Gumbi

Thats your opinion, not a fact. I could argue the same about striking. The earlier generation of Gracies were pitiful at striking (Royce, Rickson, Royler,) with only Renzo's being adequate, yet they mopped up their competition. Even in modern mma, many wrestlers are so good at takedowns that they get away with having poor standup skills. As far as Japanese Ju Jitsu, I think its all called the same ( I could be mistaken), it just depends on the speciality of the instructor. Techniques are classified accordingly (koppojutsu= bone breaking or something of that nature). Natrually, some instructors are better strikers, leading their style to look more karate ish, some better throwers, resembling Judo, and even others prefer ground work, resembling BJJ.

As sevenstar said, I really question the viciousness of these wrestlers if they're getting defeated by one hit. The simple fact is when a wrestler shoots in on you, his base is low enough that its very difficult to strike a knock out blow (i.e. hit the chin) with anything except a knee. Not to mention the fact that even if you hit him with a punch, thats not going to kill the momentum hes built up. Cro Cop cant do it- I seriously doubt you could You can always strike or try to strike from the bottom, and even assuming that you can punch MUCH harder than an average guy from his back, it still wont change the fact that you wont be punching with anywhere near the power or momentum of the person on top of you. Strikes from underneath in the guard usually work well for deterrants and setups as opposed to being an offensive weapon by themselves (unless they're kicking) Please dont start with the "too deadly for the ring" argument. Ive trained in Kung Fu myself, and switched to BJJ for a very logical reason. MMA tournaments (there were MANY MANY others besides UFC- UFC just happened to be the most popular in the US) had little to no rules when they were first initiated. This means that all death touches, pressure points, and otherwise deadly moves were allowed. The only exceptions were eye gouging and biting for obvious reasons, but even these rules were sometimes ignored. If Kung Fu (or any style/ fighter) is unable to win when abiding by only two rules then I think that shows a rather limited and close minded approach to combat. These restrictions hindered grapplers as well, since one can easily eye gouge and bite from a position such as the mounted one instead of waiting for an armbar or your opponent to turn and give his back. You realize that what you just explained is a grappling situation correct? Hapkido's joint locks ARE grappling. And what makes me think that being good at grappling helps against Hapkido joint locks? 1: 2 of my old friends are well educated in Hapkido, one a black belt in it- he knew even less than I did when I sparred him with 1 week of BJJ under my belt, and it showed. Im not trying to trash anyone who does Hapkido, Im merely pointing out that its grappling techniques are clearly not as advanced as other grappling arts (much the same as you would say that wrestling doesnt have as good a strikes as karate does) 2: Joint locks are grappling techniques, no matter how you slice it. The fact that submission fighters are constantly practicing these techniques in every way shape and form means that you're not going catch them by surprise should you attempt them. So what level of expertise does you friend have in grappling? How will I grapple when he starts to go for a reflexive joint lock? I dont have to go far- we ALREADY ARE. Wristlocks are allowed in BJJ tournaments too you know. You're also dismissing the idea of pain tolerance as well, not to mention the different reactions you'll get from people. Some people have very flexible wrists and ankles, so joint locks to these areas can prove much more difficult than on the average person. Small joint manipulation isnt a great thing to rely on for a fight when adrenaline is surging through someones system- there are many grappling tournaments in which people are caught in wristlocks and ankle locks, yet they let the limb break and keep fighting. If that party is there to hurt you, then you're being jumped- its no longer a one on one fight, and striking has proved no more effective at fighting multiple opponents than grappling has. You were talking about "winning" a fight- determining the victor of it by whoever got the most punches in, or whoever appeared to be dominant. Thats fighting for your ego. If fights were determined like that, half the submission fighters in MMA technically "lost" most of the fights they won by submission. Yeah, I've seen articles too- a recent one where a Kung Fu stylist defeated 6 people who attempted to mug him. Upon further insight though, there were no witnesses, and the ENTIRE article was based on his story alone- because it appeared in the papers, people just assumed it was true, or that it actually happened that way. Thats all you EVER hear is stories of how to fight off multiple attackers-the evidence is severely lacking and no one is ever willing to put their ideas to the test when challenged. And we're back to the whole "UFC fighters cant fight" argument. There NEVER was ANY restrictions as to the styles fighters could use in mixed martial arts tournaments (not just UFC). Muay Thai is much more ring proven than Wing Chun, or any other Kung Fu for that matter, and thats due directly to their training methods. I can instantly find numerous recorded accounts attesting to the effectiveness of Muay Thai- can you do the same? Chess isnt exactly a contact sport you know? As far as commenting on your age, that wasnt an insult, I was simply stating the obvious. You're simply too young to have the experience that many other people have. I seriously did think that Kung Fu was amazing when I was 16 too, but its amazing how much your opinion changes after a little more experience. I wouldnt say Im ruling Aikido out, but I am saying that it will NEVER compare to Judo or Jiu Jitsu (which would be its closest relatives). Im not basing my statement solely on his opinion either, but also by my experiences. Beyond that, the opinion of a guy who's father was an instructor, whos been training in it for almost 30 years, and who is a 5th degree black belt in it, goes a long way- who to better know the shortcomings of it that someone who's studied it inside out and crosstrained in other styles?

Wheres that clip of Benneteau vs the Wing Chun guy I didnt get that memo..... Since when is WC THE master of close in fighting? Wing Chun relies on trapping range, which is supposed to be just outside the clinch, but closer than a jab. A grappler will be much more experienced at clinch fighting than a striker, simply because he trains it MORE often. Much the same that a striker has better striking than a grappler..... (get the idea?). Nothing is better at grappling than grappling itself, and if I were to think of a striking art thats incredibly effective from the clinch, Muay Thai has had much more success than Wing Chun, and yes they can be taken down as well. Once again- off balanced= greatly decreased striking efficientcy. Thats a bold statement to make. Did you happen to see UFC 2 when Royce had his first fight against the karate fighter? He tried elbowing as well, but lacked even enough power to deter Royce the slightest bit from trying to assert control- he barely paid any attention to the elbows until he got him down and cross side. A centerline punch that crushes someones sternum would be excellent, but you're missing MANY details. Punches dont always hit where you want them to- opponents arent always squared up like you want them to be. If you could do such a thing, you'd have to hit someone DEAD ON in order to do it, which is rather difficult to do in reality. Once again, by NOT respecting the clinch, you'd become victim to it and easily taken down. Against an experienced grappler? I dont think hapkido would do much in the grappling phase. I trained with a hapkido black belt when I had a few weeks of BJJ and he was just as lost in the clinch as anyone else not trained in grappling. I can appreciate the fact that you express your opinion while not outright saying "grappling sucks!" or anything of that nature, so I wont flame you for this statement. You're 16, I was too, and I once thought that as well. Aikido is actually taught at my gym, and its highest ranking instructor is a 5th degree BB whos been doing it since he was a little kid (hes in his early 30s now). Words straight from his mouth "i really wish Aikido was more practical and effective, because I really enjoy doing it." To his credit, him and his two other instructors are also black belts in Judo and purple belts in BJJ and are quite good at both. Aikido, however, simply isnt as effective as Judo, which is a popular grappling art. I work at a bar and have had many fights end up on the ground outside of the bar. 100% of all injuries ranging from mild to severe have been caused by the other person/people in the fight and NOT the environment. Your range of vision in no way changes should you be on the ground. I can see just as much when Im mounted on you than if Im standing up squaring off with you. You may actually be even more aware of your surroundings when grappling. For instance, a common position in BJJ is knee in the belly, which is exactly that and a good pinning position from on top of someone. From this position, Im free to look around at the surrounding area for any threats (your friends) and can pop back up to my feet if neccessary. What makes this better is that when i have you pinned like this, I no longer have to worry about you attacking me, as opposed to on our feet where I cant take my eyes off you for more than a second, or else I'll be caught off guard. In the event a fight gets broken up, the 3rd party jumping in to break it up is your "self defense" because you're no longer in danger of being hurt Everyone wants to do this- EVERYONE So what if your opponent is bigger, stronger, and faster than you? He'll hit harder, quicker, and have the cardio to do it longer than you. You cant expect everything to go according to plan in a fight. I think it was Mike Tyson who said "everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth" Was does it mean to win or lose? The idea of training for a fight to me means that someone is attacking me attempting to kill me. You seem to be thinking more about your ego. Besides, just because you're a grappler doesnt mean you cant punch. Nothing is going to do more damage than taking someone to the ground who doesnt know how to fight from there, and then unloading strikes on him. Sounds great in theory, the idea of hitting and running, but harder in practice. When fighting multiple opponents, thats not a fight- thats called getting jumped. They come in high and low and from all directions. If people are unable to avoid going to the ground when fighting one opponent, what are the odds of doing the same when fighting two? The idea of stick and move is not unique to fighting multiple opponents- that was the idea when fighting grapplers as well in MMA competitions. Your best bet is to run, and should a grappler get taken to the ground, hes got the tools to get back to his feet and keep running (or fighting). Can you say the same about a striker?

This is going to take a long time...... First off, when you're in a clinch, its rather difficult to strike, hence the reason why boxers often do it when caught with a strong punch. Second, the three defenses to being taken down are your hands, followed by your elbows, followed by your hips. If you continue to punch and attack while in a clinch (without asserting control obviously, such as a thai clinch would) you'd be giving a grappler EXACTLY what he wants, which is control of your hips. Once close enough to get a grip, the entire fight is one of balance- you CAN NOT strike effectively if your feet are not rooted. Since a grappler will be putting you off balance, strikes will be much less effective than you would like them to be (certainly not effective enough to knock them out). Elbows, knees, and headbutts are great tools in the clinch, but one requires experience in the clinch in order to utilize them, much the same that someone needs experience grappling before they wrestle for the state championships. Once again, if you attempt to attack while off balance, you'll be helping your grappling opponent by taking yourself down. As far as wrestlers only working one limb, well that depends on the style of the wrestler, but I'll tell you that if a good wrestler gets ahold of something as small as your ankle, you're not getting it back unless you're proficient in grappling. Thats just pure ignorance- the ground prevents any type of effective chambering for punches when you're on your back. Anytime you want to trade punches with anyone when you're on your back, 10 out of 10 people will have no problem with it. Its much harder than that to knock someone out. Fighting goes well beyond one hit one kill. Dont forget, your opponent has an agenda too, even if its as simple as just throwing wildly at you.

yea, in a bjj tournament. but if you train in bjj and you know how to get to a mount, its pretty easy to know how to punch a guy from there. so by training in grappling, you know how to get to a good ground position to strike. I was being incredibly sarcastic towards the common conception of BJJ fighters.

I absolutely agree. Endurance is VERY important in a fight between two people somewhat close in skill. To do virtually any technique requires a decent amount of strength, but its done so in a way that it isolates certain muscle groups on your opponent so that you're stronger. Just because something is called "technique" doesnt mean it doesnt require power. Some of the biggest upsets in MMA history lend itself to a fighter who had great endurance. And by serious grappling styles I think hes implying styles that have some sort of competitive randori involved (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Submission Wrestling, Sambo)

I would love to destroy his argument, but I have no interest in going to that forum =) Everyone of his assumptions and explanations is critically flawed.

Thats what I meant to imply in my post- I never said MMA was style vs style anymore, but I wouldnt go as far to say that alot of fighters combine "dozens" of arts. LOL, I never said Tank was a great fighter, to the contrary hes about as tough and straight out street fighter you're going to fight. How many guys do you know that are benching 600 lbs? Also, pit fighting is NOT a style, much the same that San Shou, or MMA isnt a style. I agree that Tank is a joke, but I'd like to you how you "easily" handle him. Whats your name on those cards? By showing us you are actually a fighter, you'll help your credibility along immesely There are many fighters in the UFC who were "street fighters" prior to fighting in the UFC. Regardless of whether or not their bloodthirsty, it doesnt change the fact they're winning the fights. Suddenly being a loudmouth or acting like a tough guy actually makes you tough? That means jack- the best fighter in the world is also one of the humblest guys in the world (and I'll LAUGH HYSTERICALLY if you tell me that you've got a NHB fighter who would destroy Fedor). And if Tito is such a pussycat, why dont you step up there and fight him? I agree, the fewer rules, the more realistic, but I'd like to know what venues and what fighters you're talking about. I thought the arguement here was streetfighters vs mixed martial artists. There are plenty of no rules tournaments still being run in Brazil, but many of these fighters just arent good enough to hack it in the higher shows. And your statement that fewer fights go to the ground in no rules is way off- you do realize that just about ALL the rules in modern day MMA favor the striker over the grappler? As we take those away, the grappler begins to regain the natrual edge he had in a fight. I disagree- NSAC had to come along and institute a bunch of rules because UFC (which was then no rules fighting) was starting to become more and more popular. For fear that they would lose the boxing audience, they instituted so many * rules. Thats COMPLETELY different- boxing is a sport, not a fight. All of the banned holds and strikes in UFC were at one point, legal and can quite frankly be done by anyone (headbutts, elbows from the back to the spine, etc). Biting and eye gouging were the only rules constantly in effect, yet there were tournaments where these were ignored by the fighters. In fact, by instituting these rules, I believe they're encouraging fighters to become more complete. With the lack of all the rules in the UFC, we'd probably still see straight BJJ guys in the ring, since all they have to do is take the fight to the ground once. With so many rules going against them now, they are forced to learn other aspects of the game (such as striking) then otherwise. A fight is a fight, and Im failing to see how miraculously, the world turns upside down when rules (which were ALREADY at one point fought without) are taken away. Sure, the fight will be different, as more things can happen, but I think you're expecting way too much. I work as a bouncer at a rather popular bar, and i've been involved in more than my fair share of fights. Against untrained people, its is incredibly easy to the point of being a joke. And I've had people attempt to bite or eye gouge me to no avail This is why I question your self proclaimed expertise- it sounds to me that you're simply anti-grappling. I myself was, since I was more of a striker when UFC's occured, but using the same examples you're using, I was not able to convince myself that grappling wasnt as real as it seemed to be. As far as the rules are concerned, practically ALL of the rules in modern day MMA FAVOR STRIKERS- NOT GRAPPLERS. The simple fact that the US has a grossly ignorant fan following means they dont care about the ground game. Go to any UFC and they'll boo once the fight goes to the ground- bored fans means less fans, and the UFC is just as interested in making more money than making a fair fight. Many rules changes were made so that strikers would have a better chance. Of course they did, but you're failing to realize a few things. First off, this is not a Gracie Jiu Jitsu vs the world argument, but rather MMA vs the untrained. Secondly, granted the Gracies used the UFC to promote themselves, but for christs sake, how do you explain the undeniable success of BJJ and grapplers in general in all venues of mixed martial art and no holds barred fighting? Im not trying to say that you're indestructable having learned it, but rather just giving a rebuttle to your argument by showing that it has been proven very effective by multiple people in numerous events. Once again.... First off, the Gracies are not the only NHB fighters in the world. I dont even consider them the top fighters in any weight class. It is obviously less violent than it used to be, but one can hardly attribute the rules as a reason- for example The first UFC's (along with other MMA events) were practically no rules fighting (as explained before). The reason why it was so brtual is because so many fighters were inadequately trained to deal with the circumstances that occured. With great mismatches in weight and skill, you're bound to see such beatdowns and brutal fights. In todays MMA, people have learned from the mistakes made by those in the past, and know what to train in and what to expect in a fight. With the addition of weight classes and fighters who are closer in skill level, its very unlikely to see the same level of brutality. Also, fights are stopped when someone is an established winner (i.e. the ref stops the fight when someone gets knocked down and is dazed enough that hes deemed to be unable to defend himself, for example). If the ref didnt intervene at that point, you'd see someones head get pounded through the mat and crushed, or someone choked to death, but that doesnt change which fighter wins the fight. As far as the UFC becoming a reality show, I'd say its far from it. Beyond that, there are many more MMA tournaments than UFC.

I thought it was quite clear that BJJ'ers are NOT allowed to strike when in a fight? It would also be difficult since all we're allowed to do is pull guard and stall for 30 minutes on end.

trained in what have been determined to be the most effective styles- a mixed martial artist sounds a hell of a lot better than a single style practitioner Once again, MORE misconceptions. Watch the first UFC's along with any other early MMA event- I've yet to see a street fight that was more brutal than seeing someones skull crushed from repeated elbows from a mounted position, or seen someone lose their teeth from a punt to the jaw. The brutality of a fight is generally contributed to the mismatch of skill and weight between opponents, and UFC is no different. The reason why UFC matches are what they are is because BOTH FIGHTERS ARE WELL TRAINED. There is no easy way to defeat a trained fighter- the chances of him getting ko'ed are slim- he trains in it every day, same with getting submitted- he trains in submissions every day. I'll once again use Tank since hes a perfect example of a street fighter vs a UFC fighter- he goes out there and EXPLODES. I think we're in agreement that he holds nothing back. In doing so, ALL of his recent fights against modern day mixed martial artists have been massive defeats. As far as the rules being forgiven, its all about stopping the fight when a clear cut winner is established. Should it be a street fight with no ref intervention, that particular fighter could keep going, and even kill his opponent if he wanted. Also bear in mind that UFC fights would be just as brutal and you claim them not to be, had there not been a referee to intervene when someone gets knocked out or submitted. In a real fight, it would be not be stopped, but we already know who would've won I just did- and I used Tank as my example. I'll go even further and offer Gannon vs Kimbo. The very fact that you're so easily negating the incredible skills of modern day fighters is what makes YOU ignorant. And another question- why does EVERYONE insist that should a cage fighter get into a street fight, hes going to fight ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE UFC!? After he knocks you down, do you think Tim Sylvia is going to refrain from stomping your skull into the pavement because its "against the rules?" Do you think that Frank Mir wont claw your eyes to lift your jaw so he can slip in a RNC? Maybe Tito wont throw elbows because you can lead with the point of the elbow...... Hey, no argument there. But you said all else being equal, which would mean skill as well. That means that the no rules fighter would indeed have had training in mixed martial arts, no? Otherwise all else wouldnt be equal. That right there would prove my argument

Bear in mind that the first UFC's allowed practically everything that could be thought of, minus biting and eye gouging. This does NOT mean that biting and eye gouging didnt occur, however. If it were done, fighters were merely fined and at no point was the fight interrupted. Most of the rules instituted in modern day MMA arent incredibly extreme either, for example: headbutts- headbutts are pretty blunt, but do a great job of opening up cuts, which is why they're not allowed anymore (due to too many cut stoppages, which themselves I think are a bad hangover from boxing- MMA should NOT be stopped due to cuts) elbows- this actually is much more of a grapplers weapon than a strikers weapon. They'd be especially usefull when on an opponents back as an alternate to a RNC or use as a setup. As it is right now, modern day MMA makes it very difficult to ground and pound someone when you have their back, but with the use of elbows, you'd see a much different result. Eye gouging and biting are also incredibly overestimated. They are best used in a grappling situation where one has control over his opponent (far too easy to move when not in a grappling situation). In such a scenario, biting and eye gouging rely on superior technical position in terms of their effectiveness. An eye gouge/bite from the mount will be far more effective than one from the guard, or one from underneath the mount. Biting and eye gouging have their place in a fight, but are too often overestimated in value. Well, some may argue that TMA's are effective, however, modern day mixed martial arts have proven which arts are THE MOST EFFECTIVE. Sure, someone can make a TMA work for them, but is that the art or the practicioner who's winning the fight? Mixed martial art events in NO WAY favored any particular martial art. There was no conspiracy to degrade TMA's in any way. In fact, they were as unbiased as could possibly be. The reason why styles such as BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, and Muay Thai are so good is due to their constant success by numerous different practioners. If one person wins with a style, one could argue that such a person is just an incredible athlete. The track record of these particular arts begs the differ, in that NUMEROUS people have tried and used these styles effectively in the ring and have been successful. Beyond that, if other styles such as karate or kung fu were incredibly effective, dont you think that fighters would train in them? There are no individual stylists in MMA- everyone crosstrains with what works effectively for them. Such styles may have merit and can be effective, but results show that these are THE MOST effective.

At first i thought you were just trolling, now I realize you're actually being serious Child's Play? By all means, go to a local MMA gym, or even BJJ studio and tell them they dont know the dangers of t3h d34dly str33t! Cocaine addicts and drunks- last I checked, their elbow escapes, sprawls, and armbars arent particularly tight. Drunks are incredibly easy to deal with, for the simple fact that they're disoriented. Lets examine a little more in depth what you're thinking: 1:Fights arent lasting 10 minutes- well, the majority of street fights you're witnessing dont have trained fighters involved. In the event that a trained fighter gets into a street fight, its often not very long indeed. Tank is a classic example of a street fighter, yet he gets submitted by Frank Mir in 46 seconds (without so much as hitting Mir once). He was also beat to hell by Cabbage as well, and lasted a few seconds against Kimo. This is as tough a street fighter as you're going to see- his daily routine consisted of getting into fights at the bar. Someone else had mentioned that bouncers claim that fights only last a few seconds- that strictly due to a 3rd party intervention in which case it d matters less what you are or are not trained in. We're talking about a fight for you life per say, where there IS no intervention from another person. To rely soley on other people to break up the fight all the time and to think they will do so is a dangerous assumption. 2: Cocaine addicts and drunks Drunks I find are actually easier to deal with than sober people, however they share a common trait with druggies- increased pain tolerance. Fights that end in MMA are not due to pain, but to biology. Granted, I have a fellow bouncer who had to fight someone on PCP- he broke his arm and the guy didnt miss a beat, however, when choked, the results were the same. It doesnt matter how tough you are or how many drugs you take- a choke is a choke, and it will ALWAYS have the same effect, much like getting shot in the heart. 3: multiple attackers First off, multiple attackers isnt a fight- its called getting jumped, and it always favors those with more numbers. I have yet to see an effective system for dealing with multiple attackers, but if a guy has his friends, dont you have yours? The same goes for armed attackers- yet to see an effective system for that. So Im failing to see how MMA does anything but good for you, what do you see?

In the fight between Olympians, TKD'ers would clearly defeat both wrestlers and Judokas alike- who can "tackle" them?

Well, to offer another perspective on that particular thought.... If you can elaborate a bit more, it would help- this is what Im assuming you mean: Pushing your forearm against your opponents throat as a means of choking them or holding them. If that is what you mean, then I do not feel this is a particularly good technique. A simple shove of your elbow could allow your opponent to put you in an arm triangle choke, a single leg attempt, or even going for your back as is basically taught in BJJ. That choke attempt is actually very commonly used by people (while fighting on the ground) who are limited in their knowledge of submission. I will agree though that against an untrained person, that may work, but I'd thought I'd point out the shortcomings I saw, since no one else did.

Are you suggesting that you can defeat cage fighters in a street fight? Everything goes in such a situation, granted, but remember that your opponents are able to do the same exact thing that you can. Therefore, it comes back to who has more training and experience.

Who told you the top UFC fighters stand up? Ricco Rodriguez is a Machado BJJ black belt Frank Mir is a BJJ brown belt Matt Hughes trains with the Militech Camp and is a G&P wrestler BJ Penn is a BJJ black belt Tito Ortiz and Randy Couture are both G&P wrestlers Its up to the fighter whether he prefers to stand and strike or take the fight to the ground, but in either case, its best to be well versed in grappling.

Thats the only one I know of- whats the other one you're talking about? Its similar to a grip up used in wrestling, since I dont believe you're allowed to interlock your fingers in competition.

Thats about the only world it exists in. Think about it for a minute- to claim to know the "death touch" is great for marketing in its simplicity- why? Well because you never have to prove that it works! Whenever anyone asks you, the simple response it "No no no, I cant- its too deadly"

As far as I know, theres only 1- just the most basic one you see being used when someone's back is taken in MMA Cant remember every little detail, but I usually use a no thumbs palm grip-fingers arent interlocking (I dont know how else to explain it) For taking the back? Yeah, I guess armdrag is one of my better moves for getting there. Most moves getting to someones back involve some variation of an arm drag, so I guess its all about whichever you're proficient at and which one you prefer Taken his wallet when he was unconcious

Simple three man scenario, 2 large guys (one average size) trying to start trouble who, we decide, need to leave. About 3 of us I believe grip them up (a regular body lock does well for the moment with the guy I have) but there isnt a great struggle at first. Once in the elevator, the roided up guy I have a hold of starts flipping out claiming his sister was in the elevator, and he didnt want her to get hurt. As I try to talk him down, he goes into a roid rage and decides hes going to crush everyone in the elevator. When he puts his hands on my chest, a simple arm drag gets me to his back where I apply a RNC and try to talk him down again- when he doesnt listen, I choke him unconcious. His friend obviously didnt appreciate that, so he decides to take a swing at me. A bodylock does fine for him, and I walk him out the door (once we get to the main floor) and his other friend is carried out. No ones hurt and the guys are out of the bar, where they can act as tough as they want. Its all a matter of what you train in and how often you do it. I most likely train more grappling/submission than an average guy, so finding ways to choke people out and point joint locks on them isnt difficult. On the other hand, I havent knocked someone out with a punch, but for an experienced striker, this is obviously another day at work.

Both Thats very possible- there are numerous things that can happen, but I've yet to have one of those happen to me (and I've dealt with a few "biters" here and there) Very well could be- whenever I've had people "help" me take guys out, they usually get in the way. As far as knocking him out- by this point its very plausible, since the guy is trying to bite people. A pet peeve of mine is when someone tries to sound like they're a pro, and then asks * questions like "which is t3h b3st throw for OMG t3h Str33t?" Fights dont always turn out the way you expect them to, but I've managed to throw a choke on EVERYONE I've ever had to escort out of the bar and/or fight. Besides, this wasnt a 1 on 1 fight (im sure he wasnt worried about getting beat up) and the question was which was what other efficient means he could end it with. You have NO idea the experience I have training or the experience I have fighting, so think twice before you decide to criticize someone.

Str33t Guy: "Gumbi’s choke idea sounds like a good idea, but sometimes in the chaos of a fight good ideas can’t be made to work." Its a technique that can be used in just about any given situation. I've yet to encounter someone untrained that I couldnt choke from just about every position (most people dont even know how to defend their necks, or that they should do it) Master Jules: "We were a little leary about applying a choke hold to the guy, for the simple reason that he was trying to bite anyone that came near his head.....I dont know how you feel about it, but I dont want to get bitten....its not the pain that would concern me, but the risk of some serious type of bacterial infection....the mouth is a lot dirtier than most people realize." Agreed- getting bitten is obviously no fun at all, but theres no way someone can bite you when being choked- if they can, then you're not choking them as it would be far too loose.

I disagree - joint locks are a learned skill, much like anything else. I could say that hitting a 75mph fastball is extremely difficult to do- whereas an actual baseball player would find it rather easy to do. I would even go as far to say that applying them when in a grappling situation is very easy, because its a natrual instinct for someone to grab your head which, in inferior positions, is giving a clear opening for some type of joint lock. If you're talking about joint locks on the feet, well, I wouldnt say you have to stun them at all (I've yet to throw a single punch at my bar) but I would agree that applying submission holds on the feet is much more difficult than on the ground (since you can effectively use your weight to pin them and isolate the given limb). Pain compliance is fine when using small joint manipulation, and when your opponent isnt fueled by adrenaline. Fact is, even when someone is drunk, when applying a joint lock to a large joint (such as elbow, shoulder, or knee) thats a serious injury that goes beyond adrenaline. Even should your opponent continue to fight, hes at such a disadvantage now (since joint locks break the very structure your body relies on to move) that he will be considerably less dangerous than he was prior. I have had buddies who have been involved with guys on PCP- they just dont care what breaks on them, but chokes will work just as well, regardless of how high they are. Im curious- why wouldnt you have just applied a choke and then put handcuffs on him? I dont know the extent to which the guy was fighting back at you, but I know I'd be looking at a lawsuit if I did that to a guy in my bar.

The familiarity I have with wrestling is primarily with its takedowns. That said, BJJ has excellent escapes, but I would also expect wrestling to have excellent escapes too (the only thing I worry about is that an "escape" in wrestling might mean giving your back to your opponent).

I think Im a closet Ninja myself I would imagine hes keeping the kicks basic because the few that are usually basic and commonly taught (roundhouse and push/front kick) are the best kicks in the arsenal. Besides, just because you do jump kicks, it doesnt make you a traitor to kenpo, and it doesnt mean you're a TKD fighter- theres other things in karate besides kicks.