UseoForce

Have you tried a new school or style?

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look who's winning MMA fights these days. It's not Thai boxers, even if Thai boxing is part of their training.

I'm not saying it's not possible but you don't want to trust your life to it. And I'm willing to bet that your "street application" was a less than life or death encounter, true?

word

good observation, I like that.

Jacob, that's really debatable. I'm a student of the martial arts for self-defense first and foremost, and I speak for a lot of the people in the martial art community. I don't need a martial art for philisophical reasons or to define my morals for me. My values and philosphies about living my life are not dependent on my martial art.

That's what I've been saying. If your techniques are to dangerous to practice in randori or a similar realistic setting, then you will probably not be able to apply them in a realistic situation.

Exactly, that's my point. That's the paradox of martial effectiveness that most people don't understand. You're not allowed to do randori becuase it is too dangerous in JJJ. However, people training in judo, wrestling, sambo, or BJJ will consistently defeat JJJ guys even though the aforementioned arts' techniques are totally safe to practice with.

I now use whey with added glutamine in it. I feel less soreness and muscle fatigue.

Self defence is about awareness and being pre-emptive. Grappling, especially japanese jiu-jutsu(contains strikes also) would compliment your karate training and open up certain techniques and ideas you might not have seen before. In a "true" self defence situation your chances of facing a competent grappler are very low. In an ego driven "lets see whos tougher" type situation facing a grappler would be more likely. I'd disagree with both points, Cross. Japanese Jiu-jitsu (which I have a lot of experience in; Hapkido is about 50% daito ryu) is not "grappling" in the sense that wrestling, judo, sambo, and BJJ are. JJJ is largely a set of responses to particular situations. You grab my wrist, I do this. It's not bad, but a real fight isn't so linear. Wrestling, Judo, BJJ, and Sambo teach you how chaotic a fight is and you learn how to apply techniques against a RESISTING partner. That is why in challenge matches, Judokas DESTROYED Jiu-jitsu guys. JJJ techniques are nice to have if you have the oppurtunity. I like them. But I know I can always fall back on my BJJ/MMA/Other parts of Combat Hapkido if they do not work. Second, there are PLENTY of great grapplers on the streets. For starters, what two sports are found in high schools around America (I can't speak for Australia)? Football (American) and wrestling. These guys know exactly how to slam you to the ground and are comfortable with the idea of holding on to and controling another person. This experience doesn't just leave after high school. And, let's not forget the fact that SERIOUS fights will hit the dirt 90% of the time, regardless of the combatant's skill.

Several UFC fights have been ended in the stand fighting range. Lidell v. Ortiz, Lidell v. CotureII and III. Just to name a few. And those were three of the bigest names in the sport. All of them ended in KO from striking while standing. To say take downs and grappling is all it's about would be very false. Yeah, we're pretty much agreed on that. Cathal just needs to buckle down and watch some more UFC Don't we all!

I'd have to agree.

Get thee to a powerlifting gym and ask for the nearest deadlifting platform. Don't delay. You have a world record deadlift somewhere waiting to be discovered.... With respect, Sohan Cool. Is this because it allows the legs to be engaged more?

I like the Art of War, but it's really common sense.

The UFC does not focus on one aspect of fighting, it focuses on all aspects, that is why it is called Mixed Martial Arts. Seriously, watch some UFC or better yet, train MMA awhile before making a statement like that. You're going to give newcomers the impression that the UFC is all about grappling, and that is totally false.

That's what it is all about, right? Learning. The other day I decided to go with a two weapon system...long sword and battle axe. I learned a lot.....like I don't know how to block my right side against a lefty worth a darn. I did learn some positive things, though, like hooking weapons with the axe, when to lead with which weapon, etc. Remeber "Conquest" on the History Channel. That was one of the Best Shows Ever!

cathal, it IS the ultimate in full contact fighting. The scoring only becomes relevant if neither fighter is KO'd, TKO'd or submitted.

That's exactly what I mean.

Kendo's cool.

LoL great video. Sad, but that's what gives TKD people a bad name.

Yeah. I don't really care how they change it just as long as they lay down specific guidelines and stick to them consistently. Right now scoring is based on" effective striking, grappling, aggression, and Octagon control." That's incredibly vague. Tell me: What is effective grappling? Was it Evan's takedowns or Bonnar's submission attempts? Evan's takedowns showed dominance, but Bonnar was closer to finishing the fight. It's a real problem.

This needs to be addressed, and I have yet to see a thread like this on any of the forums I frequent. I need your thoughts. There are several fights that this would apply to, but I'll use the Stephan Bonnar vs. Rashad Evans fight as an example. To summarize, neither fighter inflcited any siginificant striking on the feet or on the ground. Rashad Evans scored numerous takedowns and landed in Bonnar's guard each time. Bonnar launched a few submission attempts, but nothing that came close to finishing Evans. Rashad was awarded the decision. Okay. I understand how the judges came to that conclusion under the current rules. Rashad had very dominant takedowns. Fine. That's not what this thread is about. Flashback to Gracie vs. Severn. It took Royce nearly 16 minutesto submit "The Beast." That is almost a minute longer than the Bonnar-Evans fight. Granted, I haven't seen the Gracie-Severn fight in its entireity, but (if I remember correctly) Severn got a takedown (or a few) and Rouce held him in his guard trying to secure a submission. Just like the Bonnar-Evans fight. If the Severn-Gracie fight had been stopped after 15 minutes (Like Bonnar-Evans), SEVERN would have been declared the winner for scoring takedowns and doing a bit of ground and pound. Any UFC fan can see how that would have changed MMA as we know it today. There might not be a "Gracie legacy!" Let me repeat: If fought under the same rules as the the Bonnar-Evans fight, the Gracie's name might have fallen into obscruity. The Problem: The UFC needs to devise a better system of scoring fights. At no point in the Bonnar-Evans fight was Stephan in any trouble, and he was closer to stopping the fight (by submisison) than Rashad was. I'm not saying Bonnar was robbed, but Rashad didn't do much to win either! This is MMA, not wrestling. The takedown, in and of itself, except in the case of a rare highly damaging slam, is immaterial. The early UFC's proved that. The Gracie's proved that. It is what happens after the takedown (GNP, submission) that decides a fight. I feel like we're taking a step backward. I don't have a solution, but the UFC really needs to get its act together as far as scoring. Your thoughts?

Exactly.Lee was decades ahead of his time. And yes, I was refering to weaponless combat. My point was that because judo's training methods are typically more rigorous and fight-like than jiu-jitsu, the judo players defeated most jiu-jitsu challengers. This does not mean judo is "better" than jiu-jitsu. Heck, Combat Hapkido is probably 50% daito ryu jiu-jitsu. I love jiu-jitsu. But when a judo school does a lot of randori and a jiu-jitsu school's students practice only against cooperative partners, the judo students will defeat the jiu-jitsu students 9/10. It doesn't matter how awesome the jiu-jitsu students' techniques are. If they never practice them against actively resisting opponents, they won't be able to apply them.

I reccomend the Gracie book not for the techniques but for the philosophy (not to say that the techniques are bad, they're great).

In this order: 1. Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Bruce Lee 2. Mastering Jujitsu, Renzo Gracie (I HIGHLY suggest these two because they answer 95% of the questions asked on this site) 3. The Fighter's Body, Loren Christiansen 4. Solo Training 1 & 2, Loren Christiansen 5. A book that pertains specifically to your style. I probably have a collection of 25 or so books on martial arts, plus a slew of magazines. Regardless of style, these are the best.