Gumbi

"How come EVERY time you talk about boxing, some white guy gotta bring up Rocky Marciano?" For anyone thats seen Coming to America.... I dont know who Tae Zee Park is, but the George Dillman I know is full of * and then some more. Please tell me you dont train under him-the only thing worse is his "Death Touch" student/fraud Tom Cameron

Does it really seem logical to you? Seriously now, what is "Muay Thai" range? What is "Karate" range? How do they differ from "Wing Chun" range? To be quite blunt, there is just striking range- trying to classify ranges too closely (such as kicking range, punching range, and trapping range) just doesnt work in reality. The only thing I ever really liked about Wing Chun was the emphasis on controlling the centerline, simply because thats emphasized so much when practicing takedowns in grappling arts.

Well, I wouldnt say "unstoppable" but yes they can be quite effective. I think they're taking up judo simply because it works well from a clinch, and fights in modern day MMA are starting to be won and lost more and more often from the clinch, so having a few judo throws in your repetoire would certainly help, however I see more people electing to use Greco for MMA since its not practiced at all with the gi. Beyond that, the best Judo you're going to see is usually Japan, whereas you can find MANY quality wrestlers in the states. Well, that has alot to do too with fighters trying to press the ground fight too much and shooting in from too far away. Shots that are set up witha good jab/cross followed by an immediate level change for a shot are VERY effective (just like Nogueira vs Kharitonov). I think seoi nage is a throw more suited for shorter people (or people shorter than their opponents). The throw goes in the crook of your arm, between your bicep and forearm, so I can only think of a complete beginner missing this throw and getting choked (or they're fighing someone who's just so much more technically advanced then they are and if they didnt catch that, would have eventually just caught something else somewhere down the line)

Well, you're right about whomever is skilled in their art, but for arguments sake lets assume that both our fighters have been training for roughly the same period of time. Its MUCH easier for someone to force a grappling game than it is for someone to force a striking game. Its not as easy to knock someone out as we'd all like to think. Think of a boxing match for example- how many times to the fighters clinch? What would happen if a referee werent there to break you up? Beyond that, Im sure theres been times where you've been sparring at your school, and you and your friend found yourselves a little too close to each other (for example, chest to chest where TKD tournaments see alot of push off jump kicks or crescent kicks). Well, thats right about the distance a wrestler is pretty strong. I only say this because repeated fights have shown this same repeated pattern. I agree, but you dont have to be a grappler to try to take someone to the ground, just as you dont have to be a boxer to throw a punch, karate fighter to throw a kick. Common things that happen in real fights are haymakers, headlocks, and tackles. If you tag someone up, chances are he's going to try to grab you and clinch so as not to get hit anymore (much like a boxing match when a strong punch is scored). Now, sometimes people can just break away and continue fighting on the feet, but why would he do this if you're kicking his *? Hes probably thinking along the lines of "that son of a ......." and is going to try to tear your head from your shoulders, which will likely end up on the groudn. Also, tackling someone to the ground and beating the hell out of them is a popular tactic since the general public sees a man on his back as helpless. You're talking about fights that have been interrupted- I've gotten into similar arguments with people who thought that fights last 5 seconds. its kinda funny, you just reminded me of that scene in "Dazed and Confused" "Hey man, all fights only last a few seconds, so I hit him with a few good shots, it gets broken up and he has to live with that * forever" In such a situation where a fight is broken up, learning a style of self defense isnt all that neccessary, because its broken up by a third party. But what happens when NO ONE intervenes? I have numerous DVD's of streetfights (as well as plenty downloaded from online) and practically ALL (I remember being all, but dont want to say 100%) of these fights GO TO THE GROUND, and THAT is what is meant by a street altercation. It comes down to the individual fighter when fighters cross train, as in today's MMA tournaments. While there is no guarentee that a fighter of a specific style will ALWAYS win a fight over another, there are odds that determine a specific styles effectiveness. Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu, and other martial arts have BAD track records in MMA competition, whereas Wrestling, Judo, and BJJ have good ones. While this doesnt mean you cant be a competent fighter with one of these arts, you have to admit that the overwhelming success of these specific styles speak for themselves

Well, I guess I'll throw my two cents in here: First off, Tommaker is absolutely correct- wrestlers are quite possibly THE most conditioned athletes you're going to meet (and its all fast twitch muscle fibers too). Anyways, as many others have said, if you dont wish to be taken to the ground, then you have to learn how its done- only then will you know effective defenses. However, WAY too many people dont quite understand how difficult it still is to keep someone from taking you down, EVEN if you're knowledgable. Once you're in the clinch, it becomes a grappling fight, and striking goes out the window here (knees and elbows can be used, but they're effective ONLY when control of the clinch is made). Remember that wrestlers are training ALL the time in taking OTHER wrestlers down who have MUCH better defense than YOU (and they dont want to be taken down either). What Im trying to get at here is dont just train a sprawl for 2 weeks and think you know it- drill the * out of it- think about how much catching up you'd have to do to a senior high school wrestler who's done it for about 6 years. Now, I can tell you what I like to look for when taking a striker down- 1:anytime they cross their feet or bring them closer than shoulder width- thats an easy double leg(watch when Judo guys move side to side for example- its a basic footsweep drill they use). 2: watch for a high base- some karate/TMA's have a habit of fighting in a low stance (dont blow up on me- I said SOME). If at any time they raise themselves out of this low stance (say, to move closer) thats a good time to attack since they're off balance, and harder for them to sprawl. 3: watch the power hand- once in striking range, thats technically also grappling range- in the time it takes for me to close the distance to a clinch, chances are you'll only have one chance to unload a very powerfull shot with your rear hand. Someone said that grapplers wont mind taking a shot on the way in if it means getting you where they want, but that doesnt mean they're running in hands low with their jaw sticking out. Double forearms is a nice blocking method (The Gracies used this alot). Once in close enough for a clinch, its not all that difficult to swim your arms in for underhooks. I think one of the best examples of a striker being able to stop a grapplers game is Mirko Cro Cop. He uses a basic front bearhug defense against underhooks, and has a very good sprawl.

You're stating opinion, not fact in reference to the guard. It's relatively easy to defend yourself in the guard with minimum training (we're not talking about going for armbars and triangles like Nog, but simply HOLDING a guy). Take Oleg Taktarov, a man who had relatively LITTLE knowledge of the guard position, but with as little as he knew, he was able to successfully defend himself against Tank Abbott and Ken Shamrock. Now, as for someone who's proficient at the guard, its NOT such a bad place to be. Im pretty adept from the guard, so I'd rather have someone in my guard on the ground than be standing up. It really depends on the skill of the two fighters For instance, Cro Cop putting guard on someone is BAD for him- he does NOT want to be there (but, better there than mounted). People like Nogueira, Bustamante, and Mir-the fights on the ground, which is where they prefer it. I will say though, that its always better to be on top.

You say you're currently taking Shotokan Karate, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu- and now you want to take ANOTHER style? Seriously, you sound like those "black belt collectors" who do a MA until they get a BB, and then move on to the next (but never really become proficient at any one). First off, it takes a LONG time to get skilled at Judo, even more so at BJJ, so I'd suggest you simply work at those styles a bit more. Instead of picking yet another style to train in, put that extra day of the week towards more grappling training (since you yourself said you're more of a striker). If you insist on doing another striking system though, I cant think of any style that kicks like Muay Thai- I had a friend who trained in Tang Soo Doo for about 17 years, and I thought he had one HELL of a roundhouse kick. The Thai boxers I train with now (train with them in BJJ) have 3-4 year experience, and put his kicks to shame.

Ok, it sounds as if you're saying that if the person misses with the kick, you can simply go around the leg and get cross side. This is almost like saying that when you shoot in for a takedown, I'll just punch you in the face and knock you out (in other words, its MUCH different in practical application than theory). An experienced person with good hip position would have no problem regaining a position like this (its common at times for someone to end up in positions where your opponent isnt in the middle of your guard, and you dont have any hooks). To take it a step further, you're never supposed to be flat on your back, but rather always on the side. It appears as if all you need to do is step to the other side, but its MUCH more difficult than that. When I say hip position, Im talking about the ability of someone to elbow escape, or in any other way escape. Passing the guard (especially in no gi training) often requires that you control the persons hips. If you dont, the odds of him escaping (and you failing to pass) are better.

I love people who think like this, I really do. OK, first off, lets address the whole multiple attackers thing: Why is EVERYONE insistant that anyone thats a grappler is going to take the fight to the ground when he KNOWS there are others around? Christ, we're not stupid, and grappling INCLUDES throws and clinch work. The very fact that we KNOW how to fight from the clinch and KNOW how to GET UP when thrown to the ground is what can give us the edge over a pure striker and help us to survive with less injury (please, no talk about how Bruce Lee movies taught you to fight 10 people at once). No *, but Im interested in seeing someone who can punch effectively from their back All of a sudden concrete is a hazardous and dangerous material? Who's going to be on their backs? Who's most likely to get thrown on their head? Certainly not the person proficient at grappling. For all the deadly techniques i hear you guys say about eye gouging, groin grabbing, throat crushing, and bone breaking, you seem to be overrating a few scrapes you get from the ground. You do realize that often bareknuckle matches result in fighters with broken hands right? I can handle a few scrapes (which will take a week to heal) than a broken hand (which will take 6-. So I can argue "Why would you want to take striking? Who wants to break their hands hitting someone in the face?" Bingo, they got knocked off their feet, and Im willing to bet they ate a few strikes trying to get back up, or their opponent tried to follow them down and grab a headlock or G&P. Now, NO ONE wants to end up on the nasty stained concrete surrounding most bars and clubs, but christ will you REALIZE OFTEN YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Will you PLEASE LOOK INTO THE SUBJECT? EVERY striker that competed in the UFC OBVIOUSLY did NOT want to go to the ground, but they DID. Even when fights were striker vs striker, fights went to the ground. Even now with knowledge of grappling and defense, people still get taken to the ground. As far as not believing how many fights go to the ground, go to Best Buy- they have a few street fight videos there, and EVERY ONE goes to the ground at one point of the fight. These are fights that did NOT get broken up, which are the ones you're thinking about. If a fight gets broken up by outside help, thats your self defense- you're fine. But if it doesnt, you're going to be engaged in some type of grappling during the fight. Grappling is NOT a style of fighting, its a PHASE of it.

Hey, why not go ahead and try Judo then? The whole idea of tossing someone around IS pretty cool (especially so since you're actually doing it full power too). Give it a shot, Im sure you'll like it. Not to be a ballbreaker, but theres a difference between learning a throw/technique and knowing/executing one.

[quote="MenteReligieuse Ali fought guys bigger than him and still won. Skils go beyond brute strenght. Granted, but boxers (along with most strikers in general) kinda get screwed once the fight enters into the clinch phase, since its not going to be broken up. Tyson and Foreman would stand a better chance (in my opinion) of knocking someone out (or seriously dazing them) with one of their punches than Ali would. You dont have time to dance around and throw jabs, not to say thats all Ali could do. But in the slugging department, Tyson and Foreman are better than Ali, and thats much more effective for a MMA fight.

Pretty much everything Vito said is true- you're NOT going to find a better standup striking style than Muay Thai- You're taught EVERY aspect of the standup striking game (punches, kicks, elbows, and knees) and you're also taught how to do it from the clinch. Ironically, clinchwork is often ignored by so many other striking styles, yet occurs in EVERY fight you see. Being in a constrictive space means clinches are bound to happen, and it is from there that Muay Thai is notorious for their devestating knees and elbows. Now, as far as using it to be a bouncer- well, if you're concerned about getting beat up, it will certainly help you to turn the tables and kick the other guys *. Heres the problem though- you were hired to get the guys OUT of the bar while hurting them as LITTLE as possible. You crack a guys jaw with a knee, and chances are he'll want a lawsuit (but, better that than getting beat up yourself). This goes with ANY standup striking style, not just Muay Thai. I work as a bouncer too, and quite frankly, a grappling art will serve you best. In order to get the guy out the door, you're GOING to have to grab him in some way, which turns the fight into a clinch. I cant tell you how many guys I've thrown out that have outwieghed me by more than 50lbs, simply because they knew jack about what to do when in a clinch/grappling situation. Not only that, but a choke hold is a nice way to stop an aggressive guy and it doesnt hurt him at all, unlike for instance a punch to the jaw. If you do decide to take a striking style MA, I'd suggest boxing or muay thai. If you take a grappling style, I'd suggest Judo, Sambo, or Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Dont buy into some random karate school that claims to teach grappling either if the instructor cant prove where hes learned grappling- if the guy has credentials for karate, then he should also have credentials for grappling, and believe me its VERY easy to decieve someone who knows NOTHING about grappling into thinking you're a "master."

You call other people "unintelligent" and you claim that by missing a kick, your guard is going to get passed? Havent you ever heard of hip positioning? Dont try to sound like an expert when you dont know what you're talking about.

Thats ABSOLUTELY ridiculous- what you just stated was much more a matter of OPINION and Im forced to ask if you've ever wrestled in high school/college or even fought a no gi grappling tournament. Wrestling gets pretty intense, I've seen crossfaces that were so fast and hard they may as well have been a punch to the face, and they've got plenty of other nasty tactics to use as well (lets not forget that pressure against the face is illegal in Judo). Judo IS a rough sport, theres no doubt about it, but to outright make a statement like that is just ignorant.

I think Tyson would be a better bet than Ali, not to say that hes a better boxer, but he obviously hit harder (so, I guess Foreman would be good too). I'd also pick Rickson over Royce, and Alexander Karelin over Alexander Medved. Oh yeah, and why the hell not just pick Kimura for the Judo guys? He was great, not only on the feet, but on the ground as well. I would also protest having Bruce Lee in there to represent JKD, since JKD isnt a style. Bruce even said himself theres no such thing as a "JKD kick" or a "JKD move" for that matter, its all about what works for YOU and what doesnt (hence I would consider all MMA fighters to be JKD fighters since the same mindset is applied). Beyond any arguments with that, Bruce crosstrained alot to be considered a student of a specific style in any respect.

I agree with most of those pros and cons. I'll give my two cents as to how they do in MMA. BJJ fighters are exceptional once the fight hits the ground, whether it be positional dominance or submissions. Fighting from their backs is also another trademark, which enables them to fight opponents who are far larger and still win. Since they're so good at submissions, a BJJ fighter is ALWAYS a threat since he can, at any time, catch a submission from no where and win the fight. Problem occurs when fighting people who cross train- BJJ is known to have the weakest takedowns of just about any grappling style, not because they arent taught, but simply because they really arent emphasized. Their weakness would be sprawl and brawl type fighters like Cro Cop, Silva, and Liddel. Wrestlers have spectacular takedowns, second to none, so its quite possible for a wrestler (like Mark Coleman for example) to not need to train standup, because its such a joke for him to take down anyone he fights. The problem with wrestlers happens when they cant finish a fight, or their lack of submission knowledge. Should they fight someone else with good takedowns, wrestling doesnt work when you're on your back. Wrestlers do their best against fighters who are primarily sprawl and brawl fighters with limited takedown defense (Cro Cop, Yvel, Hunt) simply because wrestlers have such great takedowns. Their weakness is generally BJJ fighters, since even though they can take them down, lack of submission knowledge usually leads to being caught in a sub.

How do you think BJJ got started

Hehe, I know this one is going to piss everyone off. Quite frankly put, if you do a martial art that emcompases ALL aspects of a fight, you may learn all aspects, but you'll never be proficient at any one. Actually, the only style I can think of that has all of what you mentioned is Japanese Ju Jitsu, and the success (or lack of) of that style speaks for itself. Its better to learn from people who have perfected one aspect of the fight, and then combine that to your own. For instance, boxing is a style thats known for its punches. Joe Frazier will teach you how to throw a proper punch much more so than say a random MMA fighter, simply because thats ALL he does is punch. Much the same way that no one is going to have better takedowns than a wrestler/judoka, better knees than a thai fighter, or better subs than a jiu jitsu fighter. All fighters in MMA have one particular aspect which is their best (striking, clinch, or ground) and learn the others so as not to get caught off guard. Go to a boxer if you want to know how to punch, a wrestler/judoka if you want to know how to throw/take people down, etc etc.

I agree, thats a pretty vague statement. Anything that allows you to have the edge over your opponent would be pretty good. You also didnt really state any type of scenario. I'll assume you're thinking of a straight 1 on 1 fight. All styles advocate different strategies for defeating an opponent. Some prefer striking, others throwing, even others ground fighting. But as far as a seasoned street fighter, there are different types. Good street fighters may have a good haymaker punch, or maybe they just hit HARD, which is an advantage entirely by itself. Most common things that happen in a street fight though are 1: haymakers/sucker punch 2: clinch to a headlock 3: tackle followed by ground and pound.

I'll offer my 2 cents, since I actively train in gi and no gi. Heelhooks have the capability to damage anything up to and including the knee joint from the foot. Heelhooks put much more stress on the knee, and to be honost, a heelhook is a heelhook- what it breaks seems to be a matter of what just happens to be vulnerable in that persons body. Most common injuries from heelhooks target the ACL due to the twisting of the knee. Its entirely possible to break ankles too, but if equal amounts of stress on both on the ligament and bone, I think the knee will be the first to give, since most heelhook injuries are in fact, acl injuries. The ACL and PCL keep the knee from sliding forward to back rather than side to side. If you looked at a knee from the side of someone, the two ligaments criss cross in the middle forming an "X". ACL connects at the top back of the knee and connects to the front bottom of the knee. Together, they keep the knee joint (looking at it from the same angle) from doing: Thigh: __ \ / <---X------> Shin: /__\ The achilles lock is kinda wierd, as it can be fully applied, but only tear the muscle in your shin from overextending it. Feet may or may not be broken, depending on how the lock is applied. Ankle lock is a vague term, its like saying armlock. The two ankle locks I can think of at the moment are the achilles lock and the figure four toe hold. Toe holds can cause serious sprains in the ankle, or break the foot. Calf crushers and all other muscle slicer/compression locks do exactly that- crush the muscle. I think pain is the most common result, but on a much more serious (and rare I believe) instance, I have heard of muscles becoming detatched on bicep slicers.

Well, there is alot more history to be read in to as to how BJJ exactly came about, but thats an entirely different topic altogether. I'll try to point out the major differences between just about any JJJ and BJJ, if you've ever read Renzo Gracie's book. 1: emphasis on live sparring in BJJ- this doesnt happen in JJJ, or if it does it only occurs at the higher belt levels, simply because JJJ has many "dangerous" tactics that can not be used against a sparring partner for fear of serious injury. As a result, BJJ practicioners get to apply their techniques against resisting opponents much more often, as they dont use tactics like eye gouges, throat strikes, biting, and the like. 2:differences in joint locks- just about every joint lock in BJJ is in JJJ, but just because its in the curriculum doesnt mean that its being taught, or that the instructors even know alot about it. I've noticed that alot of JJJ schools put emphasis on small joint manipulation (finger locks, wrist locks) whereas BJJ focuses on large joint manipulation (elbow locks, knee locks). Many of the techniques in JJJ require much more fine motor movements as well (finger locks, throat/eye strikes), whereas most of the techniques in BJJ require gross motor movements (armbars, RNC, kneebars). Fine motor movements require small muscles, like in your hands and fingers for instance, whereas gross motor movements require larger muscles, such as your back and shoulders. Threading a needle is an example of fine motor movement, swinging a baseball bat is an example of gross motor movement. 3: lack of overall strategy in JJJ- JJJ technically could be considered a complete style, since it includes strikes, throws, and groundwork. Problem is theres never any overall fight strategy taught, but rather just a serious of tricks and moves to use in various scenarios. BJJ teaches an overall fight strategy that can be seen by all practioners and in BJJ tournaments. There is a clear heirarchy of positions that one tries to achieve and points are rewarded for getting those positions. Strategy involves chaining moves and using combos. Personal experience has shown that the JJJ black belts I've known/fought lacked any type of chaining of moves, even at the most basic level. I think thats the most that come to mind, unless I happen to think of any other in the future.

"anyway. so in BJJ you aren't really taught to react with a strike of your own but tend to go straight into using what-ever is coming to you with a form of control. i.e there isn't really a striking 'game' as it were." I wouldnt say that we "go straight into it" you simply gave an example of a straight punch, which I think is a harder to parry or dodge while still trying to close the distance. A hook or a kick I would try to close quickly to jam the attack. Thats pretty much it though, instead of striking back we're taught to "grapple" back and there really isnt a striking game involved.

double post

First off, let me tip my hat to Seven Star for a beautifully written post- its so difficult to visit a MA site and have to explain that very thing to every ignorant person there. Generally, when dealing with strikes we work against basic and common attacks- haymakers, headbutts, and sucker punches. The last two are simply defended by not letting the guy get too close as an argument escalates. When punches are thrown, we're taught to cover up to protect our face and our jaw (to avoid being knocked out). Bear in mind you're stepping into the strike often to (to jam them) and start working your clinching skills. also, did the training emphasise the grappling aspect (joint lock, control, breaks throws) above everything else? or did it have strikes that would lead to grappling. the training emphasizes control of your opponent and throwing him to the ground in basic defense scenarios. there are also ways to enter into the clinch (say, if the guy said one thing too many and you decided you werent going to wait for him to start the fight, so you'd do it yourself.) Generally its something simple like throwing your hands in their face as a distraction and then dropping for the takedown/clinch let's take a basic scenario. you are being attacked. the aggressor if going to throw a basic straight punch. how would you teach the beginner to deal with it? receive/block/parry? then go straight to a throw, lock, control etc etc? or did you also teach/show strikes where they possible, or was purely about grappling? A basic straight punch- I'd probably use a double forearm block (like a boxing cover up) while attempting to rush the guy. This protects my jaw and face and allows me to close the distance. I dont think I want to "recieve" any punches to the face, and parrying is probably more practical for someone with good striking skills who wanted to strike back (i.e. parry to the side and counter the straight with a hook for instance). As far as teaching strikes where possible, yes they did, but its still mostly on the ground- striking from the feet isnt usually emphasized because its not something you (as a grappler) train in all the time. Why trade punches when your striking is lacking when you can clinch and use your superior skills from there/on the ground. The strikes shown from the ground though are usually from the bottom of the guard Anyone can see how easily you can hit someone from a mounted position, but there are nice ways to set up heel kicks when you're caught on the bottom in a fight- and believe me they're VERY powerfull and effective. i.e in the above scenario, it would be: receive, punch, grab arm, throw/control/whatever...? Yeah, the idea for me is cover up while closing the distance. Taking the fight to the clinch and taking it to the ground. during chi sau, if the opportunity came for me to apply a lock of some sort, i could go for it and then the game changes. Most locks in BJJ are taught on the ground. There are a few applicable on the feet, but the reason why they'd rather execute them on the ground is because of the amount of control you exert over someone when you've got them pinned- its much more effective than attempting a lock on a standing opponent, since you have no where near as much control on him. i mean, i wasn't ever taught strictly striking or strictly grappling. of course there were times when specific techniques were shown so that i could understand how they work. The strikes taught for BJJ were usually open hand slaps (which can disorient very well) elbows and knees (very brief and basic, its not like we're muay thai guys here). Elbows could be shown from in close, and knees were pointed out when in the clinch. The reason why we arent encouraged to punch with a fist on the feet is because the reality of it breaking when you hit something like a skull with such force. Also, we generally assume that our opponent is bigger and stronger than us, so we dont want to exchange strikes with them on the feet. This does not mean Im anti striking- Im actually starting to learn some Muay Thai and boxing to compliment my ground game.

I dont know many people who forget they can strike from the mount. As far as striking on the ground, Im more likely to move from position to position (ala Nogueira) until i get mount. If I had to pick a favorite strike from a position, its an elbow to the spine from the back mount.