely rare.

So this is all about submissions and grappling, then?

The sport has evolved very quickly in its short history.  Submission techniques are still very important, but have become less dominant as fighters have studied them and learned proper defense.  Another important technique is laying on the opponent and punching them in the face.  The "ground and pound" is somewhat more challenging than its description suggests, and takes many forms.  Other popular techniques include kicking your opponent in the face, wedging your knee into their liver, and punching them in the head until the referee pulls you away from their bloody, pathetic, flaccid body.

Are these fights real?

Usually, but not always.  There are certain promoters who regularly produce "worked" (fake) fights, and some that occasionally do.  The primary "shoot" (actual fighting) organizations are the UFC, Pride FC, and K1.  Fights in these organizations have about the same chance of being legitimate as does an average boxing match or basketball game.  As a bonus, the threat of immense pain means that fighters tend to always try their very hardest.

Do people ever get hurt?

Almost everyone gets banged up, but serious injuries are rare.  A lot of the injuries are to the body parts used in striking - broken hands, shins, and knees.  It's very rare that joints are broken in submission attempts - refs watch closely and end fights.  It's unclear how much damage is done to a fighter's brain, but likely the results are less severe than boxing due to lighter gloves and less total strikes to the head before a fight is finished.  I believe that there has been one death in modern MMA.  It was in a small promotion with poor refereeing, and one of the participants was untrained.  He died as a result of taking too many punches to the head.


Where can I see mixed martial arts fighting?

The UFC is fielding a good card of fights this weekend on widely available Pay-Per-View.  Pride FC (a high quality promotion based in Japan) is also holding an event on Feb 1, which will be available outside of Japan via Pay-Per-View on Feb 8.  There are many smaller organizations which are also known for entertaining competition - King of the Cage, Rings, Pancrase, UCC, and many other organizations produce shows around the world.  The distribution of bread at these games is no longer regular, so you'll want to eat before you get to the arena.

For some free entertainment, one can find a large number of classic fight videos on the Internet without too much searching.  Sherdog.com hosts highlight videos for popular fighters, the file sharing networks are teeming with questionably legal content, and fan-run sites carry hours and hours of videos, stories, and photos.  Renting a show on DVD or videotape is another good option to familiarize yourself with the sport or entertain a crowd of rowdy, drunken friends.

Even if you're sure you won't like the sport, I suggest watching an event some time as a novelty.  The particulars of the action can be somewhat difficult to follow, but the gestalt is clear, visceral, and very entertaining.  




Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Favorite fighter?
o Antonia Rodrigo Nogueira 0%
o Royce Gracie 18%
o Fedor Emelianenko 2%
o Wanderlei Silva 2%
o Bob Sagett 11%
o Tim Sylvia 0%
o "The Hot One" 4%
o Mirko "Crocop" Filopivic 4%
o Randy Couture 6%
o Xena, Warrior Princess 46%
o Vitor Belfort 2%

Votes: 43
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kung-Fu practitioners
o champion Tae Kwon Doe stylists
o Sumo wrestlers
o submission specialists
o Royce Gracie
o Bloodsport
o Profession al wrestlers
o boxers
o football players
o power-lift ers
o Genki Sudo
o Butterbean
o Heel Hook
o UFC
o Pride FC
o Sherdog.co m
o Also by jmzero


Display: Sort:
Mixed Martial Arts | 173 comments (162 topical, 11 editorial, 3 hidden)
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu... (none / 2) (#5)
by Del Monte Cyber Monkey on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 07:08:45 PM EST

...seems to pWn most striking martial arts in 1v1. I remember watching a video of a tae-kwon do fighter versus a grappler (BJJ) - the grappler clobbered the Tae-kwon do fighter. He kicked once, then punched, and then he was on the ground. Needless to say, he lasted only long enough to end up in the can opener move. That was it.

The flipside is that grappling is not very good at handling multiple oponents. Don't think Tae-kwon do is either. Aikido is nifty at this (IMO).


Ah, Del Monte!


Well no wonder the grappler won... (none / 2) (#46)
by jargonCCNA on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:40:22 PM EST

Tae Kwon Do is horrible against an opponent who isn't fighting using Tae Kwon Do. You need to learn multiple styles if you want to have a prayer against someone in a real fight.
--
Website Developer. Network Technician. Software Designer. Freelance Geek.

"Is it dead?" "I can't believe that just fuckin' happened! Oh my God!" - Rocco and Murph, The Boondock Saints
[ Parent ]
TKD vs. others (none / 2) (#55)
by MilesTeg on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 01:02:31 AM EST

While your basic premise is correct (those with a broader range of training are generally better fighters) the idea that a TKD stylist would not be able to fight effectively against some other stylist is short sighted. On reason this is easy to show is that TKD was originally developed by the Koreans to fight (successfully) the Japanese, who certainly did not use TKD (Japan at the time was much richer than Korea, and therefore used calvary, armor, and swords!

The problem with most popular styles (Kung-Ku, TKD, etc.) is that they are popular, and therefore there's a ton of crappy stylists around. This is because many programs are dumbed down to attract more students.

In the specific case of TKD (the style I have the most exp with) you only get a very basic set of skills in 99% of schools, even at the higher ranks! (These schools are refered to as Black Belt Factories). Many people don't realize that TKD includes as much grappling technique as Jujitzu, et al. However, "flashy kicks" are what "sell", not grappling techniques. Thankfully, I am lucky enough to study in a school that is taught by instructors who learned under one of the grand masters of TKD, so I get much less dumbing down.

In the end, the primary tool in a fight is always being in the proper mindset. Sadly, most schools teach only tournament style fighting, which is absolutely worthless for anything but tournament style fighting. Those TKD, Kung-Fu, etc. stylists that are taught how to _fight_ in their respestive styles are few and far between, mainly because it's difficult, painful, and time consuming. However, those willing to put in the effort are highly effective fighters.

One problem with UFC and similar crap is that you tend to get a lot fighters who are basically street fighters who've studied some martial art in a half assed fashion for some short amount of time, and then consider themselves "experts" in that style. Unfortunately, this gives TKD, Kung-Fu, etc. a bad name. On the flip side, the more "exotic" arts like Muy Thai (SP?) and the grappling focused arts generally only attract those that are willing to put in serious effort. This is why these types of fighters tend to dominate, not because their style is inherently superior.



[ Parent ]
::light bulb:: (none / 1) (#61)
by jargonCCNA on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 01:32:10 PM EST

Fair enough... my ex-girlfriend formerly studied a hybrid of Tae Kwon Do and Hap Ki Do.. it's entirely possible that she was in a tournament-style school, but she took up kickboxing for the specific reason that her previous training would pretty much be useless in a street fight.
--
Website Developer. Network Technician. Software Designer. Freelance Geek.

"Is it dead?" "I can't believe that just fuckin' happened! Oh my God!" - Rocco and Murph, The Boondock Saints
[ Parent ]
Differences between various arts (none / 1) (#64)
by MilesTeg on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:10:00 PM EST

My guess is that she was in a tournament school (or one that simply teaches the martial art as a way to exercise, etc. which is a worthy use of the art). There is really no fundamental difference between kickboxing, TKD, and other arts. Essentially, kickboxing is standard boxing with the basic kicks of TKD, etc. added in.

The only difference is in the the scope of the training. In kickboxing, if memory serves, you learn a few very useful kicks (5-6), and that's it. Whereas, in TKD, you learn (assuming the right type of school) those same kicks, and dozens of other specialized kicks that are highly useful, but are geared more toward specific applications. For example, a flying side kick was originally developed to knock an opponent off a horse, and then land on said horse all in one move. Today this orignal purpose is, well, useless, but a flying side kick, properly applied, can easily kill someone, or at least knock them off their feet and disable them with ease.

In general I would choose to learn TKD over kickboxing, simply because TKD can provide you with the same training as kickboxing, but adds many many more tools to utilize.

In any case, it goes back to what I was saying earlier. It's not the style that matters (they are all essentially equivelent in that they are designed for hand to hand combat), it's how one is trained in that style. I know tons of TKD stylists who can put on an impressive display, but couldn't accomplish anything in a real fight. I know a much smaller percentage of martial artists (of various styles) who have trained to use their art for combat, and are _very_ effective with it.

These include urban policeman and others who actually have a legit reason to use their skills.

MilesTeg

[ Parent ]
picking a nit ... (none / 1) (#149)
by tdismukes on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 11:13:27 AM EST

"...kickboxing is standard boxing with the basic kicks of TKD..."

You're thinking of the old PKA approach to kickboxing. Nowadays, world-class competition is completely dominated by muay thai technique. (Both in kickboxing and in the striking portions of MMA). The punching techniques are indeed standard western boxing, but the kicks have some imprtant technical differences. A few competitors will mix in the occasional karate/TKD style kick to keep the opponent off-guard, but 90% of their technique comes straight from muay thai. There's a reason for this - it wins fights. I've trained in with both TKD-style and muay thai kicks and can testify that in any serious fight it's the muay thai I'm going to rely on.

[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 1) (#65)
by jmzero on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:13:48 PM EST

Tae Kwon Doe's popularity has produced a lot of bad fighters in belt-mill type schools: 16th degree blackbelts that have no idea.  

Conversely, you can also see very good TKD stylists in K1.  It's clear the techniques are sound.  I remember seeing a few excellent fighters - but now that I go to type I can't remember their names.

TKD, taught right, produces people very good at striking and striking defense - particularly good at integrating punches and kicks in a cohesive offense.  It also teaches some people to raise their hands straight up in the air while absorbing middle kicks - which looks funny and is a good example of how "art" tournaments produce horrible fighters.  

Back to the point, a TKD guy would definitely need rigorous training at sprawling and full-force striking in order to move to a MMA style event - but I see no reason why they wouldn't do well.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

One reason for grappling advantage (3.00 / 10) (#8)
by belgarath on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 07:15:51 PM EST

When comparing different martial arts on the basis of competitions like the UFC, one seemingly minor but important issue is floor mats. Specifically, standing on even light floor mats dramatically lessens the effectiveness of kicks and punches. You can't get nearly as solid a footing, as if you were on a hard floor. That gives an advantage to grapplers.

Additionally, UFC recently added light gloves, and rounds. I practice Wing Chun Kung Fu, and we train to be able to fight for a long time. If you're fighting in rounds, you only need endurance for thirty seconds or a minute. Clearly, some real-world fights will only last thirty seconds or a minute, but using rounds eliminates the endurance advantage of some martial arts.

Adding gloves makes kung-fu look worse, because punches become less effective, but don't present any barrier to grapples.

I don't want to slight the excellent fighters who win these competitions, but I do want to make the point that UFC-like competitions often provide unfair advantages to some styles.



Indeed (none / 3) (#10)
by jmzero on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 08:31:06 PM EST

...And Pride seems to provide a better arena for strikers than UFC.  In particular, Mirko Filopivic (a kickboxer) is doing extremely well (barring his last loss to Minotauro - a fight he was winning until a quick submission).  Strikers, on the whole, are doing better lately.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Why Kung Fu, etc. train for endurance,... (2.83 / 6) (#32)
by JanusAurelius on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 02:25:52 PM EST

People forget that many of the more traditional arts once had a practical purpose-- that of waging war. Kung fu was supposed to give warriors endurance so they could keep going. What good is a fighter if he only lasts a minute in battle, before tiring out?

Also, in war and in the street, grappling is not always a feasible tactic, because it only works well if you have at least a 1 to 1 footing against the enemy (and same in a street fight. are there as many of you as there are of them?) I have friends who practice kung fu, and the more advanced ones are able to take on several lesser-skilled guys at the same time. They do this partly by learning to move evasively, and also by throwing (well, sorta) opponents against each other. I've never heard of a grappler training against multiple opponents, but if there are ways, then I'd like to know.



[ Parent ]
grappling multiple opponents (none / 1) (#44)
by tgibbs on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:35:26 PM EST

Adding gloves makes kung-fu look worse, because punches become less effective, but don't present any barrier to grapples.

I don't think anybody has come up with a way to handle multiple opponents on the ground. That's the primary problem with the take-em-down school of fighting for self-defense: what if the guy has a friend? Maybe one you don't know about? On the other hand, the ground grappling approach tends to dominate in a one-on-one duel. You have to be a pretty good grappler yourself to stay off the ground if the other guy wants to take you there.

Aikido, which is a kind of grappling, does emphasize practice against multiple opponents. But it's all standing or kneeling, so they also run into problems if they end up rolling around with a ground grappler.

[ Parent ]

multiperson-defensive grappling (none / 2) (#91)
by archivis on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 06:08:57 AM EST

A) make sure you eat plenty of beans beforehand B) time the match for proper digestive results C) don't forget your gas mask D) watch them drop like flies

[ Parent ]
My experience (none / 1) (#114)
by tassach on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 05:57:07 PM EST

My ninjutsu sensei emphesized a lot of N-on-1 techniques and drills. Ninjutsu (at least as it was taught to me) is primarily a grappling art, but more of the trap-and-break-the-limb type rather than the wrestle-them-to-the-ground type grappling. Ultimately no single style covers all the bases for a real fight -- you have to study multiple styles and find the combination of techniques that works for you.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

what good if.. (none / 1) (#90)
by ekj on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 03:56:47 AM EST

Well actually, a *real* figth is almost always decided in a minute. Often in seconds.

[ Parent ]
floor mats (none / 2) (#42)
by tgibbs on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:24:16 PM EST

When comparing different martial arts on the basis of competitions like the UFC, one seemingly minor but important issue is floor mats. Specifically, standing on even light floor mats dramatically lessens the effectiveness of kicks and punches. You can't get nearly as solid a footing, as if you were on a hard floor. That gives an advantage to grapplers.

Yes and no. Grapplers tend to use throws a lot. Some of the judo throws (especially some of the ones that aren't allowed in judo tournaments) produce a very hard fall. And without a floor mat, a throw may well end a fight instead of just being a lead in to grappling.

[ Parent ]

kung-fu in the UFC (none / 1) (#43)
by tgibbs on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:29:22 PM EST

Adding gloves makes kung-fu look worse, because punches become less effective, but don't present any barrier to grapples.

The traditional kung fu practitioners generally got stomped by grapplers in the early UFCs, where there were no gloves, rounds, or time-limits.

Adding rounds is a big disadvantage to energy-management grapplers like the Gracies. They are very good at conserving energy on the ground, so in a no-round match, they would often win by sheer endurance. But it wasn't very entertaining to the non-grappler--two guys rolling around on the ground trying to see who can expend the least energy.

[ Parent ]

advantages not what you think (none / 1) (#150)
by tdismukes on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 11:31:41 AM EST

Adding gloves has actually aided the growth of effective strikers in the UFC. The light gloves used give no real protection to the recipient of a blow, but allow a striker to unload with full power without fear of breaking his hand. (I've heard this in conversation with professional fighters, so it's not just my theory.)

The padded canvas probably works against certain types of grapplers as much as strikers - it's harder to knock someone out with a throw on a padded surface. Of course, the net effect is probably similar to fighting on a grassy lawn, so it's not necessarily unrealistic.

As far as endurance - well, the most out of shape UFC fighter has probably 5 times the conditioning of the best athlete in most dojos. When I started getting into full contact fighting and all-out grappling, I was suprised to discover that it is 100 times more exhausting than light-contact technique practice. All the professional fighters I know are in phenomenal shape. The UFC has fighters with cardio endurance which is just unreal. That endurance definitely does play a role in winning, even with the rounds thrown in.

[ Parent ]
ALL AMERICAN HERO/BADASS (1.50 / 6) (#15)
by Hide The Hamster on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:24:51 PM EST

Mark Kurr aka "The Smashing Machine" was unequivocally the most fierce badass to EVAR grace Pride FC and UFC. Hands down, the man on steroids had the best fighter's instinct evar.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

Just noticed that Mark's coming back... (none / 3) (#16)
by jmzero on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:31:24 PM EST

He's scheduled to fight some unfortunate Japanese guy at next Pride.  He looks a little lighter now than he did in "fully transformed super juiced mode" - probably a good thing.  

Great fighter - in his prime I think he could have taken anyone down and worked them over.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

HBO's "America Undercover" (none / 3) (#17)
by Hide The Hamster on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 09:37:42 PM EST

did a documentary on him. He's probably lighter because he was a fucking morphine junkie, injecting the juice into his cock and what not.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
I thought it was going to be some interracial thng (1.33 / 9) (#18)
by JayGarner on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 11:58:36 PM EST

I was so wrong.

+1, Good Stuff (none / 3) (#19)
by k31 on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 02:22:05 AM EST

Jui-Jitsu, Entertainment, and Self-improvement all covered in one article (three of my favourite things) plus, I'm a UFC fan also.

Your dollar is you only Word, the wrath of it your only fear. He who has an EAR to hear....
Krav Maga (none / 2) (#20)
by Apreche on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 09:58:24 AM EST

Are there any fighters in this thing who use Krav Maga? I would love to see how well they can compete against the other martial arts.


I believe there's some who've studied... (none / 2) (#23)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 11:42:21 AM EST

In particular, I know Bas Rutten worked with the Krav Maga people.  Apparently the interchange was enlightening for both parties.  For most of the fighters now, it's impossible to name their style or identify the source of individual techniques - but I understand that Krav Maga stuff has been used a fair bit lately.  

I've also heard it's good for fighting off dogs - which I think is the coolest thing ever (and much more practical to me than human fighting skills, really).
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

the choke from the front video (none / 1) (#47)
by auraslip on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 07:46:10 PM EST

is vicious!
___-___
[ Parent ]
Krav Maga not suitable for MMA (none / 1) (#109)
by Prowler on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 03:27:11 PM EST

The thing about Krav Maga is that only part of the time you train in things you can use in mixed martial arts. So why spend time training weapon defenses and de-escalation (among other things), when you could be spending it training pure Muay Thai, pure BJJ etc.? There have been some successful fighters with Krav Maga background, but you have to understand that you have a lot more chances of being a better fighter in MMA when you train in styles that can be used without exceptions in MMA.

[ Parent ]
MMA hype and advertising (2.25 / 4) (#21)
by Zippy the Housefly on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 10:14:30 AM EST

I enjoy watching MMA.  It's fast-paced, strategic and exciting.  

It really annoys me, though, when it's promoted as "the next evolution of martial arts".  I heard Joe Rogan, UFC color commentator, talking on a radio show about how "martial arts have evolved more in the past ten years than in the past thousand" and how "some styles people thought were great were actually worthless".  That got my goat.

He's right in one sense, that an "MMA style" has evolved from the most effective MMA techniques. But to broadly assume that "MMA style" is superior in actual live combat than anything else ignores that, hype aside, there are rules in MMA events, and have always been.  So while MMA style might be the most effective within the arbitrary parameters of MMA, I think it's reckless to assume that carries over into the real world, where no such parameters exist.

MMA style would be rendered useless immediately if there truly were no rules, and eye gouging, biting, kicking while down, etc. were all permitted.  MMA is basically amateur wrestling for the new millenium.

Armed Combat (none / 3) (#22)
by jameth on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 10:33:13 AM EST

I love the way unarmed martial arts have been going recently. There has been a lot of work in them, and all of them are improving. Every time I see a match, it's that much better than those that came before.

However, armed combat has really suffer, mostly because you can't get proper practice. I mean, you can do a fairly all-out grappling-and-striking match unarmed, but you just can't go at it with knives. As a result, it is now better for self-defense to be trained in martial arts than to carry a weapon, because someone trained in martial arts can be all that much better than someone trained with a weapon.

I find it somewhat disappointing, but mostly just an interesting way for the nature of combat to change.

People do train in knife fighting (none / 1) (#51)
by CtrlBR on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 08:26:26 PM EST

Plenty of ways, using marker pen, rubber knives, and being careful special steel trainers (the same knife as you would carry but not sharpened and with a rounded edge).

Steel trainers should not be lethal but hurt like hell and wounds are well into their possibilities...

If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
-- Parent ]
You'd be after fencing. (none / 1) (#68)
by rodgerd on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:19:52 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Dominance of Jiu-Jitsu, etc. (3.00 / 7) (#24)
by raskolnik on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 11:49:48 AM EST

We used to talk about these things a fair amount when I was learning Wing Chun, a close-in type of kung fu. These competitions mainly came up as examples of what not to do. The biggest problem a lot of the strikers had, especially in the beginning, was the erroneous belief that you have to create distance to effectively strike. Anyone with training in a close-in or grappling system, i.e. Wing Chun, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, Aikido, etc., will take you apart if you cock your fist back in order to hit them: they'll take that momentum and run with it. Even if you can get the strike off, you're giving them a long piece of you that gives them a whole lot of leverage (not to mention something to break; one of the first reactions we trained in wing chun was, once someone threw a punch, to break their arm at the elbow), and they'll exploit it. I suspect a lot of the UFCs are, for street-trained (as opposed to competition-trained) martial artists, similar to shows like "ER" for real doctors: once you know the truth behind what they portray, it becomes something to watch only to point out the mistakes. I hope the reader will forgive my lack of modesty in this, but the truth of the matter is that a lot of schools, especially the striking-based ones (karate, tae kwon do, etc.) do not train their students to survive a fight, but only to win competitions (I know Judo is an Olympic sport and all, but it's less common here). My Sifu always used to say that the most dangerous person in a lot of tae kwon do, etc. classes was the white-belt who'd just started, because he hadn't yet had all the "dirty" (but most effective) techniques trained out of him yet.
<hr> No hables sino que puedes mejorar al silencio.
Martial arts schools... (3.00 / 5) (#27)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 12:40:28 PM EST

do not train their students to survive a fight, but only to win competitions

I'd expand that and say that pretty much all martial arts schools are teaching either for competition within the art (limited sparring) or demonstration of the art.  In this I include WC, TKD, BJJ - pretty much everything.  All of these arts can be effective, but the temptation among instructors is always to teach what's easy - and not lose paying students by demonstrating students' incompetence, battering them, and not giving them their new belts regularly.

And I think this is OK.  The world doesn't really need a bunch of trained fighters - but giving kids confidence, balance, and fitness is a great thing.

However, I think MMA competition exposes this unrealistic training regimen in a lot of fighters.  I think the grapplers were most successful initially not because their style is superior, but because their style allows them to train easily and realistically at full force.  

Traditional Kung-Fu stylists were destroyed in MMA initially - they looked scared, confused, and quickly bloody.  This isn't because their art is wrong.  It isn't because they weren't "experts" - many were highly decorated in Wing Chun, Kyushin (sp?), or whatever else.  It's because they had been training in unrealistic ways devoid of actual fighting.

I don't believe that anyone, no matter their style or training, can really be expected to fight successfully unless they're training regularly at full force, and in situations where a wide range of styles is available.

As Kung-Fu and other striking fighters have started training more realistically, they have performed much better in MMA, and now I think it is the grapplers that are at a disadvantage in many cases.  I think Mirko Filopivic (a strong striker) is likely the top MMA fighter in the world right now.  Why?  Because he's been training realistically and distilling the best out of many arts to arrive at a fighting style that works.  He's studying fighting like a science, rather than as a religion.

If your art is teaching you something like "if a wrestler comes at you like this, do this", that's fine and good - and quite possibly the technique is sound.  But unless you're trying that technique against an actual trained wrestler (and not someone from your art), you're not actually going to be good enough at it to use it in a fight.  That reality has been demonstrated a thousand times in actual experiment - actual competition.

Some of the martial arts world has payed attention to this, adapted, and quickly progressed - demonstrating the power of their styles.  For example, a Judo gold medalist named Yoshida is tearing up the MMA world.  And his style has evolved to incorporate a lot of different techniques from a variety of arts - while still relying on a strong Judo core.  As such, I have no qualms in saying that he could defeat - in a fight - pretty much any strictly-Judo fighter.

I'm sure your instructors, and likely you, will just go on believing whatever - without any confirmation other than faith or hallowed history.  That's OK - I'm sure you're getting in shape.

Somewhere else, someone is learning Wing Chun, Judo, BJJ, wrestling, AND Muay Thai kickboxing.  They're training and fighting realistically - testing their skills against other mixed martial artists and the very best from other disciplines.  And I'm having fun watching them.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Training for real life (none / 3) (#33)
by bgalehouse on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 03:16:32 PM EST

The traditional Japanese Ryu were developed to prepare for actual combat, both armed and unarmed. While the need for safety adds to the challenge in training, there are methods which seem to work. About other martial arts, let me say only that many have other priorities in their design, or in their practice today.

I once saw a high level black belt practice. They had forgotten to bring the bamboo staves, so they went with the full weight items. Pine or hardwood, about 3/4" diameter, maybe 4' long. I think he was facing 4 attackers. They were all blackbelts for safety, and weren't necessarily going full out. But they seemed close to it to me, certainly at least as fast as one would expect from an untrained attacker.

It was amazing. Certainly the most amazing martial arts I've ever. A real reminder of why I was working out that day. He'd block a blow, snap a sharp countrstrike exactly 6" to the side of the attacker's face and move to the next attack incoming. The attacker would freeze for a moment, step back, and then step back in at the next seeming opening.

And no, I've never heard of a serious student of a traditional Ryu entering the UFC or something similar. The best tend to be relatively unintersted in proving themselves to others. And, of course, that isn't what they are practicing for. E.G. Judo throws allways land the throw-ee on their back, while I've seen throws where the 'breakfall' is an assisted backflip and failure is a broken neck.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. (none / 3) (#36)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 03:47:40 PM EST

It was amazing. Certainly the most amazing martial arts I've ever. A real reminder of why I was working out that day. He'd block a blow, snap a sharp countrstrike exactly 6" to the side of the attacker's face...

I well done kick is a stunning thing.  If you like them, I'd suggest finding a fight to watch  involving Mirko "Crocop" Filopivic - particularly Crocop/Nogueira from last year.  I'd venture to say he's the best kicker I've ever seen, and he can be seen kicking 0" away from a lot of faces.  An amazing fighter, his kicks have perfect form, incredible stopping power, and really seem to come out of nowhere.  I think he's the best MMA fighter in the world.  

I've also seen Karate fighters who can break a lot of boards and perform some impressive routines.  These displays, while they are still impressive, always seem somewhat hollow now.

And no, I've never heard of a serious student of a traditional Ryu entering the UFC or something similar.

There have been a lot of good Karate/Kung-Fu fighters who have tried their hand at K1, and to a lesser extent MMA events like UFC.  It's worth checking out if you haven't watched.  Hoost, Aerts, Bonjasky - all excellent at striking arts (and not just in theory, but in practice against other experts in kickboxing, Karate, and Kung-Fu).  

There may indeed be excellent Karate people who decline to fight in competition.  Similarly, many tales are told of Rickson Gracie's ability and exploits.  Or of Bruce Lee's.  I'm sure all these fighters had/have impressive legitimate skills, and I think they would all do well in MMA competition (though I don't think they'd walk through opponents unchallenged or anything).  As time goes on, hopefully we'll be able to see more of these experts demonstrating their skills to the public.

E.G. Judo throws allways land the throw-ee on their back, while I've seen throws where the 'breakfall' is an assisted backflip and failure is a broken neck.

There's been many times where I've been sure a neck was going to be broken.  For example, a failed armbar can end with a situation where a guy is upside down with his hands unavailable - in some cases being held up by a man who is 280 pounds and 6'10".  That man then slams the other down on his head - and I'm expecting the doctors to rush in and collect the dead body.  

Instead, the fight continues.  The human body is a remarkably resilient thing, and I'm always skeptical of arts that claim to be "impossible to demonstrate" because of their potential for injury.  I think that Judo throws are not just practical, but represent a good percentage of the best throwing techniques ever devised.  In short, I just don't place much stock in forms that cannot be demonstrated (or, in many cases, reasonably explained).

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Hmmm. (3.00 / 4) (#37)
by bgalehouse on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 04:26:11 PM EST

Instead, the fight continues. The human body is a remarkably resilient thing, and I'm always skeptical of arts that claim to be "impossible to demonstrate" because of their potential for injury. I think that Judo throws are not just practical, but represent a good percentage of the best throwing techniques ever devised. In short, I just don't place much stock in forms that cannot be demonstrated (or, in many cases, reasonably explained).

I can respect that attitude, and the only advice I can give you is to look around for a traditional Dojo - Daito Ryu, Danzan Ryu, Kaze Arashi Ryu, and many other are still extant. However, they can be hard to find, as their commercial appeal is limited, for exactly the difficulties you mention.

I can give you a story though. I heard it from the Danzan-Ryu jujutsu instructor, as an experience from his youth.

There is a particular joint 'technique' which tears things in the wrist. It tends to be especially fast and effective when the person is trying to retract their arm. It is a favored quick response to a punch. It is called Kote-Gaeshi (sp?), it is commonly seen in Aikido, but the variants I have seen taught there have been modified so as to minimize the chance of actually tearing anything.

A trained karate student was debating the merits of this technique with my future jujutsu instructor. The karateka was sure that it would not be effective against a proper punch, at speed. A test was proposed. While he offered to be gentle, the karateka wanted him to do it full out, so that there would be no excuses for failure.

In the ER, our future jujutsu instructor explained that the karateka's arm was broken in a training accident. They remained friends. While I cannot personally vouch for the story, or the skill of the karateka, I've seen enough to consider it plausible.

[ Parent ]

comment on the story (none / 2) (#152)
by tdismukes on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 12:55:31 PM EST

Just my 2 cents from experience here:

I've been practicing the martial arts for 23 years now. I spent about 8-10 of those years studying an art that made heavy use of Kote-Gaeshi and similar joint locks. I can look good demonstrating the technique and could probably use it effectively as a "sucker" move against an untrained bully putting his hands on my chest.

I have never even come close to being able to pull it off in sparring against a punch. In a real fight, I would not dream of trying it or any other wrist lock that required catching a moving punch.

This doesn't mean the technique is worthless. There are a number of techniques that I have yet to master, but I've seen other people pull them off in fights, sparring or competition, so I know they can be done. However, I've never seen anybody else catch a punch and pull off a wrist lock in fighting, sparring or competition either, so I tend to be skeptical.

What has worked for me are boxing-style punches, muay thai kicking, clinching & kneeing, judo & wrestling takedowns, wrestling/jujutsu positional control on the ground, and jujutsu joint-locks from the ground. This might be just what works for me, but I notice that the competitors in MMA have adopted essentially the identical set of techniques, so they must work for a lot of people.

This doesn't mean your instructor is lying. It's a whole lot easier to pull off a technique when you know exactly what your training partner is going to do. Saying "you throw the punch and I'll do my technique" is much different from sparring or a real fight.

[ Parent ]
Purpose? (2.66 / 6) (#38)
by poorgeek on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 04:54:46 PM EST

"I don't believe that anyone, no matter their style or training, can really be expected to fight successfully unless they're training regularly at full force, and in situations where a wide range of styles is available."

I've been studiying Aikido for over 6 months now so I am by no means an expert on the topic. But one thing that I have learned is that the eventual goal of most all martial arts is not how to fight, but how to avoid a fight. The techniques that you learn in your respective styles is there to protect you in the event that communication breaks down and a fight does happen.

[ Parent ]

That's great (none / 1) (#45)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:39:07 PM EST

And there's all sorts of things that you gain from learning martial arts.  I respect Aikido in that I think it's a great way to get out of a fight situation while avoiding injury - especially against unskilled opponents.

When I referred to fighting, I was talking about competitive fight sports - I suppose I wasn't real clear.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Re: Martial arts schools... (none / 2) (#69)
by raskolnik on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:23:56 PM EST

I'd agree...I should've specified in my original post that you do indeed find people in all those schools. I realize now I was very lucky to find the school I did.

In response to something a little down the thread, one of my friends (who's proficient in Wing Chun, Muai Thai, Bagua, and Capoeira) and I were talking, and one of the things he said, and with which I wholeheartedly agree, was basically that the better a martial artists you are, the less likely you are to actually using it.

Getting back to the UFC thing, the unfortunate thing is that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation out there about martial arts. People see something like the UFC, think "I wanna do that," and go join the closest thing they can find, without realizing how frankly dangerous that could be. If people want to train for competion and know that's what they're doing, that's fine, but a lot of people don't. I've seen plenty of people who think they can fight simply because they know some Karate katas, but learning set patterns doesn't prepare you in the least. It makes me really angry to see schools that talk about "real self-defense," and then have trophies in the window; they're in essence lying to their students, whether they know it or not.
<hr> No hables sino que puedes mejorar al silencio.
[ Parent ]

kata/commerical schools (none / 2) (#148)
by ProfessorBooty on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 09:37:20 AM EST

Kata can prepare you, it depends on how you do it.

At the very least, you learn combinations you can use.

It depends how the instructor explains what the kata actually, is, and you have partners to practice each move with. Ask, how and why you are preforming each technique. You really need to understand the application.

In kendo, unlike iaido, kata actually requires a partner to preform.

kata is just a tool like anything else.

If you are looking for self defense, I always advise people to find a non-commerical school. The instructors will likely be practicing for their own enjoyment, and not tournament focused.

[ Parent ]

All Down to the Rules (2.83 / 6) (#25)
by czolgosz on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 12:14:13 PM EST

I've trained in a Japanese style of karate (goju-ryu) for about 12 years.

One of the problems senior instructors often discuss is the way to get students to train like they'll really have to fight without sending students to the hospital after each session. An acknowledged danger of such training is that the student gets used to fighting within the rules. Then, in a street situation, the rules don't apply and the student is limited unnecessarily. There are ways around this, but there are always constraints while training, though they become fewer and fewer as you advance, since you're assumed to know how to look after yourself.

The same goes for tournaments. Rules to keep contestants from being crippled or killed will give a distorted outcome compared to a situation where the only rule is to survive the encounter. That's why some of the best martial-arts instructors don't take tournaments all that seriously.

Having trained in a style that combines striking and grappling, I do however agree with the other posters who mentioned that close-range fighting (elbows, knees, short punches, even head-butts, combined with grappling techniques) is not emphasized enough by many martial-arts styles. It can be very effective in street situations.

Nothing beats staying out of the fight in the first place, though.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
if you have to get in a fight (2.25 / 3) (#48)
by auraslip on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 07:48:45 PM EST

hopefully bloodlust will take over, destroying all 'rules' and and thing left of your humanity.
___-___
[ Parent ]
Bloodlust (none / 2) (#171)
by czolgosz on Mon Feb 09, 2004 at 09:01:29 PM EST

hopefully bloodlust will take over, destroying all 'rules' and and thing left of your humanity.
My facetiousness detector is out of batteries, so I'll assume that was a serious comment. In a dangerous street situation, you fall back on both your training and your instincts. My point was that the training may not always be appropriate to the situation. You need to be able to mentally override it; that's not always easy at the time. The closer you train to how you'll have to fight, the less adjustment will be needed.

In the few instances I've been forced to fight, I've been able to end it before the other guy got permanently injured. These cases involved young, belligerent drunks, and it wouldn't have been right to have hurt them. I didn't use much more than evasion, body punches and foot sweeps. Nothing "street" besides close-in fighting.

There are situations where the correct thing to do is to make sure the attacker doesn't get back up, ever. I honestly can't say what I'd do if I was ever faced with such a choice. I hope I never have to relinquish basic humanity in order to survive. Friends of mine who have had to (they were involved in a civil war) aren't proud of it afterwards. Few Americans are ever confronted with that. I'm glad we're not.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
[ Parent ]
UFC (1.00 / 4) (#26)
by Gryphin on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 12:24:44 PM EST

Unfortunatly, you'll never see any other fighters than those who use alot of grappling and submission fighting win the UFC because of the way the rules are. And the "Ground and Pound" technique of submission fighting is not a martial art, that's a pair of 5 year olds fighting in a schoolyard. Not to mention that most those of guys, sure, they're better than the average street fighter in skill, but they aren't all that great at thier actual martial art. They've just kicked enough ass in a UFC ring, with UFC rules to be considered badasses. Gracie got to be a big name, because he had some decent Jujitsu background, and was a big steroid slurping mofo. Nice combination against a field of opponents who came from traditional martial arts competitions, where it was every with the same style, and points scored for hits, not getting the other guy to submit.

Unfortunatly, in the end, it is like any other high dollar entertainment show on TV. It looks great, except to the people who really do it for a living, and then they are sitting there and can't watch it because of all the flaws that jump out at them. (Like a real ER Dr. watching ER, or a real lawyer watching Law and Order. or a real computer geek watching Swordfish :) )

Wuh? (2.71 / 7) (#28)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 01:00:32 PM EST

Gracie got to be a big name, because he had some decent Jujitsu background, and was a big steroid slurping mofo

Did you miss a "not" in there?  Gracie is 176 pounds, and I can't imagine he has ever juiced.

It looks great, except to the people who really do it for a living, and then they are sitting there and can't watch it because of all the flaws that jump out at them

Actually, MMA fighters are the only people that  fight for a living.  There are other people who make a living telling kids that they're great and giving them belts to maintain their faith, but I'm not sure why they should be consulted as experts.

The fact is is that a lot of highly trained martial artists have come into MMA completely unprepared for an actual fight - and got smashed.  Others have come in, adapted, and done extremely well (look at Olympic Judo gold medalist Yoshida).  Others have just pretended the whole thing is BS and ignored it.  Similarly, some people ignored the entire progress of science - preferring to base their beliefs on faith than experiment.  

And the "Ground and Pound" technique of submission fighting is not a martial art, that's a pair of 5 year olds fighting in a schoolyard

It's a known fact that unless a technique is pretty (or from your art) that it can't hurt you.  Oh wait, that's stupid.

Have you ever tried to stay up with a good wrestler?  A real good wrestler, not someone from your art?  It is frickin' difficult, and impossible without practice.  

Now, progressing, how often have you tried defending yourself while lying on your back from someone who's trying as hard as they can to punch you in the head?  It's possible, but unless you've done it you're unlikely to do anything but bleed.  And, if you are ever or were ever in that position, I doubt you would dismiss the validity of the technique.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Complete Drivel (3.00 / 8) (#30)
by limekiller on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 01:55:21 PM EST

Gryphin writes:
"Unfortunatly, you'll never see any other fighters than those who use alot of grappling and submission fighting win the UFC because of the way the rules are."

...yet you don't explain what it is about the rules that cause this to be.  So let's take a look at the fighter profiles, eh?

Tank Abbot - Street fighting
Andrei Arlovski - sambo/kickboxing
Josh Barnett - pankration
Mark Coleman - freestyle wrestling, shootfighting, kickboxing
Ian Freeman - vale tudo
Bobby Hoffman - ground and pound
Kimo Leopoldo - muay thai kickboxing
Pedro Rizzo - Ruas vale tudo
Semmy Schilt - pancrase
Maurice Smith - muai thai kickboxing/pancrase

That's just the heavyweights.  So "never?"  Right.  Your credibility is already shot.  But wait, there's more...

"And the "Ground and Pound" technique of submission fighting is not a martial art, that's a pair of 5 year olds fighting in a schoolyard."

Again, you simply wave your dismissive hand and declare that what you say is true without any evidence.

Does a martial art have to be pretty for you to call it one?  I hate to tell you this but "martial" just means "having to do with war."  Therefore "martial art" is "war art."  This can include archery, horseback riding, anything at all having to do with a skill that is or was developed primarily to improve the ability to wage war.  

In fact, one can make a solid argument (as Draeger did) that arts like Aikido are not martial arts at all because they were not developed as a response to war.  They may very well be effective ways to engage in combat, but it fails the test.

Finally, if ANYTHING can be called a "martial art" then it would be ground and pound because it is the oldest method of going about the business of waging war.

Your ignorance is stunning.

"Not to mention that most those of guys, sure, they're better than the average street fighter in skill, but they aren't all that great at thier actual martial art."

Another zinger!  On what do you base this claim?  Or is this more out-of-ass gibberish?

"Gracie got to be a big name, because he had some decent Jujitsu background, and was a big steroid slurping mofo."

I couldn't find a picture of Royce with his shirt off but here is one of him in his gi next to another guy.  Yeah, he's a monster alright.  Here is one of Royce teaching, presumably, clearly threatening those around him.  

Oh!  Here is one where you can clearly see the juice squirting out of his eyeballs.  Notice his 38" arms in that picture.  Ouch.  And one last picture of his towering, inhumanly muscular drug-induced body.

Gryphin, does your head hurt when you type?  No?  Well it should.

"Nice combination against a field of opponents who came from traditional martial arts competitions, where it was every with the same style, and points scored for hits, not getting the other guy to submit."

Your complaint is fundamentally that in previous matchups, the fighters knew what they'd be facing, knew the point structure, how to play the "game."  Because that's exactly what single-art events are; games.  Unfortunately, if you're a tae kwondoist and you're in the habit of not kicking certain parts of the body because they're "illegal" (or worse, you were not taught them because they're not legal), then you are at a disadvantage in actual combat.  This disadvantage is not small.

I should add that I am speaking from personal experience.

I have been in two "fights" in my martial arts "career."  

In the first instance, about seven years ago, I was able to simply wrestle (a technique you deride) the person down until they agreed to stop the fight.  Oddly enough, I ran into this person yesterday and he apologized and offered me a job.

In the second instance I was assaulted by a guy in my own house.  I also wrestled him to the ground.  While trying to convince him to stop, he managed to grab a clothes iron and swung it at my head.  I locked his wrist to force him to drop the iron.  At this point I was in the "full guard" position.  I wanted his neck exposed so I antagonized him with light slaps to the face which caused him, being inexperienced, to roll over to defend his head.  I applied a choke for about six seconds until he lost consciousness, got up and called the police.

It's kind of nice to be familiar with an art where I can attenuate my level of violence to the situation at hand.  But you don't seem to have much respect for grappling and submission...

UFC is designed to be a practical, pragmatic test of what style actually delivers.  This should not be confused with the idea that there is "one true style" that trumps all, however.

For example, I am a jiu jitsu practitioner (both Brazilian and Japanese).  I am painfully aware that I am at a distinct disadvantage when facing multiple attackers.  I am at an advantage when in cramped quarters or on a slippery surface because the former case limits the range of kicks that can be thrown at me and the latter case makes moving the fight to the ground simpler.

But for you to start complaining that UFC isn't artificial enough ...well, now you're just whining.

"Unfortunatly, in the end, it is like any other high dollar entertainment show on TV. It looks great, except to the people who really do it for a living, and then they are sitting there and can't watch it because of all the flaws that jump out at them."

More claims without any substance.

ER is scripted.  Law and Order is scripted.  UFC is not scripted.  You're actually getting a real-life comparison of different styles with the minimal amount of rules necessary to protect the participants from serious harm.  Your analogy breaks down quickly.

I don't think that you realize that a "sport" aspect in martial arts is less than one hundred years old.  In traditional arts it was commonplace to train, in part, by actually fighting.  This caused a tremendous amount of injuries.  Along came sporting and it opened up avenues for styles to investigate and expand their abilities but the total shift over to sport styles -- and learning only the sport-approved moves -- has, in large part, crippled martial arts.

UFC et al is a return to some sort of balance.

Please stop spouting off about something you quite obviously don't know a !@#$ing thing about.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

you rock (none / 2) (#35)
by skelter on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 03:27:14 PM EST

people don't seem to realize how effective a trained wrestler can be in a street fight. all he needs is the ability to take one or two punches before he gets in close enough to immobilize the person.

[ Parent ]
One small issue... (none / 1) (#67)
by rodgerd on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:11:02 PM EST

I don't think that you realize that a "sport" aspect in martial arts is less than one hundred years old.

Depending on what you mean by "sports aspect", I'd have to take issue with that.  Fencing, Western boxing, and wrestling have all been sports in Europe for more than one hundred years.

[ Parent ]

Plenty of succesful strikers in MMA. (none / 1) (#80)
by Edziak on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:35:45 PM EST

Boy, thats an uninformed opinion. There are plenty of strikers in UFC. The best example of a striker defeating a ground and poind guy I can think of was the UFC 15 bout between Tank Abbot and Maurice Smith.

Tank Abbot is a brute. Hardly a nuanced fighter, he takes shots to the head and keeps on coming. He has embarased a lot of good fighters by simply smothering them.

Then theres Maurice Smith. He's a kickboxer and weighs about 30lbs less than Abbot.

Smith won the fight by keeping Abbot away with quick kicks to Abbot's right knee. Every time Abbot would try to rush in, Smith would stop him cold by kicking out his leg. Eventualy Abbot had to quit the fight because his knee was injured.

[ Parent ]

not a reflection of reality (2.71 / 7) (#29)
by tuj on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 01:54:13 PM EST

the other posters make a good point that the style in these types of competition doesn't necessarily reflect what would be the best in a real fight.

Bruce Lee and others have advocated attacking the eyes and the groin as first-strike targets, both of which are ineffective (athletic cups) or illegal in UFC.  Of course, one problem with this is that is nearly impossible to practice a two finger strike thru someone's eyeballs.

Obviously I wouldn't want to face any of these guys in a dark alley, but to think that ground fighting will always win a real fight is misleading.  

I agree (2.75 / 4) (#31)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 02:15:03 PM EST

MMA events are only a loose approximation of "to-the-death" style fighting, in which eye-gouging would indeed be a very effective technique.  It's worth noting, though, that most fights in Western countries are not fought this way.  The person who decides to punch you in front of the bar may want to hurt you, but is usually unlikely to be willing to gouge out your eyes.

It's also true that some techniques would not be suitable for some fights.  Against multiple opponents, grappling is not going to be effective.  Realistically, no martial art is going to provide good defense against more than one person - but striking styles would certainly have more hope.  

Things such as the BJJ technique of "pulling guard" (which involves an opponent landing on you) are not going to make much sense if the floor is very hard or uneven.  Still, BJJ is a very effective form of self defense - one of the few that is well-tested and effective against a large opponent who can punch.  It's at least a passable self-defense technique.  Wrestling, despite its use in the ring, would make for a poor self defense technique.

The converse is also true.  Styles such as Aikido that tend to perform poorly in MMA can be extremely effective against untrained opponents.  

All of this is very difficult to test, but I think it can be said that traditional martial arts, in general, are more effective in self defense than their performance in MMA would demonstrate.  On the other side, attempts have been made (particularly by Bas Rutten, a great fighter in the ring and out - he worked as a bouncer and has an impressive street fight "record") to adapt MMA style fighting for self defense.  It's unclear how well this style would stack up against traditional martial arts or other self-defense styles, but I'm sure it will progress (just as MMA in general has).
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Traditional Martial arts in a practical situation. (none / 1) (#79)
by Edziak on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 08:40:51 PM EST

I have a good example of a traditional martial art technique that wouldn't do well in an MMA event but that worked well "on the street". Two frends of mine got into an altercation with some other fellows. One of my freinds basicaly got sucker punched. My other freind was on the oposite side of the room and upon seeing this, ran to his freind's assistance. Freind number two has been taking Hwarag Do for years. Hwarang Do is a korean martial art that involves high kicks. So when freind number two finaly reaches his adversary he makes a flying kick. This move would be suicidal in the ring, but in this situation it proved effective. The guy saw it coming but mustive been unsure what to do because he took the kick right in the chops. Needless to say, he ceased to be hostile. So that to me is a great example of how a technique that would be foolish in a sport context can prove effective in a real life situation.

[ Parent ]
Anything will work against an incompetent fighter (none / 1) (#151)
by tdismukes on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 12:30:19 PM EST

Almost any technique you can name can work and has worked at some point in some real fight. Many, many fights involve participants who aren't particularly skilled or exceptionally tough. They're just drunk, or stupid, or short-tempered. If you have a technique, any technique, that you've worked hard on, you've got an excellent chance of pulling it off against these people. The real test comes when your opponent isn't incompetent. If your opponent is big, mean, aggressive, tough, skilled, and has the jump on you, then you want techniques which have the highest chance of getting you out in one piece, given that you only have had X number of hours to spare in your life for training. A good technique, in any martial art, is one that has a high chance of success in a variety of situations, against a variety of tough opponents who may be just as skilled as you are.

[ Parent ]
Not so...see Gracie jujitsu... (2.75 / 3) (#34)
by fluxrad on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 03:20:06 PM EST

Gracie jujitsu was founded by Carlos Gracie on the principle that almost all fights wind up with two guys rolling around on the ground. He very quickly surmised that the easiest way to win a fight was to be the guy that knew how to win a fight on his back.

I've studied Gracie Jujitsu, savate, silat, wu shu, karate, tae kwon do, jeet kun do, and various others and found that, hands down, gracie wins every time.

Granted, there are other disciplines that are certainly be more effective in various circumstances. For example, if I were in a knife fight, I would thank god that I knew some silat. But that's a rare circumstance.

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
[ Parent ]
curious (none / 1) (#52)
by el_guapo on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 08:56:09 PM EST

familiar at all with shaolin wing chun??? i'm a complete MA moron, but from what my meager research has shown, this may be the best all around martial art (martial science?). your opinion sir? (maam?)
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
[ Parent ]
wing chun (none / 2) (#70)
by raskolnik on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:43:41 PM EST

I personally think Wing Chun is an incredibly good system. It was the first one I learned, so take into account that I'm not the most unbiased (or experienced) person.

Wing Chun was designed as a system that could be learned quickly compared to the Shaolin systems, which can take a lifetime. It basically picks pieces from the various Shaolin types.

It combines the reactiveness and adaptation of a grappling art and combines it with striking attacks. The basic premise is maximum result for a minimum of effort; the idea is to knock someone down as quickly and throughly as possible. We train things that could never be used in competition: breaking bones at large joints (specifically elbows and knees), shots to the eyes and the groin.

What makes Wing Chun so unusual is that it's a close-in striking art. We get up in people's faces, which puts more boxing-oriented people (i.e. anyone who hasn't studied a grappling art) at a serious disadvantage. It's not the least bit flashy, and you won't look really cool doing it, but I think that too is one of its stengths. One of the biggest things it trains is how to use your body's architecture to its fullest: I'll never forget how much stronger a block if it's done a an inch to the left, or how my teacher could knock someone on the floor from a fingertip's distance away (even in my early days, I left knucklemarks on a friend of mine's chest when we were playing around).

I think Wing Chun, if you can find someone who teaches it right, is one of the strongest systems out there. I would put it up against any strike-based system in a street fight. It's main weakness is the lack of grappling or groundfighting, since it's true that a lot of fights end up on the ground. If you're really serious about defending yourself, I would recommend a good Wing Chun school, and then later do something like Judo or Jiujitsu to cover the places Wing Chun misses.
<hr> No hables sino que puedes mejorar al silencio.
[ Parent ]

Another good one (none / 1) (#74)
by fluxrad on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 05:22:17 PM EST

I forgot to mention, but I was always kind of partial to Tai Chi. It always struck me as hilarious that people found it such a "sissy" martial art (y'know..."making the ball, making the ball") - yet I knew 60 year old guys that could throttle me across a room with the twich of a shoulder.

This thread is really making me miss studying :-(

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
[ Parent ]
hrm (none / 1) (#84)
by el_guapo on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 10:22:35 PM EST

the version i found actually has a LOT of grappling and whatnot. did you do shaolin win chung? www.mengsofaz.com <- this is what i found. benny meng, garrett gee and richard lowingarden. basically, yip pman (apparently) was teaching watered down shaolin since he had an oathe of secrecy or something. here recently (like the last 2 years-ish maybe?) that oathe was lifted, and they started teaching the full deal.
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
[ Parent ]
huh? (none / 2) (#101)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 12:00:57 PM EST

Gracie jujitsu was founded by Carlos Gracie on the principle that almost all fights wind up with two guys rolling around on the ground.

Actually GJJ was "founded" when Mitsuo Maeda taught Carlos Jiu-Jitsu as a favor to his father. Jiu-Jitsu, by its nature, is primarily a ground fighting art. GJJ was not "founded" by Carlos, but it was Jiu-Jitsu "fine-tuned" by Carlos.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Gracie JJ (none / 1) (#140)
by Jaian on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 05:54:54 PM EST

Actually GJJ was "founded" when Mitsuo Maeda taught Carlos Jiu-Jitsu as a favor to his father. Jiu-Jitsu, by its nature, is primarily a ground fighting art. GJJ was not "founded" by Carlos, but it was Jiu-Jitsu "fine-tuned" by Carlos.

Gracie Jujitsu was 'founded' by the Gracies. Maeda taught Carlos a style known as Kosen Judo, which Carlos taught to Helio Gracie, who in turn modified it into what is known as Gracie Jujitsu today. Maeda founded nothing, he taught his art to the Gracies, who added to and modified it, and thus 'founded' Gracie Jujitsu.

[ Parent ]

Never said Maeda founded (none / 1) (#143)
by Lenny on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 02:42:50 AM EST

Well guess what? I founded Lennyjitsu. I took Jiu-Jitsu and added a move called the Lennylock. So I founded Lennyjitsu. Semantics...

There's no doubt that the entire Gracie family is full of great fighters. But lets not delude ourselves and give them credit for inventing/founding anything that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Re: Never said Maeda founded (none / 1) (#145)
by Jaian on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 08:30:07 AM EST

Well guess what? I founded Lennyjitsu. I took Jiu-Jitsu and added a move called the Lennylock. So I founded Lennyjitsu. Semantics...

Then yes, you did found Lennyjitsu. No one but a complete moron would argue otherwise.

There's no doubt that the entire Gracie family is full of great fighters. But lets not delude ourselves and give them credit for inventing/founding anything that hasn't existed for hundreds of years.

Oh please, who here has claimed the Gracie family claims to have invented the techniques which exist within Gracie JJ? The Gracie family themselves give full credit to the Japanese for inventing the techniques; the Gracies only claim to have refined the techniques they were taught, which is obviously true.

You're the one who threw in the strawmen about the Gracies inventing the techniques utilised within Gracie JJ. Pay more attention next time.

[ Parent ]

Actually, the best attacks... (3.00 / 5) (#75)
by rvcx on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 05:31:09 PM EST

...are not necessarily these big Hollywood-style flourishes. Eyes are really hard to hit (it only take a tiny dodge for the striker to miss entirely), and shots to the groin are not effective in stopping an assailant: you haven't crippled the attacker's offensive weapons, and there is a very considerable delay of several seconds between the strike and the sensation of pain, far more than enough for a crippling counterstrike.

History (going all the way back to Greek pancratium) seems to show that in one-on-one contests, the best strategy is to produce crippling injuries in the opponent with the least effort possible. Arm locks, leg locks, and choke holds are all very effective but require a lot of power and quite a bit of body positioning. Outright striking allows you to keep some distance, but it's quite difficult to inflict truly crippling injuries in this way.

The Greek games were very often won simply by breaking the fingers of the opponent: snap a few of them and you've eliminated their ability to grapple and all but the most awkward strikes (kicking is much less effective in real life than in the movies).

But of course, most fights are not life-or-death, and when they are the fighters very seldom think scientifically enough to utilize such an "optimal" strategy. In "casual" fighting (which is usually more about establishing dominance than about hurting someone) and sport fighting there are certain rules that are needed to prevent anyone from suffering truly permanent damage.

(Believe it or not, broken fingers very seldom heal very well; anyone who has seriously broken any fingers more than once or twice is quite often left somewhat deformed with noticable loss of dexterity.)

[ Parent ]

Um... (1.60 / 5) (#39)
by trhurler on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 05:50:13 PM EST

Yeah. Take those gloves off, and most of the grappling and so on would disappear quickly as strikes became a WHOLE lot more lethal. Trained practitioners who can maim an opponent in a matter of seconds with bare hands are a dime a dozen, and many or maybe even most of them are familiar with all the tricks and tools of joint locks and so on; you won't get them with those. This is no more a representation of what real fighting is like than more traditional kickboxing is; the only real difference is that traditional kickboxing is a sport, whereas this is like the XFL. I don't know a single real martial artist of any skill who actually likes this crap.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

LOL. (2.85 / 7) (#41)
by jmzero on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:15:36 PM EST

Have you ever watched a Pride FC match?  Ever seen Fedor Emelianenko unload on someone's face?  Ever seen Wanderlei Silva feed a guy a knee?  Ever seen Mirko Filopivic's left kick?  These guys have amazing KO power, and are some of the best strikers in the world.  

Francois Botha is a reasonable powered boxer.  He got destroyed in K1.  But I suppose you can find lots of "dime-a-dozen" types who punch better than top 10 heavyweight boxers.  And yet these imaginary dime-a-dozen fighters, for some reason, avoid the huge purses and fame available at top Japanese events.  And they don't box either.  Or compete in any events I can go see.  Or show any other signs of existing outside your mind.

Trained practitioners who can maim an opponent in a matter of seconds with bare hands are a dime a dozen

In martial arts movies, yes.  In the fantasies of many martial arts practitioners, yes.  In reality, as demonstrated every Pride FC show, no.  It used to be that this sort of fantasy wankery could be regarded as legitimate - but now it just sounds stupid.  Give me names, give me reasons for me to believe these fantastic people could defeat the best fighters in the world.

By the way, the little 8 ounce gloves they wear help the striker a lot more than the strikee. Lots of these fighters have done their share of bareknuckle, and it doesn't really make much difference.

I don't know a single real martial artist of any skill who actually likes this crap.

Well then the martial artists you know are as misinformed as you are.  There's plenty of other martial artists who participate in these events, and plenty others who have attempted to participate and got destroyed.  And there's plenty who write off the events, never compete, and still talk crap like they'd win easily.

This is no more a representation of what real fighting is like than more traditional kickboxing is; the only real difference is that traditional kickboxing is a sport, whereas this is like the XFL

Both MMA and K1 style sports are legitimate, and attract the best fighters around.  Look around K1 (and MMA), and you'll see Olympic medalists in Judo, Tae Kwon Doe, and wrestling.  You'll see decorated Karate experts, and the best fighters from Sambo and Abu Dhabi style submission wrestling.  

These are the best there is - despite whatever protestations you may be hearing from "the martial artists you know" who almost certainly have neither the skill nor the guts to actually compete.

But, go ahead, ignore the fighting science here - the result of experiment after experiment - and believe whatever fighting religion crap you want.  Or go watch Bloodsport, and see how Frank Dux focuses his chi at the Kumite at defeats that one guy who threw sand in his eyes.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 3) (#76)
by trhurler on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 07:12:04 PM EST

Regular boxers are not competition; throwing them in is an obvious sign that you're trying to talk up your sport without having to actually make any good points. Many people who are still regarded as students in any real martial art could wipe up the floor with a lot of the heavyweight champions of the world, because boxing teaches all the wrong lessons for how to fight someone who might do something other than try to hit you with a fist. The ability to hit hard is not the sole measure of a good striker. This is all the more true since boxers don't know anything about avoiding holds, joint locks, and so on.

As for gloves helping the striker, you're on crack. They help IF he wants to hit as hard as he possibly can with his knuckles AND he's not accurate enough to put his knuckles somewhere where the smaller striking area will count. Problem being, many of the best strikes in terms of outright crippling an opponent are not made that way. Fingers can cause some amazingly painful internal injuries in the right places. Palm strikes against the neck region(there are several targets here,) can easily remove ANYONE from a fight if they connect, no matter how "tough" he is(and he'll almost certainly live, especially if medical help is already there, which it is in these events.) Putting those knuckles in the right place offers a smaller surface area, therefore delivering more energy into the target, and can result in some ridiculous results(I've seen video of a guy getting hit once and having SEVERAL broken ribs resulting from this. That's shockingly hard to do, and nobody will EVER do it with some eight ounce glove on.) Put simply, if these were really the best the world has to offer, then the gloves would be a disadvantage for them. An advantage for you or me? Maybe; they might help to correct for bad wrist position that would lead to hurting ourselves. But, the weight WILL slow down your fist more than it adds momentum. Be quite sure of that.

As for "experiment after experiment," when you make a set of artificial rules about what is and isn't allowed, yes, you get results that aren't what would normally be predicted. Then, you start predicting your results. Good for you, but understand something: take away the rules you've made, and those results WILL change.

I'm not even going to talk about movies as you do, because I'm not all that interested in them. Suffice it to say that the real world doesn't look much like movies. People don't last as long as they do in movies. Fights in the real world between trained opponents don't often end without one person or another being killed, disabled, or at the least severely injured(not just a sprain or a broken wrist or something like that.) Oh, and they aren't televised, and there are no titles or trophies. The so-called brutality of this sport is nothing compared to a real fight.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Bah. (none / 2) (#85)
by jmzero on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 12:05:43 AM EST

Fights in the real world between trained opponents don't often end without one person or another being killed, disabled, or at the least severely injured

I thought you said you weren't interested in movies - and yet you seem to still believe in these fantastic Kumite type things where "the real best fighters" meet to injure or kill each other.  Where do you hear about these?  Hard hitting news specials?  Tabloids?  Late night talks with "the martial artists you know"?  Or are you invited to the secret arena underneath the mob boss's island castle?

Palm strikes against the neck region(there are several targets here,

Palm strikes to the neck?  I'd think a ridge hand, knuckles, or even fingers would be more effective.  But I'm not a certified ninja or anything...

The so-called brutality of this sport is nothing compared to a real fight.

I wouldn't usually call it brutal. And whether a real fight is "more brutal" really depends.  Most fights in reality are between untrained opponents and look just like the schoolyard fights you saw in high school - or even sadder, as the participants are likely drunk.  But I suppose those aren't "real fights" either, as they're not occuring in your imagination.  

The fact is is that "trained opponents" don't go fighting each other all that often - unless its under a solid setup of rules like they'll find in Pride or UFC.  

MMA is a sport - and I completely agree that it's only a loose approximation of what an actual fight would look like between trained fighters.  

Going back a step, this is really the only thing that bothered me from your first post:

I don't know a single real martial artist of any skill who actually likes this crap.

For whatever you want to think, the MMA guys are about the best martial artists around right now - and I think a fair portion of the martial arts world agrees with that (or is participating).  However removed MMA is from fighting, it is much closer than the single art tournaments (or even K1) that preceeded it.  

And, in the end, that is what has earned it the hostility of some of the traditional martial arts world - it's much easier to say "you can stop a wrestler by doing this" when there's nobody demonstrating you're wrong.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Fun, fun (none / 2) (#120)
by trhurler on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 08:07:51 PM EST

Look, I'm not saying fights between trained opponents happen all that often. Certainly not that they're some organized event. You're making that up in your mind so that you'll have someone to argue with that you can mock instead of having to answer. That said, I know roughly half a dozen well trained individuals, and not one of them has managed to avoid ever having a serious fight with someone else who knew what he was doing, despite the fact that all but one of them would happily never fight anyone.

As for palm strikes, the motive is simple: the palm is more than good enough for this purpose, as the neck region is rather fragile, and you stand a better chance of a solid hit and of not injuring yourself(without gloves on, anyway,) with your palm. This removes several joints that otherwise have to be perfectly positioned from the strike, removes the rather probable chance that a well trained opponent will just tap your hand as you hit, let you hit him in, say, his collarbone(by shifting a bit on his feet,) and watch you howl in pain because your wrist just got sprained or broken, and finally, can still quite easily drop someone in a single hit(knuckles would hit harder, in theory, but are just not necessary for this purpose.) And yes, I do know that at least two of the aforementioned individuals(including the one who taught me the scraps of any hope of defending myself that I actually do have,) also use a ridge hand for that same purpose, but they do that or the palm depending on the circumstances(largely the initial position of their arms at the time, as obviously they're interspersing their strikes with blocks and so on.)

Finally, a point you seem to be missing: an awful lot of the really good people in the martial arts world are not famous. They do not have Olympic titles. They have never won major championships. In fact, unless you study whatever they're good at, you might never hear of them, and even then you still might not. And yet, this does not mean they're any less capable. TV cameras do not make you better, and promoters and Olympic coaches do not have a magic "find all the talent in the world" device, and simply put, many people DO NOT WISH to be put under the spotlight.

Also, remember this about all those wrestlers: they have a real advantage in a sport: they know, for a fact, that there are certain things their opponents will never do, certain things their opponents are unwilling to do, and so on. In a real fight, you have none of that. This doesn't really affect a striker, who will simply do more of the same thing, but for a wrestler, knowing that you have to carry off complex and relatively slow maneuvers against an opponent who may be perfectly willing to gouge your eyes, crush your esophagus, cause massive internal injuries, and so on, and who can do so with single quick hits, you have a real problem. Screw up in the ring, and you get embarassed, bruised, a bit bloody, and you then recuperate.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Fair enough... (none / 1) (#121)
by jmzero on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 08:44:03 PM EST

I don't disagree too strongly with anything you've said here.  What differences we have (mostly about how well MMA style techniques might hold up in a true "no rules" fight) are matters of degree - and are mostly speculation either way (at least on my side).

I've lost my desire to flame - have a good day.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Gloves (none / 2) (#92)
by 0xA on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 06:13:25 AM EST

I've seen video of a guy getting hit once and having SEVERAL broken ribs resulting from this. That's shockingly hard to do, and nobody will EVER do it with some eight ounce glove on.

Oh really? I was messing around after football pratice way back when and I got hit in the ribs by a guy who was trained in Karate and was a national Judo champion in the 220+ pound class. Two ribs broken, one cracked. He was wearing offensive lineman's gloves which are pretty much identical to the gloves thay use in UFC.

[ Parent ]

but then again, (none / 1) (#168)
by ksandstr on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 04:54:00 PM EST

If you ask any ER nurse, they'll confirm that people regularly crack, break and otherwise mangle their ribs just by sneezing mightily. Or coughing. Just ask.


[ Parent ]
point (none / 2) (#137)
by F a l c o n on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 04:59:17 PM EST

You made one very good point there: Speed.

I'm not a Ninja and I haven't done 15 years of training in 8 different arts. I have minimal martial arts training, which is why I'll comment only on the one aspect I consider myself somewhat trained in: Speed.

I've trained punches both with and without gloves, and it makes a huge difference in speed. It certainly can make the difference between having time to react and being run over.

For a striker vs. a grappler I'm certain that speed is the decisive factor. Maybe I'm just odd in that perspective as I've mainly trained Iaido, which is sword-fighting and goes very much by the assumption that you have exactly one chance to get it right, or you're dead.
--
Back in Beta (too many new features added): BattleMaster
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. (none / 2) (#77)
by Edziak on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 07:55:37 PM EST

Word. I think a lot of martial arts practitioners don't like this sport because its not pretty. The fact is, in real combat the most effective techniques are the often the least impressive. An arm bar, or a single leg takedown may not look spectacular but they're a hell of a lot more useful in a scrap than a spinning heel kick. I like martial arts. I've studied Wing Chun Kung Fu, Shotokan Karate and I'm taking foil fencing, but I don't consider any of them to be a complete fighting experience. If you take a martial art, I encourage you to watch a few UFC or Pride events closely(especialy if Sakuraba is competing). You'll see some boring fights, but you'll also see a variety of techniques, some brilliant improvisation and maby a few upsets.

[ Parent ]
Misunderstanding (none / 2) (#124)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 01:01:41 AM EST

The fighters wear gloves for the same reason boxers do.  To protect their own hands.  It is rather difficult to do much hitting without messing up yours hands pretty bad.

Trained practitioners who can maim an opponent in a matter of seconds with bare hands are a dime a dozen

Trained practitioners who know how to take a blow correctly are a dime a dozen.  Heavyweight boxers are also throwing potentially lethal blows.  It's just that they absorb the blows correctly.  The gloves only free them to hit harder.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

Fairbairn V Underwood (none / 2) (#40)
by bjlhct on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 06:04:02 PM EST

troll

*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
I used to train in this stuff. (none / 3) (#49)
by waxmop on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 07:52:05 PM EST

The great thing about training in stuff like jiujitsu is that there's an emphasis on getting on the mat and figuring out what works for you. What matters is being able to survive versus a stronger opponent. This is really different than my experience with Tae Kwon Do, where the emphasis was on emulating an established technique to perfection.

These mixed martial arts fights can be sort of like watching a championship chess match -- very boring for people that don't understand the strategy. Despite the imagery in this writeup, you're as likely to see a lot of fights that involve two guys clenched up tight on the floor, barely moving for minutes at a time, each waiting for the other to give him an opening. Then a scramble will happen which will end in either another clench or in a very uncomfortable submission hold. It may not even be clear how the submission hold works (like a triangle or a scarf choke) unless you've learned the move yourself, or at least had it applied to you a dozen times.

My favorite matches are when nobody gets seriously hurt, but the winner clearly forces a tapout. The gory fights may make for better TV appeal, but they are usually the results of unequal matchups or indifferent referees. People train really hard for years to master these skills and there is a lot of common respect between all fighters; going for an injury beyond what is necessary is just really bad form.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar

Have you ever seen Blade II? (2.61 / 13) (#50)
by Head Tempest on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 08:08:30 PM EST

THAT'S the style of Martial Artz I practice You're about to get one free lesson, "buddy" and I promise it will be instructional.

The fun of Martial Arts (none / 1) (#53)
by X-Nc on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 08:59:00 PM EST

I have been taking Jhoon Rhee Tae Kwon Do for a little over a year, although the last 8 months I've been out with a knee injury. What I'd like to do is get my Black Belt then cross train in a different discipline. Maybe Muay Thai Kickboxing or maybe Aikido. The latter is more in tune with my own personal philosophies but the latter is, believe it or not, much easier on the body. Plus Aikido takes forever to become proficient enough in to really be effective. While my reasons for taking TKD aren't for combat, there's still some good training you can do at the higher belt ranks that is much more fight oriented rather than sparring.

--
Aaahhhh!!!! My K5 subscription expired. Now I can't spell anymore.
Kung Fu. (none / 1) (#54)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 10:43:05 PM EST

When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

Confuscious say (none / 1) (#100)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:08:30 AM EST

Man who hand in pocket feel cocky all day!


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I had two reasons for not getting into UFC (none / 1) (#56)
by QuantumG on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:49:00 AM EST

First, I'm too out of shape. It would take a lot of dedication to get myself back in peak performance. But second, and more importantly, it's just not how I wanna live my life. I try to avoid fighting. When someone stares me down I'm more likely to just let it go than to have a go. I don't think I could seperate my participation in a sport like UFC from the rest of my life. It would either make me a worse fighter or it would make me a worse human being.

So yeah, all those years of martial arts training probably have gone to waste. But hey, it was fun at the time.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.

Engineering approach to fighting (none / 2) (#57)
by djelovic on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 03:48:24 AM EST

Jiu-Jitsu is an engineering approach to fighting: Ninety percent of the fights end up on the floor, therefore spend most of the time practicing what to do when you find yourself there.

Jiu-Jitsu also includes some striking, but you don't see that used much. Instead, the current strategy seems to be to wait for a good moment and then hold your head down and ram into the other guy trying to get him on the floor, taking a few punches along the way.

The unpleasant side: injuries are extremely common during Jiu-Jitsu trainings. If you want to get a feel for fighting without risking your limbs too much try Judo. You can think of Judo as Jiu-Jitsu with all the very dangerous stuff removed.

Injuries are common in both (none / 1) (#78)
by lukme on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 08:05:13 PM EST

From my experience,

Judo gave me a massively sprained ankle

Jiu-Jitsu gave me a separated shoulder

After the separtaed shoulder, I decided that a black belt was not in my future, so I went back to graduate school.


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
I turned my elbow purple. (none / 1) (#107)
by waxmop on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 03:09:41 PM EST

I have a rotator cuff that makes a sound like biting into celery when I move it in certain ways. I was always about 40 pounds lighter than most of the other guys in class, and even though everybody was cool, and nobody was looking to prove anything, I got hurt plenty.

I could beat just about anybody on their first day, though, no matter how big they were. That was cool. Then as they learned to stop falling for my cheap tricks, I guess people needed to "settle the score."

I'd like to learn Aikido next. That seems really mellow and I won't have to explain weird neck bruises to my coworkers.
--
We are a monoculture of horsecock. Liar
[ Parent ]

100 percent of fights... (none / 1) (#89)
by JanusAurelius on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 02:54:51 AM EST

...end up on the floor, when one guy goes down =P (not counting those where one guy gives up). If that's your standard, then of course at least 90% of fights will end up on the floor.

Where do you get this 90% statistic anyway? If it's anecdotal, well I've seen a few street fights too and I'd say only half ended up on the floor, grappling/wrestling style. The other half ended up with one guy on the floor not really fighting back. In that case, half the fights were won by strikes.



[ Parent ]
I know what you're saying (none / 1) (#97)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:04:35 AM EST

I agree with your 100% statement, but I disagree about the little details.
In all of the fights that I have seen that have an experienced fighter against an inexperienced fighter, the inexperienced fighter ended up on the ground...not fighting back. An experienced fighter need only distract the inexperienced one long enough to get a good hit to the face and its over.

But almost all of the fights I have seen that involve experinced fighters on both sides...they end up on the ground...grappling.

I realize that the 90% thing is anecdotal, but it seems to be least somewhat based in reality.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
something most people miss (none / 3) (#58)
by CAIMLAS on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 07:57:35 AM EST

I think that something a lot of people seem to miss is that a large number of 'original' or oriental martial arts were originally designed as supplimental; that is, they were adapted to be the 'sidearm' weapon to the sword or mechanical instrument of death.

Karate is simply unarmed combat training; that doesn't mean that the use of weapons wasn't originally designed into the art. Kicking someone in the face while you stab someone else in the back could come in handy when fighting a group of assailants. Karate and other similar arts are not defensive arts.

Jujitsu (and similar arts), on the other hand, is a defensive art specifically designed for use without weapons. The idea here is to defend yourself, to avoid further conflict by disabling your competitor.

Now, if you were to combine the two, they would prove quite complimentary. Stab and kick until you're no longer able to, and once you're on the ground or (say) swarmed by a group, try and use jujitsu.

I wouldn't say one form is fundamentally better than the other. A man with a sword could take a serious chunk out of a grappler
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

Not quite. (none / 1) (#156)
by wumpus on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 06:53:09 PM EST

This would probably be mosly true if you didn't use the word "karate" in your post. The catch is that karate was developed (actually evolved from kung-fu) on Okinawa after the Japanese invaded and confiscated all the weapons from the locals. On the other hand, Aikido was mainly used by samurai to supplement swordsmanship (and from what I understand, is based on sword techniques).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Not quite, not quite... (none / 1) (#157)
by RikiTikiTavi on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 05:46:49 AM EST

I can't speak for Karate, but Aikido was developed by Ueshiba Morihei, who was born in 1883. Granted, it synthesized/synthesizes various styles, but it doesn't nearly date back to samurai. There is a fair amount of swordwork, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "based" on it in the same way as, say, Silat or Escrima or something really weapons-based is.

[ Parent ]
Aikido (none / 2) (#162)
by Lenny on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:41:55 AM EST

Is based mostly on sword techniques. If you watch losely, you'll see that many of the throws and locks have the same exact foot and hand movement as sword techniques...without the sword in hand.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Heh, (none / 1) (#170)
by kraant on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:10:14 PM EST

Well, being a samurai was outlawed a long time before Aikido got started, but it did come from people who still considered themselves such.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Rollerball, here we come (none / 1) (#59)
by yanisa on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 10:41:34 AM EST

I find UFC stupid, bloody and boring.

Some background, I've had about 6 years of martial arts training (karate, won-hwa-do and recently kickboxing). What I look for when watching a match are technical skills - and those are almost absent in UFC. This is a brawl, not a martial arts fight.

UFC is great for a typical bloodthirsty, non-demanding consumer with no martial arts knowledge besides some Van Damme movies.

For those that don't value a martial arts sports by the quantity of shed blood, I recommend K1 and savate.

Y.

PS: The "lighter gloves => less damage" part of the article is just stupid - boxing gloves weigh 12 oz and are quite light. Lighter gloves means less padding, which increases the impact.

I think this line's mostly filler

K1 is great. I'd recommend Pride as well. (none / 2) (#63)
by jmzero on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:04:10 PM EST

Right now, many K1 athletes are trying their hand at Pride - so you can really get the best of everything.  Mirko "Crocop" Filopivic is doing very well, and it's rumored that Aerts may be trying his hand at MMA soon as well.  K1 is also starting to run MMA fights - I think we'll see more and more crossovers, which is great.  There's lots of good fights to be seen in a lot of different, great promotions.

You can't dismiss the UFC talent, though.  The rules and their recruiting tends to bring in more grapplers than good strikers, but these people have legitimate skills.  

For example, Ricco Rodriguez may look like just a big unskilled lug (especially in his last UFC outing).  And yet he submitted Minotauro Nogueira at Abu Dhabi (and matched well with him in Pride).  And in the last Pride, Minotauro managed to eek out a submission against Crocop.  I won't bother to list Crocop's credentials in K1.

While it may be more difficult to see the skills that a lot of the UFC grapplers have - they're definitely there.  And they're capable of winning against very competent strikers.  In fact, I'd say the UFC fights cater more to the technical viewer who understands what's going on.  They provide less value to those who want to see two guys slug/kick it out, and more value to those who understand the intracacies of grappling and submissions.  Last nights fight with Carlos Newton and Renato Verissimo was masterful - but would have appeared boring to anyone who doesn't know their side mount from half guard, or what the key points are in defending from rear mount.

I recommend Pride or K1 to most viewers who want blood.  The rules tend to be more conducive to strikers (and thus clearer, more exciting fights).  Production values are higher too, and typically cards are a little more solid.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Get off your high horse. (none / 1) (#72)
by rvcx on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 04:31:59 PM EST

So these fighters don't use the same techniques you do, and you then assume that means they have no technique at all? That's like a race-car driver watching a motorcycle racing and deriding the fact that they don't need to perform heel-and-toe shifting to get through the gears.

There is a huge amount of technique to free fighting, and I guarantee you that those professional are far more devoted students of their techniques than you are of yours.

And the truth is boxing matches are much more dangerous than UFC fights, but admittedly this is only an indirect result of glove weight (the "fewer hits" mention was closer to the mark).

[ Parent ]

The gloves thing is a good question (none / 1) (#86)
by jmzero on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 12:30:29 AM EST

I've read things either way on the heavy gloves vs. lighter gloves vs. brain damage question.  The greater number of people seem to think the lighter glove impacts do less damage - but it's got to be a difficult thing to study.  It also probably depends on the striker, and the location of impact.

That part of the article was speculation, and perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that.  We really don't know about the long-term injuries or health consequences modern MMA fighters may face.  The sample size is still so much smaller than that of boxing - especially if we're only looking at real veterans of the sport - and the sport, as constituted, is young.

Still, I think that in general the sport is reasonably safe - comparable if not favorable to boxing (when the participants and organization is competent).
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Yet More Ignorance (none / 1) (#104)
by limekiller on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 02:28:27 PM EST

yanisa writes:
"I find UFC stupid, bloody and boring."

Thank god you don't have to watch it, huh?!

I can't figure out if you watch a lot of it and still hate it or have little experience with it and hate it anyway.

You also don't mention that you have any expeience with anything other than UFC-sponsored events.  Perhaps you're under the impression that it's the only one?

"Some background, I've had about 6 years of martial arts training (karate, won-hwa-do and recently kickboxing)."

Congratulations.  That's irrelevant.  It's called "Argument from Authority."

"What I look for when watching a match are technical skills - and those are almost absent in UFC."

...yet you don't describe what you mean, precisely, when you say "technical."  Further, the arts you have claimed to be familiar with don't exactly dominate the sport, so at best you're judging a style you know next to nothing about the technical aspects of.

"This is a brawl, not a martial arts fight."

Brawls are, by definition, martial arts fights.  It's always possible that the participants are unskilled, but throwing a punch -- even a bad one -- is a martial art.  Skilled punches are examples of good martial art.

This is a fairly straightforward concept.

"UFC is great for a typical bloodthirsty, non-demanding consumer with no martial arts knowledge besides some Van Damme movies. "

Oh, this is interesting!  A reverse Argument from Authority.

To counter it merely on it's truthfulness (but not so far as to engage in that logical flaw myself), I'm a 13 year martial artist.  Mostly Brazilian jiu jitsu.  Some Japanese, some karate, a bit more than a little kendo.

Does that mean anything I say about martial arts is right and anything you say about martial arts is wrong?  No.  

Does it mean that your statement about only bloodthirsty know-nothings being interested in UFC-style events is wrong?  Yes.

"For those that don't value a martial arts sports by the quantity of shed blood, I recommend K1 and savate."

...or aikido or jiu jitsu or kendo or hapkido or...

Besides, what's your point?  I'm a BJJ martial artist and ..I'm a fan of bloodshed??  Can you reconcile that one for me?

To sum up...

You presume to speak of your opinion as fact (UFC is for "bloodthirsty, non-demanding consumer with no martial arts knowledge") without actually supporting that opinion.  You merely wave your hand and declare it so.

You presume to know the mindset of people you've never met, never spoken with and about a subject you don't seem to have a firm grasp on (but plenty of biases against).

You utterly ignore the historical aspect of the UFC goal -- to truly test the strengths and weaknesses of a given art -- and the fact (not opinion, fact) that for centuries this is precisely how martial art skills were taught and honed.

Jeepers.

What is it about martial arts discussions that turns people into holier than thou elitist assholes?

Feel free to answer that one.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

no technique? (none / 1) (#153)
by tdismukes on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 01:15:06 PM EST

"What I look for when watching a match are technical skills - and those are almost absent in UFC... UFC is great for a typical bloodthirsty, non-demanding consumer with no martial arts knowledge ... " Hmmm, I'm thinking that either you've only seen the early UFCs (which had fewer real technicians) or else your limited martial arts experience is causing you to miss some stuff.

I've been training in the martial arts continuously for 23 years now (tae kwon do, taijutsu, muay thai, jujutsu & some other stuff). I try to watch the UFC whenever I can, not as a sports fan, but to study the fighters and learn things from their moves. 90% of the fighters currently competing at the UFC level have skill that's at least an order of magnitude above mine. (2 orders of magnitude in some cases).

Of course, if you've never trained under those rules or practiced those techniques, it's easy to miss the subtleties involved. Do yourself a favor, get someone who has trained in that style to give you a few lessons or provide an analysis of some of the fights. You'll be amazed at what you start to see.

[ Parent ]
I will repeat others' comments... (none / 2) (#60)
by SPYvSPY on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 12:36:28 PM EST

..that grappling arts (which are certainly an important skill for any warrior) are not suitable for fighting multiple opponents. In fact, grappling is probably only useful where you and your people outnumber him and his people.

The other point I want to make, which is glossed over in the article here, is that UFC production values are very low. The fights are held in venue that feel like converted Marriot Inns, with cheesy lighting, annoying announcers, ugly bikini girls and bad camerawork. In general, UFC is a series with little (or none) of the dignity that makes martial arts a great endeavor.

I won't even get into the fact that genuine martial arts are not about winning fights or beating people up.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.

Indeed - UFC not best promotion (none / 1) (#62)
by jmzero on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 01:47:02 PM EST

You'll find better production values, better announcers, and better fighters in promotions like the Japanese Pride FC.  

The UFC has also been on a tremendous run of bad luck in terms of choosing bad talent to sign to long contracts, and in terms of losing good talent to injuries (and in a couple cases drug abuse).
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

"Genuine martial arts" (none / 2) (#66)
by rodgerd on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 02:58:10 PM EST

...better teach you about winning fights, or they're a waste of your time.  If you want to improve your fitness, physical conditioning, and get a dollop of Eastern philosophy/religion, go do yoga.

[ Parent ]
Bravo! (none / 1) (#71)
by rvcx on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 04:26:38 PM EST

I am so sick of geeks feeding their Asian fetish and pretending that it's "martial arts". "Martial" means war or fighting. People seem to have elevated training exercises to be more important than what they were designed to train you for. It's like someone telling you that "the marathon" isn't really about running--it's about stretching your hamstrings.

If you want to practice choreographed dance or tea ceremonies, at least admit what it is you're doing.

[ Parent ]

You sound jealous and ignorant (none / 1) (#81)
by SPYvSPY on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:41:55 PM EST

Have you trained kata for hours on end, six days a week? Try it. You might understand what I'm getting at.

Japanese martial arts, at least, are not a substitute for the gym or philosophy class--they develop a mental fortitude and confidence that has applications both in and out of fighting. If a karate student never fought, that would be a good thing. For me, karate is as much about avoiding fights as winning them.

BTW, karate teaches you to immobilize and potentially kill your opponent as quickly as possible through eye gouges and attacks on the weakest parts of a human being with full, unmitigated forceful attacks. UFC and Pride FC hamstring the martial art in ways that are directly opposite to the fundamental concept of the whole thing.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Waste of time? (none / 3) (#82)
by SPYvSPY on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:46:37 PM EST

The fact that you think anyone wins a fight belies the depth of your ignorance, insecurity and lack of confidence in your ability to kill someone that provokes a fight.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

To quote my old sensei (none / 1) (#112)
by tassach on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 05:09:28 PM EST

The only true measure of "winning" a fight is that you come out of it unharmed; therefore, a fight avoided is always a fight won.


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

I would even disagree with your sensei (none / 1) (#135)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 03:29:03 PM EST

unless he meant to include the "harm" of having hurt someone else.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Mixed Bag (none / 1) (#73)
by limekiller on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 04:38:52 PM EST

First, let me start this off saying that your post was coherent and I respect it.  This is more than I can say for 95% of the posts I reply to.  Don't take this as a flame.  

SPYvSPY writes:
"...grappling arts (which are certainly an important skill for any warrior) are not suitable for fighting multiple opponents.  In fact, grappling is probably only useful where you and your people outnumber him and his people. "

I agree with this (and I've even made this argument) but one aspect that greatly alleviates this problem is the ability to snap joints and completely remove someone from the fight very, very quickly.  What knowing primarily (or only) grappling forces me to do is injure someone that I may not otherwise wish to injure.  If I have two or three people facing me my goal is going to be to blow out a shoulder or an elbow very quickly.  If the screaming doesn't make them reconsider, then I've at least evened up the sides a bit.

"The other point I want to make, which is glossed over in the article here, is that UFC production values are very low."

I'll have to concede this one.

" In general, UFC is a series with little (or none) of the dignity that makes martial arts a great endeavor. "

It is here that I disagree with you most strongly.  Given that this is an open brawl sort of environment, I would have expected to see the fighters display less class rather than more.  I've found the opposite to be true.  And how UFC presents their matches have no bearing on the dignity of martial arts.  That is controlled only by the martial artists themselves.

"I won't even get into the fact that genuine martial arts are not about winning fights or beating people up."

That's irrelevant.  The point -- or at least the point that I take from UFC -- is putting your art to a pragmatic test that it so infrequently has the opportunity to.  I'd like to participate in UFC-style events if only to know what it is like, psychologically and physiologically, to be hit as if you are being attacked.  Because I guarantee that there are a lot of people out there that are overconfident in their style and some day they're going to get punched, kicked or put into a submission hold and their art is going to be on it's arse because they didn't know it's shortcomings.

For example, you pointed out that grappling is weak vs. multiple attackers.  Well, how weak?  How can that effect be mitigated?  Real fighting is the only way to find out.

And as I mentioned in the other post, not actually fighting while training is a relatively new aspect of martial arts.  Injuries and the public eye (as well as interest) forced safer practices.  Unfortunately, these practices are also diluted.

Anyway, thanks for your post.  

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

It's simple (none / 1) (#83)
by SPYvSPY on Sun Feb 01, 2004 at 09:48:59 PM EST

The test of a martial art is not the ability of one of its practicioners to win a fight. Studying martial arts is a process, not a result.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Do vs. Jitsu (none / 2) (#87)
by limekiller on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 01:11:09 AM EST

SPYvSPY writes:
"The test of a martial art is not the ability of one of its practicioners to win a fight. Studying martial arts is a process, not a result."

This is true from a "do" perspective.  Judo, kendo, et al.  These arts are more concerned with a self-development aspect of martial arts.  Call it a spiritual side if ya want (I wouldn't, but I think that would be delving into mere semantics).

"Jitsu" arts, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with the actual use, the pragmatic application of the art.  Jiu Jitsu, kenjitsu, etc.

So you're half right, but only from a "do" perspective.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 1) (#88)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 01:48:05 AM EST

...I can accept that, since I train in Karate and Judo.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

nah (none / 1) (#95)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 10:49:14 AM EST

The test of a martial art is not the ability of one of its practicioners to win a fight.
If you say so...But the practicioners of BJJ(and similar practices) regularly kick the crap out of strikers(Kendo/Karate/TKD) in many different competitions with varrying rule sets.

If the test of a martial art is not the ability of one of its practicioners to win a fight, then maybe that martial art should be called art, and not martial.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Probably not kendo (none / 1) (#98)
by scheme on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:04:36 AM EST

The test of a martial art is not the ability of one of its practicioners to win a fight. If you say so...But the practicioners of BJJ(and similar practices) regularly kick the crap out of strikers(Kendo/Karate/TKD) in many different competitions with varrying rule sets.

I don't think they've ever gone up against kendo practitioners. BJJ might be good but it's fairly difficult to get in and grapple someone using a wooden sword without getting significantly hurt.


"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." --Albert Einstein


[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 1) (#99)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:07:07 AM EST

Had Kendo on the brain and meant to type Kenpo...

Kendo vs. BJJ - Now there a fight!


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Karate (2.25 / 4) (#106)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 02:57:14 PM EST

Look, Karate is not a sport. It is even more no-holds-barred than UFC. Sure, there's point sparring in Shotokan and other Karate, but that is just an exercise, and everyone knows it.

The actual application of Karate is about basic principles that are not literally embodied in Kata or Kumite.

Karate develops an awareness of how bodies in conflict interact (most martial arts do this--and this is an extremely important priciple). It also develops powerful strikes that are targeted. This is not as easy as punching a bag, or getting into a ring with someone for a UFC match., or banging away at a Makiwara. You may not realize it, because you don't see it in the dojo or in the "Octogon", but strikes in Karate are meant to be directed to vital points such as the eyes, the front of the throat, the solar-plexus, the groin and certain soft places on the side of a person's head. They are immobilizing, if not killing, attacks. The idea is that if you cannot avoid a fight, you will need to be prepared to kill your opponent.

Karate is the equivalent of the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force--there is no time for grappling. How well would Royce Gracie do against a Karate practicioner who intended to kill him? How long would he be able to stay in the guard position if his opponent wanted to pop out his eyeballs, crush his adam's apple, stomp his groin and generally break him in half. I suspect Royce would have a damn good chance, just because he's a clever fighter, but there is nothing inherent to BJJ that wins a fight to the death. If anything, BJJ is very good at filling gyms with paying customers due to the UFC phenomenon.

Let me get back to the point about "if there must be a fight". Karate, like genuine martial arts, is about avoiding fights. A person who trains in a dojo with people that he or she respects, in a way that makes him or her feel strong and able to quickly spot the weakenesses and sloppiness in 99.9% of would-be street fighters, and is aware of the fact that getting into a fight is *always* risking permanent injury or death, will not want to fight. He or she has nothing to prove that he or she doesn't prove to himself or herself every day in the dojo.

If someone picks a fight with me, I assume it is an unfair fight, and I try my best to walk away so that I won't wind up standing over a dead body waiting for the police to arrive. On the other hand, if someone tries to rape my sister in front of me, I will probably be standing over that dead body. And believe me, I won't be victorious because I am quicker, or because I know a certain Kata, or because I win in the UFC--I will probably win because I have a tactical awareness of hand-to-hand fighting that most people don't have. There are no guarantees. There is no superior martial art. Being dismissive and ignorant about martial arts is certainly not going to make you better prepared if the time come. Being tough, training hard, understanding the tactile/kinesthetic nature of hand to hand battle, understanding common street fighting mistakes, understanding how to be aware of your surrounding, developing muscle memory patterns, developing the ability to commit to a strong attack and get quickly into a defensive stance, understanding how to pysche someone out, but---most importantly ---knowing when to back down without losing pride---these are what makes me a better fighter than most.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Sleep Well (none / 2) (#108)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 03:11:34 PM EST

Hey man, whatever helps you sleep at night...

Practicioners of Karate rarely, if ever, get the opportunity to practice their art at full speed against an opponent that is coming at them with full speed. So how do you know it works???

You're talking about precision strikes that are completely ineffective if they miss by a half-inch. And don't forget that tyour opponent may be trying to kill you; therefore, they're in constant motion. A Grappler is going to smash into your body and grab a limb. It is going to work even if it is a little off because it is a gross motor skill. BJJ practicioners practice their techniques quite often at full speed against opponents coming at them at full speed. We know it works because we see the results in competition all over the world.

So you can go on living in your street ninja fantasy world, but don't try to sell that BS to the rest of us.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Totally incorrect. (none / 2) (#111)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 04:53:17 PM EST

First of all, I am a grappler, as I study Judo. Secondly, you don't test Karate, you test an individual's ability to fight. Karate is simply an advantage. Striking arts and grappling arts are complementary. They are two weapons with two applications. If I have the chance, I will "use Karate" to thrust kick an attacker's gut, knee, inner thigh, or sweep an ankle, and then capitalize that moment of imbalance with a punch or strike or poke to a very painful place. On the other hand, I might "use Judo" to get someone off balance, tie them into a knot and choke them out or break them.

No, I don't pretend to be certain of victory. Yes, I'm confident that I can put up a "smart" fight under all but the most unfair circumstances.

Get off the idea that martial arts have to be tested. What kind of test is UFC or Pride FC? It's hardly scientific, is it? Do you often walk into down dark alleys full of giant oafs with years of martial arts training? More likely to face an untrained opponent, and in that case, I am not being overconfident to expect to enjoy some advantage.

What will be your advantage? Your power of dismissal for things which you do not understand? I doubt that will buy you much mercy at the hands of aggressors.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

response (none / 2) (#113)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 05:48:25 PM EST

IMO, there is no better test of a martial art than its direct application.

What will be your advantage?
A .45

Your power of dismissal for things which you do not understand?
You're still bitter that your philosophy is proven wrong in the ring all over the world. Philiosophy has lost to application. Against an untrained opponent, something is better than nothing. But against a trained (and untrained for that matter) opponent, grappling is better that striking (particularly striking arts that rely heavily on impossible to really apply techniques).


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
You are trying hard not to see. (none / 2) (#116)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 06:37:12 PM EST

A pistol is hardly an advantage. Ask any FBI special agent. They'll tell you the statistics on law enforcement personnel that are killed by their own weapons. Some of them will tell you that they've learned to leave their weapons at home. Given the very real and high risk of having a firearm used against the person that weilds it, all aggression against an armed agent is treated as deadly force. Are you such a quick draw that you are certain to beat the odds? Are you prepared to kill a man that gets close enough to usurp your gun?

At least my Karate and Judo training can't be turned against me.

As for your other point on my "philosophy" being "proven wrong" in the ring all over the world. There are so many things wrong with that, I'm having trouble finding a place to start.

First, nothing "in the ring" proves the principles of Karate or Judo "wrong". The fact that Karate doesn't win matches in the hamstrung ruleset of prize fighting is hardly conclusive evidence of anything at all, let alone conclusive proof of the failure of those martial arts. People that train in exclusively in striking arts can win fights. If you had any idea how fast and powerful some Karateka are, you would have to admit this point. I have seen fighters are quick enough that they can't be touched, literally. The fact that those men do not compete in the UFC means absolutely nothing. Also, eyes, throats and the groin are focus areas for striking arts. Those areas are out of bounds in UFC. That is a large part of the reason that striking arts do not fare as well.

Second, I keep telling you that I am a grappler, too, and that grappling is complementary to striking arts. I find that joint manipulation and choking is an excellent way to dispatch a single opponent in a one on one fight (like in UFC). UFC is a "ninja fantasy", as hardly anyone will pick a fight with you when they are alone. You need to be able to dispatch more than one opponent, and for that Karate teaches you the best strategies--humility, a sense of humor, a lack of pride, a fast set of legs and strong heart and lungs.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Well it ain't easy! (none / 1) (#117)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 07:10:08 PM EST

A pistol is hardly an advantage. Ask any FBI special agent.
Why do they all carry guns...? As far as some of them leaving their weapons at home, I say thats pure BS. Maybe a few of them do...But that's because they are not properly trained and are far too unsure of themselves. They should stay home with their gun.

Given the very real and high risk of having a firearm used against the person that weilds it, all aggression against an armed agent is treated as deadly force. Are you such a quick draw that you are certain to beat the odds? Are you prepared to kill a man that gets close enough to usurp your gun?
First off, I carry my gun concealed. Secondly, if I draw it it will not be for a warning shot or to tell someone to back off; it will be to shoot as soon as it is on target. Thirdly, I'd be willing to bet that I've trained far more to retain my weapon than any aggresor I may encounter has trained to take it away from me.

At least my Karate and Judo training can't be turned against me.
It sure can. Any failed technique leaves you open to attack. Miss a comitted punch, and you might receive a committed punch. Lose a lock, and you might get a lock on you. Judo uses your opponeent's strength(and weakness) against them. Well guess what...you ARE an opponent in a fight. If you do practice Judo, then you know an attempted throw against your opponent can become a throw against you in a flash.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I still disagree (none / 2) (#119)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 07:58:48 PM EST

While they are all issued guns, they do not all carry guns. I know this as a fact. You can deride their training, if it makes you feel superior. (I'm sure your gun has the same effect on you.) I know a few special agents (understatement) and the guy who carries his gun the least is a former Army Ranger and has been in various military or law enforcement roles for his entire adult life. Do you think your training is better than Army special forces and Miami-Dade SWAT? He is acutely aware of the possibility that his decision to carry a gun could require him to exert deadly force sooner than he would prefer, simply because the risk of losing his firearm is as statistically high as it is. Other cops and agents choose to do otherwise, for their own reasons and at their own peril. You can make your own decision.

Also, Karate and Judo are all about protecting against failed attacks. That is, both systems emphasize techniques that are easily reverted to defensive positions. It would be folly to claim that a Karateka's punch is more likely to leave him exposed to counterattack than the punch of some yahoo off the street with no training.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

I tire of this "verbal Judo"! (none / 1) (#123)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 11:40:19 PM EST

Get it? Verbal...Judo...?! HA!

Does your friend in Miami Dade SWAT go without a gun to a SWAT call?
Did your Army Ranger friend ever go on a mission without a gun?


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Re SWAT and Rangers (none / 1) (#130)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 08:03:10 AM EST

Different ROE than undercover special agents.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

This message will self-destruct... (none / 1) (#136)
by Lenny on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 04:57:50 PM EST

Ohhh...undercover agents...well thats a different world all together. But here's my take on having my weapon used against me:
I will not conduct a one man raid on a warehouse full of known weapons disarmers. Other than that, I am confident in my training and smarts enough to believe that my chances of having my weapon used against me is almost immeasurable.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
OK (none / 1) (#138)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 05:50:50 PM EST

I genuinely hope you're right, or that we never have an opportunity to learn otherwise.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Fini (none / 3) (#129)
by limekiller on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 03:00:47 AM EST

Lenny, I've been reading your replies and ...sorry, man, but I've come to the conclusion that you're an idiot.

This is your formal notice that unless I slip up and forget, I'm not replying to you.  I'm telling you this as a common courtesy in case you reply and wonder why I don't bother the next time you launch into some half-assed John Wayne fantasy schpiel.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

You wound me! (none / 1) (#139)
by Lenny on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 05:54:18 PM EST

Come back! Please come back to me Jason! Oh, the humanity!!!

So, see you on /. then...?


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
I'd hate to be in the same culture with you (none / 1) (#169)
by ksandstr on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 05:33:41 PM EST

Seeing as you'll be likely to carry a concealed weapon with the potential intent to draw it in order to shoot something (that something coming down to shooting someONE, really). In my honest opinion, that's no way to behave in a civilized society. It sounds more like the kind of paleolithic era behaviour that commands that every man carry a hefty club or a couple of spears or at the very least a sling on them at all times lest a neighbour come and steal their wuh-men.

Perhaps you have learned to reject all forms, signs, rituals and pretenses that a civilized society carries on the grounds of being "american", "individualistic" and "self-sufficient"? Not that I really care, but frankly this sounds like something a back-stabber culture like that across the pond (from where I'm sitting) would cause to emerge.

--
Gegen kommunismus und bolschewismus und terrorismus, jawohl!

[ Parent ]

Stamina (none / 1) (#128)
by limekiller on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 02:58:11 AM EST

SPYvSPY writes:
"You need to be able to dispatch more than one opponent, and for that Karate teaches you the best strategies--humility, a sense of humor, a lack of pride, a fast set of legs and strong heart and lungs."

I don't know about that...!  BJJ, IMO, is waaaaaay more taxing on the lungs and heart than karate.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 1) (#131)
by SPYvSPY on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 08:04:45 AM EST

Depends on how you train. An hour in the guard position is hardly as taxing as Kumite drills.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

not exactly (none / 1) (#147)
by ProfessorBooty on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 09:24:56 AM EST

If you are a novice, it very well may be more of a work out. I used to wrestle back in school, and learned then that if you are tense and constantly fighting every single second you will tire very quickly.

Feel/watch how your more advanced partners work out (in almost any martial art), you will find that perhaps they are better conditioned, but they also know economy of motion (doing the technique, hold, defense etc, with minimal effort but with maxiumn output), and more importantly are constantly breathing.

[ Parent ]

Riiiight (none / 3) (#127)
by limekiller on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 02:54:26 AM EST

Lenny writes:
"A .45"

You sleep with a .45?  Shower with one?  Are you licensed to carry one?  Concealed?  If so, are you willing to prove that (scan your card)?

Are you allowed to take one on a plane?  I'll return to that one in a second...

How often do you practice?  Do you think it's impossible for you to be suprised before you can use your weapon?

I ask you all this because I'm .45 qualified myself.  I never obtained a carry permit but here is the actual target that I qualified on.

I've got a little story to tell you, Lenny.  It's about a guy named Danny Lewin.  In short, Danny was ex Mossad.  Israel Special Forces.  Think S.E.A.L. plus, if only because they're in combat on a regular basis.  In fact we regularly send our special ops to train with them because, much like UFC fighters, they have perspectives on combat that we only theorize about.

As part of his training he was put in the middle of the desert, 100 miles out, and his job was to get home in four days.  Keep in mind he had to carry his food and water with him.  Think about how much water you need for four days in the desert and that's part of your baggage.  He did it successfully but he wasn't too happy with it so he did it again.  Voluntarily.  Think about what kind of person does that.

Look up the history of training of Mossad agents if you'd like some eyeball popping info.

Danny was also brilliant, a teacher at MIT and a winner of about a bazillion awards in math, including best master thesis.  PhD candidate, etc, etc.  And he was a very commanding, inspiring sort of guy to be around.

I know all this because he was the head of my department, though I didn't know the Mossad aspect until after he died.  It wasn't something he ever made mention of.  Oh, right, that was my point -- that he died.

Danny was on Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC.  FBI agents believe that Danny was killed trying to stop the hijacking and, given what I knew about him before and what I know about him now, I don't have much doubt that this is precisely what he would have done if he knew one was going on.

My point?  Oh, I'm glad you asked.  As best as we can figure, a man who was a leader in the most battle-hardened special forces organization in the world was killed by a guy with a box cutter.  Granted, Danny was unarmed.  But I just find it funny that you think your .45 is the period at the end of a sentence.

And you're criticizing SPY for having holes in his theory?  I don't agree with him but at least he's rational.  You're downright delerious.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

A firearm has limits. (none / 1) (#167)
by rodgerd on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 04:18:09 PM EST

Come fly to New Zealand on holiday, for example.  You can't carry a firearm on the plane.  And you can't carry a firearm in New Zealand unless you're transporting it from place to place and have an appropriate license, a police officer authorised to carry a firearm (not all are), or in one of the branches of the milltary (and suitably authorised).

And good luck getting a pistol license.  You'll need to spend six months at an approved club and get the approval of the members before you'll get one.  As a tourist, I think that's kind of unlikely.

[ Parent ]

Everyone Wins (none / 1) (#126)
by limekiller on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 02:21:03 AM EST

SPYvSPY writes:
"Get off the idea that martial arts have to be tested. What kind of test is UFC or Pride FC?"

I should have seen that this was going to be the start of an Apple vs. PC war.  =)

Anyway...

I think that these shows have really given ALL martial arts a big wakeup call in the sense that they have poked holes in overconfidence.  

I think we can agree that there is no "best" art.  Well, people tend to get that notion stuck in their head even if they don't say it.  It's natural to think of your art as being the best (or my art being the best) because otherwise we might think ourselves sort of stupid for practicing it!

Minimum-rules martial arts fighting has forced teachers to adapt and recognize where their art falls short.  For this, I think everyone wins.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Ineffective if they miss by a half-inch eh? (none / 1) (#115)
by Edziak on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 06:18:03 PM EST

You're talking about precision strikes that are completely ineffective if they miss by a half-inch.

I had to laugh when I read that one. Ever seen a shotokan expert throw a punch? The phrase "hulk smash" comes to mind. These are the kind of punches that lift people off their feet. So assuming he misses your solar plexus or your eye socket or temple or whatever, you're still going to be hurting.

[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 1) (#118)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 07:47:04 PM EST

I see a lot of comments about how grappling arts are better because they take an "engineer's" approach to fighting. Maybe so, but people don't always recognize that Shotokan technique is equally engineered. By training in the muscle memory of adopting low, long stance, flexible ankles, a quick and level hip thrust, loose hands and arms and a final, targeted burst of strong fist and lat muscles, Shotokan students will at the very least be prepared to knock the fucking wind right out of an opponent when the opportunity presents itself. I have personally been hit in Kumite sessions (by accident) hard enough to feel that my opponent's fist went through my stomach and contacted by back bone. I can attest to you that the pain of that punch was absolutely debilitating. I literally wanted my body to split into two parts to get away from the pain emanating from the center. Likewise, I have suffered from bruises caused by clashing that required me to walk on crutches for weeks.

This stuff hurts people, even when you are trying to keep from doing so.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

I've seen some (none / 1) (#142)
by Lenny on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 02:37:30 AM EST

I've seen some awesome power demonstrated on blocks and bats and bricks. But that's after immense concentration and focus. Can that be done in a crowded bar when having an adversary intent on ripping your arms off comes at you?

I keep hearing this fantasy world where precicion guided eye pokes disable an opponent. Well in a street fight there's a lot of movement defense is an immediate issue. But if you guys think that a Karateka has not only the precision to poke out an eye and deliver said strike with sufficient force to also break bones if it misses, and still be on balance enough to be prepared for a counter if it does in fact miss...I give up...You guys have seen wayyyyy to many chop sake movies. Or you've never seen this stuff applied in real life... OR both...


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
After this post I'm done with this thread. (none / 1) (#144)
by Edziak on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 05:22:20 AM EST

Breaking is not a big part of traditional Karate, and a lot of dojos shun it entirely. Its somthing done for show that gained popularity in America. As for the concentration/focus done before the break thats done for training purposes and isn't where the power comes from. The power comes from a well trained body and proper technique. As with any martial art, that training is always there, and if practiced enough, will come out when needed.

I will agree with you that a crowded bar is an easy environment for a grapler to get in close and take someone to the ground. But going to the ground in a bar is an open invitation to get stomped by your opponent's freinds and anyone else who feels like stomping the crazy asshole who just knocked over thier beer.

I keep hearing this fantasy world where precicion guided eye pokes disable an opponent.

You're the one living in a fantasy world if you think someone jamming their thumb in your eye socket and making a scooping motion isn't going to impair your ability to fight.

But if you guys think that a Karateka has not only the precision to poke out an eye and deliver said strike with sufficient force to also break bones if it misses, and still be on balance enough to be prepared for a counter if it does in fact miss...I give up...You guys have seen wayyyyy to many chop sake movies.

That all depends on the Karateka dosn't it? But since you're so convinced that all Karateka's are such uncoordinated, weaklings, why don't you find a fourth or fifith dan black belt and attack him. Perhaps he'll teach you that punches can in fact injure you. It'll be the first thing you learn about an art of which you obviously know very little about, though you seem to think is worthless.

[ Parent ]

what people dont seem to realize (none / 1) (#146)
by ProfessorBooty on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 09:18:19 AM EST

Even if you miss a vital target, but make contact with the body its still going to hurt. You aim for the solar plexus, but instead hit the sternum, floating ribs, stomach, shoulder etc, it will hurt. It may not be as damaging, but thats why you don't train to just throw a single technique. You have to throw several (and actually don't let up at all till the guy goes down) as the first or second might be blocked or used as a fient, but the third forth etc connect.

[ Parent ]
my thoughts (none / 2) (#133)
by ProfessorBooty on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 01:47:56 PM EST

A little about my self, I wrestled back in school competativly for two years , done a little aikido, chinese martial arts, kendo, and about 10 years of isshinryu karate (a close in style, with only kicks below the waist). I'm currently looking for a non commerical judo/jj school to supplement my standup training, but there don't appear to be any within 30 minutes.

Grappling does enable both partners to go all out in a controlled environment, in relative safety. Strikers are disadvantaged, as they can't go full out in a safe manner, as they can't hit the targets they train to hit. Even boxers have the same problem, as they can't hit the kidneys, groin, back of head, neck etc, despite full force contact. Anyone who believes that they can take someone out in one punch (it is possible, but unlikely) instead of combinations, is just fooling themseleves. Un/fortuneatly, training more realistically in striking, will reduce the number of casual students, which for commerical schools is undesireable. This is certainly less of an issue for grappling. The main advantage is mobility, a striker can hit the guy and run away.

That being said, grappling isn't entirely realistic either because of safety concerns. Most "fights" don't happen on a matted surface, with no obstructions in the way. Granted grapplers will learn how to take a fall properly, and feel comfortable on the ground, but there is a difference landing on pavement/concrete (which i used to train on, I don't reccomend it) and a matted surface. Grappling practice doesn't occur with pool tables, bar stools, tables, the guy standing behind you, walls etc in the way. The other problem is that most classes I have been to were taught by instructors who didn't have much of a striking background, and didn't teach realistic punches etc. There was too much cooperation between attacker and defender, so much so, that one would be unprepaired if a real world opponent threw a haymaker, or a reverse punch. The advantage here, is that a grappler can control an opponent's body, and restrain the guy without preforming as much physical damage to their oppontent (which is great for law enforcement).

A fight between a 100% pure grappler/striker is just silly. The best approach is to find an instructor versed in both, or get solid fundamentals in one art, and then cross train in another. Challenge your instructors knowledge, and ask for explanations, of how and why you would preform a technique. Don't just accept the answer, well I was taught that way, or thats how the "master" did it.

I'm not even going to get into the real world considerations such as clothing worn, shoes, multiple opponents, improvised weapons etc. Heck, if someone pulls a knife, on me, ill just give them my money.

on a side note http://www.24fightingchickens.com is a great website for challenging "traditional" karate assumptions. It is directed towards shotokan, but is equally applicable to most martial arts.

[ Parent ]

I see your point (none / 1) (#141)
by Lenny on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 02:29:13 AM EST

about cross training...but in a way I disagree. Partly because that's what I do, and partly because I have some real reasoning behind it. 2 opponents. X studied only grappling for 5 years. Y studied both grappling and striking for 5 years. When X and Y fight, X will likely out grapple Y without much effort as he has trained grappling twice as much. I understand that Y has trained striking, but now he is not an expert striker or an expert grappler, yet a moderate version of each. X has more stamina and is more durable due to his training with opponents going full speed; therefore, he can absorb the strike or two that Y might land before tasting the curb.

That's just the scenario that I pulled out of my ass, but you get the picture.


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
More Schtuff (3.00 / 4) (#125)
by limekiller on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 02:15:33 AM EST

SPYvSPY writes:
"The idea is that if you cannot avoid a fight, you will need to be prepared to kill your opponent."

This is actually a major reason why I'm turned off by karate.  There are many shades of responses that one can offer to hostility and karate only offers a very narrow range of responses.  I'm not saying it's useless or should be discarded out-of-hand, but merely that this should be recognized as both an asset (for it's focus on such a narrow goal) and a liability (for the same reason).

"Karate is the equivalent of the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force--there is no time for grappling. How well would Royce Gracie do against a Karate practicioner who intended to kill him? How long would he be able to stay in the guard position if his opponent wanted to pop out his eyeballs, crush his adam's apple, stomp his groin and generally break him in half. I suspect Royce would have a damn good chance, just because he's a clever fighter, but there is nothing inherent to BJJ that wins a fight to the death."

The key issue in a fight between a karate practitioner and a jiu jitsu practitioner is whether or not the karate practitioner can stay upright long enough to finish off the bjj practitioner.

Me, I'm roughly the shape of a lineman.  I'm a endomorph.  Not fat, just big.  Two hundred and thirty pounds and people look at me with a cocked head and it's usually followed up by "...where??"

My goal as a bjj practitioner is to get the guy on the floor asap.  Can he hit me hard enough/often enough to finish me before I can accomplish that task?  Because if he can't, he's toast.  I can take many hits from someone unskilled and maybe 2-3 solid hits from someone who is skilled.  I might be able to take a moderate kick to the head.  A full-on roundhouse would knock my lights out.

So we're back to the original question...  But it isn't that simple.  What is the surface?  How much room is there around the combatants?  Is there any alcohol involved on either side?  Does either of the people know that the other person is skilled?

For example, if a person squared off with me and took on even a remotely obvious martial art stance, anything that looked like it had been practiced (which is easy to spot unless you get something really esoteric like aikido or capoeira, which can look quite relaxed), then I'm going to be very, very cautious and make sure that when I shoot, I get something, and I'll probably look to break something quickly.  If, however, I'm against someone who looks unskilled, I might try to go for something with less lethality to give me more options once I'm there.

My point here is that bjj has stood up quite well against karate in the ring.  I believe that this is the case for the very simple reason that standing up when one of the fighters wants to go down is not a simple thing.  Further, when standing up, both fighters have at least some amount of experience.  Fighting while on your back or on your side does not come instinctively.  It's learned quickly but if someone is a pure karate practitioner, they are 100% guaranteed done for against even a 1-year practitioner of bjj on the ground.  And I'd be willing to put a very large sum of money on that assertion.

I also disagree with the notion that there is "nothing inherent to BJJ that wins a fight to the death."  I have a better-than-passing familiarity/training in karate and I would have to say that pound-for-pound, year-for-year experience, bjj wins hands-down over karate in the 2-month to 5-year experience range.  

What I mean by this is that teaching someone to effectively palm strike, groin kick and eye gouge goes a VERY long way in self defense.  I'd say you could bust your ass for a few months and get those moves to be fairly instinctual.  So if a person came up to me and asked what would be good for a person with only 2 months to learn something, I'd say karate.

If someone said they'd have 2-5 years, I'd send them to a bjj school.  I say this because I believe that if you took any two practitioners with the same time invested in the art, all other things being equal, the bjj student would come out ahead.  Karate, like aikido, is (in my opinion) an art that is only devastating at the higher levels (say, 5th dan?).  The learning curve is high.  It's an extremely technical art.  BJJ, however, is very lose, informal and dirt easy to improvise from.

I should stop myself here and include the statement that this is merely my opinion, I could be wrong and further, this is only coming from what I've seen myself.  Hardly a test group.  So take this post with a grain of salt.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Regards,
Jason

[ Parent ]

Yes and No (none / 1) (#94)
by Lenny on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 10:39:47 AM EST

grappling arts (which are certainly an important skill for any warrior) are not suitable for fighting multiple opponents. In fact, grappling is probably only useful where you and your people outnumber him and his people.
I agree with the sentiment...but...Arts don't fight. Fighters do.
All of the MMA grapplers that I know are very tough individuals. They have a very aggressive attitude and are very well conditioned. Grapplers are, on the whole, better conditioned than strikers because they can and do practice their style at full speed against opponents that are going full speed.

To sum up my rambling: Grapling on the street would not consist of full length take downs and submissions against multiple combatants, but more like a quick arm break, and then on to the next. The grappler will likely be conditioned better than the sum of his opponents...unless he is set upon by an entire gang of boxers or something like that. But that's hollywood...


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
[ Parent ]
Self defence (none / 2) (#93)
by pmgolz on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 09:39:06 AM EST

Well MMA is hardly a useful form of self-defence. Don't know about you but I've never been attacked by a trained wrestler on the streets whereas I have been attacked with a mixture of weapons and multiple aggressors. My martial art teaches me to deal with such things. It's not a matter of "this martial art is best" but that each is adapted to a particular purpose. The reason the Gracie bros. are so succesful in UFC is because the rules are supremely well designed for their art (memory tells me it was them that invented UFC(?)).

Whenever I hear "No rules fighting" it makes me laugh. Where are the weapons, where are the fifteen guys pounding you into the floor, where is the broken glass?
------
Enthios

Meh (2.85 / 7) (#102)
by jmzero on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 12:14:14 PM EST

Most fighting in the world takes place with guns and bombs.  Second to that is fighting with no weapons and "morally restrained" participants - the kind you'll see in bars, schools, behind restaurants, and in living rooms (often, domestic violence).  Way down the list in terms of "total occurences" is the wacky kind of fighting you talk about.  

If someone wants to kill you with a weapon, there's a good chance there's not going to be much opportunity for fighting.  If you're predicting that situation for yourself, I suppose you could learn a specialized art like Krav Maga to disarm them - but it's hard to call what results a fight.  

Of the very few situations when this kind of thing comes up - often there still shouldn't be a "fight".  If someone wants to mug you while brandishing a knife then you have to be really dumb or desperate to not "win the fight" by handing him your wallet.  Similarly, if more than one person attacks you, you have to be really dumb to not run away.

People have brought up weapons and multiple attackers as hypotheticals in this article a lot of times.  Where do you guys live?  

On the other hand, there's a few posts in this thread describing how someone has been able to use grappling techniques to subdue a troublemaker in a variety of realistic situations.  I've used them myself to help get a guy calmed down who was starting to get violent with a girl on the street.  

But this isn't real fighting I suppose - real fighting is when three guys attack with morning stars and machetes, willing to gouge your eyes out and bite your nuts.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Been in a bar (none / 1) (#158)
by pmgolz on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 09:15:47 AM EST

When I say weapons I mean, weapons that come to hand. If you're telling me that people don't get "bottled" (hit with a beer bottle) in your neighbourhood or "glassed" (slashed with a broken bottle) then well done you. However some of us do.

If you're going to be pedantic then I suggest you aim for accuracy: please quote your source on "Most fighting in the world takes place with guns and bombs". I don't see how you can make that comment unless you define what constitutes a fight and what does not. Also, I dunno how "morally" restrained any fight I've been in or seen has been, especially domestic violence.

As for the inherent stupidity of not running away when more than one person attacks you... yes if I have a choice then I run even if one person attacks me. I was recently defending a girl from her violent and drunk boyfriend when four of his mates showed up. Running away ain't an option when you're surrounded.

My point was that it's much more useful to learn to defend yourself against realistic street attackers than people skilled in Kung Fu or the like who rarely start fights. My second point was to claim that MMA is "no rules" is inherently wrong as you are fighting in a highly controlled environment, one rarely encountered in the real world.
------
Enthios
[ Parent ]

Different world, apparently. (none / 1) (#161)
by jmzero on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 10:59:29 AM EST

I was recently defending a girl from her violent and drunk boyfriend when four of his mates showed up.

Were they swinging chains?  That would have been cool.  Seriously though, where does this happen?  I just don't understand how this situation arises.  How does the story end?

in your neighbourhood or "glassed" (slashed with a broken bottle) then well done you.

It might happen - I've never seen it.  In any case, I'm sure it happens a lot less than "a couple drunk guys exchange a couple punches and then roll around a bit".  Most of the fights I've seen are guys fighting over some stupid insult or being kicked out of a place.  They want to show their friends they're tough by punching someone.  They don't want to show their friends they're some freak by lunging at a stranger with a broken bottle.  Maybe you just live in a much more dangerous place than I do...

Also, I dunno how "morally" restrained any fight I've been in or seen has been, especially domestic violence.

Domestic violence is usually "extra" restrained.  That's how it can go on for years.  The attacker quite often tries to not leave black eyes and such.  If some lady shows up at the emergency room with her eyes gouged out - somebody starts asking questions.  Lots of the fights I've seen were in public.  A crowd will allow a fight to continue as long as both guys are punching/rolling around - but likely wouldn't let two guys beat one down.  The fight actually ends up pretty controlled.  Was your high school different?

My point was that it's much more useful to learn to defend yourself against realistic street attackers than people skilled in Kung Fu or the like who rarely start fights. My second point was to claim that MMA is "no rules" is inherently wrong as you are fighting in a highly controlled environment, one rarely encountered in the real world.

I agree with these points to an extent.  MMA is not "no rules", and I would never claim it was.  There's so many ways of fighting MMA that you can't refer to it as "one thing" in terms of its usefulness in self-defense.  BJJ is very useful, but depends on circumstances.  On the other hand "sprawl-punch-punch" is a bread and butter MMA technique - and is probably one of the most important things to learn for a real fight.  

Adapted somewhat (as Bas Rutten has done), MMA style fighting makes for very reasonable self defense - and doesn't rely on having unskilled opponents.

Perhaps where you live is just different.  If I regularly saw bottle fights and multiple-attacker fights, I would probably just stay home on Friday nights.  As it stands, I haven't fought anyone since high school (never even come close) - and those high school ones were some pretty tame fights (pushing and rolling mostly) by your standards.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

The lovely town of ... (none / 2) (#163)
by pmgolz on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:43:45 AM EST

..Edinburgh. I live in Edinburgh, Scotland (which is part of the UK for the geographically challenged). It's a fantastic city and pretty safe on the whole but go out drinking on a Friday or Saturday night even in the "right" part of town and you will see a fight. I have, unfortunately, been involved in several but usually helping out some unfortunate laddie or lassie.

The story I mentioned above is not very exciting. Yes some had bottles but the first guy who attacked me just punched me. I suspect that these were guys who liked a fight coz they certainly knew what they were doing. While their attention was diverted on me the girl ran off. I just avoided their attacks for a couple of minutes and then left myself. Bumped into a couple of coppers not 50m from where I was.

I've been teaching self-defence for some time now and get all the horror stories. My students have been attacked with knives, pipes, bottles and multiple aggressors. I agree that fighting on the ground is a useful skill and I agree with the BJJ poster who says it's very useful. I don't happen to think it requires the amount of effort put in by these people but they are certainly good at what they do.

Domestic violence is usually "extra" restrained.

Yes, but not on any moral basis. BTW the last fight my wife got involved with was two lads lamping another while he was on the ground. There were roughly 20 people watching as it was next to the taxi rank. No-one, except me and my wife did anything.

Maybe violence is more part of the culture in the UK? I'm sure that the stuff I see isn't unusual for any city in the UK. Talk to any A&E (ER) doctor. Helps that the pubs are open till 4am though...
------
Enthios
[ Parent ]

Gracies (none / 3) (#110)
by Prowler on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 03:37:46 PM EST

One small correction. The Gracies were succesful in the UFC. These days, it's not enough to be skilled in one aspect of fighting. MMA has come far from the "golden" era of the Gracies where BJJ was practically the end-all, be-all of the sport. These days, fighters need to be well-rounded to be successful in the sport. That means being skilled in stand-up as well as ground fighting.

[ Parent ]
Me too! (1.22 / 9) (#96)
by Casioitan on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 10:53:43 AM EST

I am also a ninja, like, apparently, 90% of the posters in this thread. I have studied every martial art, evar!!! Who would have thunk it!!?? To find so many like-minded ninjas on a techno-geek forum such at this??!! And here, all this long, lonesome time, I thought *I* was the ONLY techno-geek ninja in the world who has studied every martial art, evaR!!!! We should unite and take over the world, since, I'm sure, we have all been in SpecOPs, also.

OMG too funny (none / 0) (#173)
by kavch on Thu Feb 19, 2004 at 11:36:13 PM EST

and true, too.

[ Parent ]
Grappling versus striking (3.00 / 4) (#103)
by abracadada on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 02:03:45 PM EST

Background: I studied Jujitsu (spellings vary) for a few years in middle school and another few years in college.  I'm currently studying Pentjak Silat, and have been doing so for a couple of years.

Grappling is often effective against striking due to perception problems.  If someone runs up and grabs you, your instinct is to grab them.  If they're a Brazilian Jujitsu player and you're more of a striker, you lose.  If, on the other hand, you've trained in short-range striking attacks and have the presence of mind and training to "stick to your plan", they will be very surprised, as that doesn't happen often.  Note that I'm not implying that I could do this; compared to my instructors, I'm definitely still a beginner.

A few posters brought up points about weapons, and that's very important.  I heard a story about a black belt (aquaintance of the instructor) who got into a ground fight in a southeast Asian country and was killed because the other guy had a knife.  A lot of styles don't take this into account.  A fight (and you) can be done in a few seconds if someone hits your neck, armpit, inside of the thigh, etc. with a bladed weapon.  In Silat, the theory is that there is no difference between unarmed and armed training.  You assume your attacker will be better armed (assume multiple blades), bigger, stronger, and possibly better trained.  Few people pick a fight they believe they cannot win.

On the subject of padding, my Jujitsu teacher pointed out that head injuries in boxing matches have greatly increased due to gloves, because they allow you to hit the other person in the face without fear of breaking your hand.  Many untrained people don't realize it, but you will generally break your hand if you hit a face with a closed fist.  Prior to boxing gloves, most hits were body shots; you can take a lot more of those, and they don't impair your thinking nearly as much.  Of course, palm/elbow/knee strikes to the head still work, and some arts (such as karate) condition their fists by breaking boards.  I prefer to continue playing the piano, so I would hit with something else (preferably a chair).

The gloves do make grappling a pain, but some arts also train you to manipulate your opponent with shins, forearms, etc.  Silat is a very close fighting art, as the founder had one arm and a club foot.  He would move close and use his body to overcome the opponent, so there's a huge internal component and a big emphasis on entering.

I believe, as many martial artists do, that the best way to win a fight is to not get into one in the first place.  But of course, sometimes conflict cannot be avoided, and I also think it's more fun than sports or straightforward exercise.
WMBC online freeform/independent radio.

Silat Knife Training (none / 1) (#154)
by Bios_Hakr on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 01:55:13 PM EST

I have heard that Silat teaches a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) when it comes to armed fighting.  The basic premise, as I understand it, is that 2 fighters with blades will cut each other pretty bad regardless of training levels of those fighters.  Since you WILL be cut no matter what you do, just try to kill the other guy ASAP while reducing the damage you will take.

Basicly, I have been told that Silat fighters focus very little on defense in armed combat.  This makes them some of the most dangerous fighters in the world.  Fighting one in armed combat will result in both parties receiving critical injuries.


[ Parent ]

In a knife fight, the winner (none / 2) (#155)
by wumpus on Wed Feb 04, 2004 at 06:44:03 PM EST

is the one taken away in an ambulance.

This is not specific to Silat, which for all I know uses something like samurai ai-uchi techniques (fatal for both sides).

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Not quite. (none / 1) (#165)
by abracadada on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 12:50:17 PM EST

In my training, we aim for a 3-1 exchange rate.  If you manage a glancing blow to my face, but I break one of your ribs, dislocate your knee, and knock you to the ground via a head shot, that sounds fair.

Realistically speaking, if your opponent has a knife, you will almost certainly be cut a little.  The idea is to not get cut fatally.  Also, your tendency when you see a knife is for your brain to say "KNIFE!  EEEK!"  The right thing to do is stick to your training, because (in our style) the same moves work for armed and unarmed combat.

Our focus on defense is merely different.  We train to respond to a fist which has already hit the head and is displacing us, or a blade which has already made contact and is starting to enter us.  If you can defend against that, seeing it coming will be easy.  Of course, you don't learn this overnight, and we also train in enough external stuff that I (hopefully) wouldn't die if I were attacked today.

Our leg angles, steps, body positioning, etc. are actually coordinated to cover vital targets.  We're not about our own destruction, but the art is very much one of "move in and smash, NOW."  This does end up being very effective.

As you might expect, a lot of the art evolved to deal with the way things are in Indonesia.  We use close body movements because there's not a lot of room to move in a jungle.  There are no high kicks because you'd slip.  And the culture is very much a bladed one, so weapons are an integral part of the art.

Here's a good article on Silat:

http://www.geocities.com/vandeelen/Pukulan/terlinden.htm

(I know, GeoCities, but it's from a real magazine).

The link is from pentjaksilatusa.com, our parent organization.  Our school is traditionalfightingarts.org.
WMBC online freeform/independent radio.
[ Parent ]

A few words... (3.00 / 11) (#105)
by Blueberry Muffin Assassin on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 02:28:33 PM EST

Ok, time to de-lurk.

By way of introduction, Let me preface this comment with a little history.
I'm 34 years old, and the martial arts have been a part of my life since I was twelve. I've tried my hand at a wide variety of different martial arts, including Judo, Aikido, Karate (some Kyokushin, a little Shotokan), and in the midst of all that, some twelve years worth of ninjutsu. Recently I've grown to enjoy western boxing and muay thai, both styles which are frequently considered at odds with the more "traditional" martial arts.

The past four years however, have been mainly devoted to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. What some people insist on calling "Gracie Jiu-jitsu".

I'm telling you all this partly to convey that I have a certain degree of experience, but mostly for the following reason.

Having a rational discussion about the martial arts with most men (particularly
young men) is not particularly easy. By nature, the male of the species is prone to testosterone-induced exaggeration and aggressive behaviour. This results in
the eternal continuation of the "my dad can beat up your dad" debate, transforming into "my martial art can beat up your martial art".

So I'm posting here in defense of MMA in general and the grappling arts in particular,
from the perspective of someone who can claim a fair number of them as "my martial art".

There are a few myths and misconceptions here (big surprise) that really should be corrected though.

1) UFC and other MMA events bill themselves as "no-rules" contests.
This is untrue. None of the organisations claim this anymore. In the early days of MMA, when they were all keen to grab as much attention as they could, and they hadn't yet figured out that being viewed as "no rules" bloodfests would block their path to the mainstream, they referred to themselves as "No Holds Barred" fighting or "No Rules" or things like that. They wised up though.
What is true, however, is that this style of competition is as close as you'll get to a real fight without actually being in one. Yes, certain things are disallowed (biting,
eye-gouging, etc) which make a lot of ignorant windbags claim that that invalidates them completely, but take it as you will.

In fact, this is one reason why anyone who has actually tried this stuff very quickly becomes disenchanted with the traditional action/reaction choreographed stuff that is taught in most dojos. It's a rude awakening, let me tell you, to realise that the vast majority of techniques you've been drilling for years are exceedingly unlikely to be valid in any real fight, or at worst, completely useless.

2) The Gloves/No Gloves debate
I was stunned by the idiocy of one comment in particular, along the lines of "take the
gloves off and the grappling would disappear". Holy smoke... one of the main reason gloves are worn is not to protect the other guy, but your OWN HANDS!

In the early days when they actually allowed them to fight bare-handed, there were a vast number of broken hands, dislocated fingers, and other hand injuries.

Oh, and please, spare me the whole "trained practitioner" of death-blows, dim-mak, death-touch, paralysis-inducing nerve pinches, and all that other nonsense. Please. I've seen it, done it, bought it, sold it, and in the final analysis, if you're relying on that stuff, I have two words for you: good luck.

3) The many and varied misconceptions about grappling in general
This is quite the can of worms. Let me start by saying that in all my years, nothing, and I mean NOTHING has ever given me such a degree of confidence in my ability to defend myself as Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The problem is that it's very difficult for someone who hasn't tried grappling to understand one salient fact:

A person who has no experience fighting on the ground (particularly on their back) is as helpless as a baby against an experienced grappler. Royce Gracie proved this time and again in the early UFC's. I've personally experienced it (to my great amazement, believe me). I've gone up against guys who are MUCH heavier than myself, we're talking a 50 pound mismatch, and I was truly stunned at how helpless they are on the ground. And these are not average Joe's. I sparred with a guy who was a former national champion (or some similar title) in Tae-Kwon Do. Once he was on the ground, it was child's play.

And the fact of the matter is that in *most* real fights, what inevitably happens is that the fighters will end up on the ground, either because they collide, slip, lose their balance, grab each other or whatever. It's inevitable. Real fights are not like the nonsense that Hollywood shows you. There is an oft-repeated "statistic" that I hear about over 90% of all fights ending on the ground. I hesitate to present it as fact, since I doubt anyone has genuinely looked into it. But it makes sense to me that the vast majority would end up that way. It's just common sense.

Now, most people are simply not accustomed to being in that position. Their muscles aren't familiar with that range of movement, their bodies simply haven't experienced it. The guy I mentioned above, came to one of our jiu-jitsu classes, and within a half hour, he was outside puking his guts out (Although frankly, I think he was a little over eager to prove himself, because of his title and all that).

One thing that is true, however, is that grappling is not well suited to fighting multiple opponents. The reasons for that should be obvious even to the untrained.

However, that's not to say that it's completely useless. Ninjutsu is a martial art that is greatly preoccupied with fighting multiple opponents, and there are a number of techniques that involve grappling. The key is to quickly disable or dispatch the person you're grappling with (again, once it's stated, it becomes obvious, right?). So picture a grapppler who has an opponent in a classic arm bar. It doesn't take long to snap the arm at the elbow, roll away and move on to the next opponent. Of course, if he's already standing over you, you're screwed. :)
It all depends. The point is that while grappling is not ideal for this case, it's certainly far from useless.

4) UFC (or other MMA events) are bloody/barbaric/human cockfighting, etc
Yes, they can get bloody. No doubt. And yes, there are fighters that are assholes. But
just watch one bout where the fighters will hug each other afterwards or shake hands or otherwise genuinely show each other respect and that should dispel any of these silly
ideas.

Most of my friends would, without hesitation, refer to me as a pacifist. Yet for the past 22 years, I've studied the *martial* arts. Why? Because it is an undeniable axiom of human nature that force will be employed by the strong to co-erce or control the weak. And frankly, in that contest, I would rather be among the strong. It's really that simple.

So if we put aside our posturing and realise that force and violence are inevitable in
our society, it's only logical to want to better employ, understand, or control those elements. Certainly, I don't think we should glorify them, which some might (justifiably) argue that these events will do.

Oh, and the day that the MMA events start to emulate the nonsenical, farcical garbage that "professional" wrestling is, is the day I stop taking part in or watching any of this. Unfortunately, with the mainstream audience willing to take as much bullshit as the entertainment industry shovels down their throats, that seems likely to happen.

Ok, there's lots more to say, and I haven't addressed some of the fallacies here, but I have to go now. :)

Damn skippy. (none / 2) (#122)
by grendelkhan on Mon Feb 02, 2004 at 10:31:48 PM EST

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

pacifist... (none / 0) (#172)
by ldillon on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:41:16 PM EST

Cursory knowledge of martial arts inclines a man to violence,

Depth in martial arts inclients a man to peace.

[ Parent ]

The most unrealistic part of UFC et al... (none / 2) (#134)
by Merc on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 02:43:40 PM EST

That it's one on one. I've seen plenty of fights over the years, but I have yet to see one where two people fight uninterrupted. Generally others either join in, or pull the people apart. To me, this is the biggest knock against the realism of full contact mixed martial arts events (FCMMAE?).

Even wrestling, with its comic performances, and over-the-top moves, gets this aspect of the script right. Someone from the fringes joins in at the worst possible moment and completely changes the flow of the fight. Having a rule against others joining in is just as artificial as a rule forbidding kicking in Boxing.

Don't get me wrong. I love watching FCMMAE. I've done a handful of different martial arts, and each time I see their weaknesses. Karate overemphasizes power over agility. Judo and TKD are more sports than martial arts these days, and are geared towards scoring points, rather than effective self-defence. FCMMAEs showcase the techniques that are truly effective -- in one-on-one uninterrupted combat. It's amazing how well grappling works, but it's also great to see that grappling-only styles are very vulnerable to nimble fighters who strike quickly, say Muay Thai.

This is why I'd like to see a FCMMAE featuring many-on-many combat. This sounds like it might be chaotic. The potential for injury sounds higher, if only because the martial artists would have to keep track of more than just their current opponent. On the other hand, it's also more like the situation you'd probably see on the street. Since that's really what these events pretend to showcase, wouldn't that be interesting?



Mixed Martial Arts | 173 comments (162 topical, 11 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!