Gumbi

Joint locks are done to break the joint, not cause pain (although pain is natrually accompanied by the lock). Something along the lines of a muscle crusher, such as a bicep slicer or calf crusher is intended to cause pain. Submissions are also not done slowly by any means. When someone gets a hold of whichever limb, they crank the hell out of it. I cant imagine a single armbar attempt that was done slowly, but bear in mind the guy who's getting his arm hyperextended is going to be fighting with everything hes got to avoid that from happening. Submission holds are done quickly with virtual disregard for opponents in competition- its on him, not you, to tap out if he doesnt want to get injured. A good video for you to see would be Frank Mir's highlight video. You can download it at https://www.subfighter.com Mir has been quoted as saying "I dont care if you tap, I dont train to make people tap- tapping doesnt mean anything to me. I train to actually break your limb, to choke you out. I realize that the guys Im fighting could care less about tapping. If you tap before that, kudo's to you, I dont have to break it, and you dont have to go to the hospital."

Lots of people need to learn how to quickly injure someone, its not unique to certain countries. Heres the whole idea behind the techniques you see in BJJ and submission wrestling- when created, there was no UFC or any other sporting competition initially, and things such as armlocks and choke hold were used just as often as gouging the eyes or whatever else. The only thing that seperates gouging the eyes and applying armlocks and chokes is that I can actually train trying to break someones arm against someone who's fighting me full resistence. It sounds as if you're trying to suggest that theres some secretive way to apply a pressure point or death touch on someone, or that theres an "easy" way out of training. There are attacks and there are defenses, whoever performs his given technique better at the given time is the one who wins that part of the fight. Im absolutely sure you're allowed to do it in the UFC, and in fact its actually happened. Just recently there was an incident with Frank Mir and Tim Sylvia where Mir applied an armlock on Sylvia and broke his arm in two. It had also happened with Yoshida vs Don Frye. Broken bones as a result of submission attempts are not uncommon, and they're certainly not accidental. The whole idea of putting someone in an armlock is to break their arm. Thats were the whole idea of tapping out comes from- your arm is about to break, or your about to lose conciousness and pass out. Tapping out is a quick way to give up the fight and acknowledge that the other person has won. Its basically saying "You've got the hold, I cant escape, you've won the fight, you dont need to break my arm or choke me unconcious."

I should have been a little more clear on what it was I meant- All too often, when people argue that MMA rules favor grapplers, elbows to the spine are often cited as one of the rules that would have a devestating effect on strikers abilities in the ring. More specifically, the idea that elbows stop takedown attempts.

Assuming your hand placement is correct, check to make sure that your "top" hand (the one grabbing your opponents foot) is far enough down by his toes. Many people make the mistake of holding too far away from the toes and towards the ankle, which makes it much more difficult to apply the lock effectively. When I apply this hold, I like to have the knuckle of my index finger right on the knuckle of my opponents little toe. This should give you enough leverage to get the submission to work.

Heel to the kidneys is something thats much more of a long term strategy on fighters than short term. In other words, most of the damage done to the kidneys is irrelevant during the fight. Having very little impact on the fight at the particular moment, the hazards of striking the kidney outweigh its practical use in MMA competition. As far as headbutts are concerned, they do an excellent job of opening up cuts on opponents. Excessive cuts lead to many cut stoppages, which leads to premature endings for fights.

Elbows are of course a strikers weapon, and yes they're actually legal in the UFC. There have been some real nice ko's by elbow on the feet. But we're talking about specific kinds of elbows here. Are elbows a devesating weapon in a strikers arsenal? Absolutely. Do elbows play a crucial role in stopping takedown attempts? No. The elbows we are speaking of are in reference to the current ruleset in UFC competition which states that fighters cannot throw elbows leading with the point of the elbow. This means that throwing an elbow down by your hips, say at the spine of your competitor, is illegal. Other types of elbows are still allowed, such as on the feet grabbing behind your opponents head and smashing his face with your other elbow, as well as on the ground throwing elbows from within the guard (Tito Ortiz utilizes this often).

Gary, I've asked others on this board, and now I'll ask you: Please do not give advice or misinformation on something you obviously know nothing about. UFC rules were instilled by the Nevada State Athletic Commision, which is basically all boxing for those of you who were unaware. As it stands, Mixed martial arts events heavily favor the striker. Once you start taking the rules away, the grapplers would start to gain much more of an advantage. Elbow strikes are much more a grapplers weapon, NOT a strikers weapon. Fights would be much more brutal if a grappler could land elbows once he takes his opponent down, or better yet, when his opponent turns to his stomach from a mounted position to avoid strikes, elbows to the spine will be even more effective. What you and many other "anti UFC" people need to realize is that elbows to the spine and the back of the head DO NOT STOP takedowns. The most effective defense to takedowns is a sprawl, like it or not. You want proof? Watch Pride 2 where Mark Kerr (would class freestyle wrestler) fights Branco Cikitic. Branco used to beat ALL the fighters who are now the top of the food chain in current K-1 kickboxing, (Mirko Cro Cop to name one of them). Basically this guy was one of the top strikers in the world, and he attempted EXACTLY what you're thinking. Kerr would shoot in and grab his legs, and Branco would grab the ropes with one hand and throw elbows with his other. The effectiveness of these elbows? Practically nothing at all. Grabbing the ropes was illegal, so the first time the refs stopped and seperated the fighters to warn Branco, but he did the same exact thing when Kerr shot in again. Kerr got furious, picked him up and slammed him to the ground and started stomping the hell out of him while it took 3 refs to pry him off. If the best striker in the world cant make it work, think about that for a moment. Besides elbows, headbutts are now also illegal, which is a nice way to bloody up someones face- once again a grapplers weapons. Gloves allow strikers to punch as hard as they want without fear of breaking their hands, a common occurence in early days of MMA, and also takes away the sensitivity of grapplers hands when fighting. Rounds and time limits allow strikers to start from the standing position much more often- A luxury that would not exist if you had no time limits or rounds. Stalling on the ground leads to referee stoppage, so a fighter doesnt need to escape the ground phase of fighting in order to get back to his feet- he merely needs to hold on until the bored crowed starts to boo, and the ref restarts them on their feet. Knees to the head were a very effective means to end a fight from the north south position (Dan Severn and Mark Coleman have used this often). MASIsshinryu, you stated that: " I know of a couple of people who have broken attempts on the street to choke them by shifting position and "taking a bite out of crime." It is impossible to bite someone or be bitten when a choke hold is applied. You are also overestimating the importance of biting and eye gouging in a fight.

the early UFC's showcased many style vs style matches, so it was common to see pure strikers and pure grapplers. Now, you say that all the strikers you see seem to have experience in MMA or Jiu Jitsu- well MMA is mixed martial arts, whichs means that includes striking as well. The same goes for the grapplers as well though, even if you get a pure grappler who's going to make the transition to MMA (i.e. Rulon Gardner, Hidehiko Yoshida) they often immediately start learning how to strike. Its far too difficult in MMA to attempt to go in closeminded and be trained in only one style (which is not the same as being skilled in only one style). If you're a pure grappler with pitiful striking, than chances are whoever you fight will have no respect for your strikes and can dedicate his defense to purely a grappling defense by sprawling and breaking clinches.

Not in hour days , while OLD traditional martial artists had the chance to test their powers in a real situation , NEW traditional martial artists probably won't , the forms and stances where daily preparation for real situations , and i think they worked Today's martial artists have chances to test their powers in real situations, more so than the older ones did. Perhaps the forms and stances may have worked, but certainly not as much as today's training and preperation does.

Did you see how quickly he got the underhooks, crossed his knee, and passed Florians guard? Thats not something thats easy to do. You dont have to like Diego, but the bottom line is the guy has skills, good ones too, on the ground. The other guy you're speaking of that he fought was Josh Koscheck, who's an ex NCAA Division I wrestler. Bear in mind that during the airing of this show, Sanchez and Koscheck were training partners for a long time (about a month) and then they fought. Like Florian said, its like giving your opponent your playbook, and then fighting him. His guard work against Koscheck I felt was good, minus a few misses. Then again, Diego himself was a top notch wrestler before starting submission wrestling, so Im willing to bet that he makes his best work from the top position passing the guard as opposed to being on his back utilizing the guard.

"he hasn't proved any worth on the ground." Perhaps, but you've only seen him in action in two fights.

Hold on right there. What some people need to understand is that even at the black belt level, there can be matches where one guy overwhelms the other. It happens quite frequently in top notch tournaments such as the Mundials or the Pan Ams. Realize that Diego is a top notch submission wrestler, and has an impressive resume of wins over quality opponents (Pablo Povovich to name one). The fight unfolded the way it did not because Florian isnt a skilled submission fighter, but because Sanchez was simply a much better skilled submission fighter. Many people feel that if someone's listed as BJJ blackbelt, then they're obviously going to dominate the ground work when the fight goes to the ground, but if both fighters are excellent BJJ fighters, then one of them has to get beat doesnt he?

UFC is the best thing you're going to see in reference to real combat. As cross said, its not the ONLY way to go, but you'll never go wrong should you decide to go this way. The UFC/MMA favors no particular individual style, and the mindset is not "all fights go to the ground" with a bunch of wrestlers pounding it out on the mat. The mindset is about cross training and being well versed in all areas of combat- free range striking, clinch work, and ground grappling. Which range you prefer to fight in is completely on you. As far as to why those 4 arts were listed on the first post, its due to the way those styles train that led them to being so successful. Everyone one mentioned has hard to full contact sparring, which is absolute neccessity when attempting to learn how to fight effectively. The earlier MMA competitions had virtually no rules. Tell them to fight in Mecca in Brazil, which still carries old MMA rules (no biting, no eye gouging). Biting and eye gouging are way overestimated in fights, as they have been used before in MMA competitions. Its also the most ridiculous argument I've heard. I train BJJ- in training BJJ there are no strikes while grappling, but does that mean Im not going to punch someone in the face when I mount them on the ground? Theres no groundwork in kickboxing, but that doesnt stop Wanderlie Silva from curb stomping his opponents in a ring. Both fighters have to abide by the rules, and the "no rules" argument is used way too often by people who are afraid to get into the ring and test their skills, or have seen others in their style fail and want to convince themselves what they're doing is still correct, and lie to convince themselves. Incorrect. You had said yourself that you're not very familiar with UFC, so I'll ask in a nice way that you dont give misinformation on something you'r'e not familiar with (im not here giving boxing tips, you know?) You can seriously maim or even kill someone with all techniques seen in UFC. Elbows to the face on a mounted opponent can crush his skull, not to mention stomping a downed opponent, or choking him for longer periods of time (after he passes out/ taps out). There are also no rules stating that you cant kick to the kneecaps, the simple truth is that its much harder to break someone's leg than you would believe. Theres no easy way to do it other than training, and there are no death touches that will help you defeat your opponent. Beyond the argument about styles being "too deadly for the ring" you also have to take into account this- almost every martial art has the same basic versions of kicks and punches (jabs, crosses, front kicks, side kicks, and roundhouse kicks). The fact is that even styles which teach deadly techniques also teach these and therefore would not be a stranger to MMA competition. Think about it for a minute- if I train in a martial art that teaches deadly techniques, and I take away something simple like biting or eye gouging and all of a sudden my style isnt working- doesnt that show a very narrow, limited view of combat? I mean seriously, it appears as if you're only two choices are not fighting period, or absolute destruction of your opponent. Sure you can. Most of the submission joint locks seen in MMA are used to break limbs at the joints (knees, shoulders, elbows, ankles). Grab it and twist away. Its also virtually impossible to prevent a striker from breaking bones when he punches/kicks someone. When someone is caught in a submission attempt (i.e. an armbar) they've got two choices- tap or dont. If they refuse to tap, the limb gets broken and severely hyperextended. If they do tap, they forfeit and the lock is released, sparring the joint from being broken (if you tapped quickly enough). Some people choose not to tap out still, and get their limbs badly broken or are choked into unconciousness.

Ken Shamrock fights much more of a Pancrase/ Catch Wrestling type of game than Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Catch was all about submissions from virtually everywhere and making your opponent submit quickly. As a result, footlocks are rather popular, since a foot is almost always there to grab and twist. BJJ is a little more methodical and was thought out more in terms of a real fight. For example, positional dominance is heavily emphasized in BJJ (not to say that it isnt in catch). It is because of this that footlocks are not as popular in BJJ, because you never really have to attain a dominant position when attempting one. You'll often hear "position before submission" in that the better position you're in, the better chance you stand of submitting your opponent. So, from this comparison right here, you're more likely to see Ken Shamrock attempt a lower body submission (footlock, kneelock, etc) and more likely to see a Gracie attempt an upper body submission (armbar, choke). Heavy emphasis on guard work in BJJ also separates the two styles somewhat. About 90% of the time in a BJJ match is spent fighting to pass the guard or fighting from the guard. Theres nothing new in terms of techniques in BJJ, but because the Gracies were on a smaller stature, they had to really develop their guard games. This meant they had a much better understanding of it than others who were good wrestlers or simply strong fighters and used to being on top. As a result, they most likely were able to teach guard work with a better perspective. Consider an analogy- you can learn takedowns off of an Olmpic Judoka or a World Champ Jiu Jitsu fighter. They both know the same throws, but the Judoka would know SO many little details and could convey the technique much better than the Jiu Jitsu guy. Because of Pancrase rules, punching with a closed fist to the face was illegal on the ground, so footlocks were much more popular. It takes both hands to footlock someone, and its much less appealing to attempt a footlock when your opponent can crack your skull with a closed fist as opposed to smacking you with his palm. In a nutshell, I would say Shamrocks style has better takedowns and is better at lower body submissions. BJJ/GJJ will often have better positioning, better guardwork, and better upper body submissions.

I think the reason you dont see black belts handed out to undeserving people as much in BJJ is because its much easier to discredit people due to the way sparring is done. Everyone trains, its inevitable in BJJ, so it would be almost impossible to promote someone to black belt if they only had the skills of say, a blue or purple. He would easily be discovered when he would train with his students among others. Theres also alot of ego in BJJ and competition between schools, which is why instructors often hold students back at belt "X" well after hes already proven his dominance in that division. No one wants to be known to produce bad fighters, because that will affect his business. Take a striking art for instance, I think it would be a lot more difficult to root someone out. Its easy to say "Im too old to spar" or "I might hurt you" because sparring in striking is often going to take a heavier toll on the body than sparring in grappling. As far as how long it takes, theres a purple belt at my school who's been training for 10 years and just recently recieved that rank. He only trains in the summer time and usually only twice a week because he lives so far away. He said he started when one of the current instructors (who's now a black belt) was a blue belt.

To be quite honost, that depends on the practitioner and the instructor. Many instructors (especially in Brazil) are sport oriented and often promote based on tournament experience. This would natrually reflect your level of skill. If you can fight and defeat your peers in your division, you're obviously on another level than them and primed for promotion. There are other instances however. Not all people do BJJ for competitive purposes and as such instructors often promote them when they see fit (i.e. have shown the level of skill to be the next level). There are also those who do not have a good mindset for competing (its one of the most stressfull things) and as a result dont do well in tournaments, but show their level of skill in the gym. I do believe one thing is certain- by competing you'll most likely progress through the ranks quicker than not.

You cant train BJJ and NOT be a humble guy- its inevitable that you're going to be getting your * kicked for a long time before you can start kicking *. As far as the title master is concerned, dogs have masters, people have instructors. Whats wrong with me checking my ego at the door for 2 hours and calling someone by a special title? Well, whats wrong with them checking their ego and saying "just call me Jimbo" I think the problem with calling people master and such is that it really seperates the student and the teacher. Boxers dont call their coaches by special titles, and neither do wrestlers- we KNOW the talent these teachers possess and respect it because we're there working hard day in and day out and listening to everything they have to say. I honostly think the people who insist that they be called master, sensei, you name it have an inferiority complex or are otherwise not very sure of themselves. I've heard of schools where black belts had to be addressed as Mr or sir, only to have 10 of them be under the age of 18.

Good point- whats wrong with shaking a guys hand when you see him? I think the fact that you dont have to bow or call your instructor by a title other than his first name is what gives many BJJ guys even more respect. The guy who's instructing isnt superhuman, and he doesnt put himself on higher level than you by requiring you to call him sensei or master or some other title. Not everyone is there with a warrior mentality either, and we're not little kids. Some guys simply want a good workout, a good hobby, and god forbid they have some fun and joke around in the class- I dont get those extreme formalities.

Have you considered an MRI? Most knee injuries dont have fractures involved, since the ligaments aer usually more likely to rupture before the bones break. The knee is the largest and most complex joint in the body, and its held together by 4 key ligaments. Any damage to these ligaments wont show up on an X-ray and an MRI would be needed to assess the injury.

I believe the quality of standup instruction you're going to get depends on the instructor from that school- I've seen many people who own karate/ TKD schools cross train in Krav for a few months and suddenly they're an instructor in it. That being said, you'll get good standup instruction if the instructor himself has had good experience and good exposure. Its almost like asking about whether or not BJJ has good footlocks- if you train under Lloyd Irvin, you'll learn some good ones. If you train under Royce Gracie, most likely you wont be as adept at them. If you've already got BJJ, I'd compliment it with some Muay Thai.

Of course- even knowing just a little bit can give you such an edge up on someone if the fight goes to the ground. Fighting on the ground isnt a natrual thing, and most people dont know what to do or how to get to advantageous positions let alone know what they are. Simply having a general sense of direction can help you alot.

You'll get shot if you're seen doing anything other than a straight footlock at my school (training with the gi of course). No gi, you're pretty much allowed to do the kneebars, figure four footlock and straight footlock, but no heel hooks at all. As far as tournaments go, I have seen some that are allowing straight kneebars as well for white belt divisions and up (along with straight footlocks). These are usually NAGA events, although Grapplers Quest may have also just begun to allow them as well. I usually go by CBJJ rules, which means straight footlocks only up until brown belt level. I saw someone in the purple belt division of last years Pan Ams kneebar someone after fighting for about 3 minutes to get out of a triangle- his team and friends were jumping up and down for a great victory, but the look on the other guys face (and the refs) was priceless. "Hey, nice kneebar....... You're disqualified."

Well, if you want to be anal about what we call things, hes better off with submission wrestling- not BJJ (sub wrestling = no gi, BJJ = gi). In Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, you're only allowed to do a straight footlock until brown belt level. Just about any school that offers sub wrestling or BJJ will often offer the other.

I train in Philadelphia, but I'll see if I can dig up any places in the Washington Area. You're right in that if it lasts long, its rarely ends well for anyone, but as I said, its the skill level of the fighters that lends the fight to lasting that long Even boxers, who have the best punching skills, sometimes go 12-15 rounds and still never knock anyone out. Their opponents are often too skilled and too well trained to simply be overrun like a typical street thug.

Because that takes numerous years of training to learn let alone master Can you name the UFC? The only Judoka Royce fought in UFC was Remco Pardoel, and he ended the match quickly and decisively with a rear collar choke. I think you've got your fighters mixed up, because you're most likely talking about Oleg Taktarov who was a Sambo Champion. As far as matches lasting a long time, first off, what if the cops dont show up, or what if your friends arent there? If either of the two happens, great, it didnt matter if you knew how to defend yourself or not. If neither of the two happens, you better know how to fight. The reason matches also last that long is because you have two tremendously skilled atheletes in the ring who have been doing nothing but training numerous hours a day for at least 2 months in nothing but fighting- fights that are ended quickly often have a great gap in skill level between the two combatants. Look at someone like Fedor Emilianenko- easily the toughest guy in the world right now who just might kill a normal human being in a fight outside the ring, and some of his fights will still go the distance.