UseoForce

arma.com It's awesome!

Go tell Mr. Liddell that takedown defense is useless in a fight

Cetainly, but that's not what makes it a MA!

No, I mean Association of Renaissance Martial Artists.

Yeah, you're right about Couture, but I never saw that fight.

Everyone knows Chuck Liddell is the most dominant striker in the UFC. I also happen to think he is an excellent grappler, who simply prefers to stand. His extraordinary ability to defend takedowns and get back to his feet must be a testament to his natural "feel" for grappling. The only time I have ever really seen him on the ground is against one of the best grapplers in the UFC, Jeremy Horn . Despite his loss, Chuck Liddell showed excellent ground tactics and submission defense (I was suprised to see Chuck playing butterfly guard!). And, that was really early in Chuck's grappling training. All these fighters (Including Horn) talk about "Well, If I get Chuck on his back, then..." Well, A. Hardly anyone does get him there, so good luck trying. B. If you do, you better watch your back.

BJJ has no katas, forms, weapons...

LoL, yeah, I don't think IRKguy will find a lot of agreement with that.

Someone may have said all of this, but I've read countless threads like this and hear the same points over and over. 1. You can only strike with confidence if you have grappling training (And vice-versa). Liddell is a proficient grappler and wrestler. He can strike powerfully because he has the knowledge to defend takedown attempts should he expose himself. 2. For any style to be effective in the cage, it needs to have full contacts training: Wrestling, BJJ, (kick)boxing, Muay Thai, etc. 3. A striking art practiced by the MMA fighter becomes kickboxing. I'll use Liddell again. He's a forth degree kempo karate blackbelt, but his style is known as "kickboxing." This is because of the tough training methodology the fighter must develop. For that training to happen, some techniques and strategies have to be abadoned to conform to rules, and other techniques and strategies must be added for common sense. Therefore, all striking styles begin to look very similar. It is much more about the fighter's technical preference than the particular style.

I didn't know that. It might not be true. Most of the grappling I've seen came directly from Daito ryu jiu-jitsu.

Ha, that's a classic reason why not to go to the ground in the street. Great example. So it's more about recovery than fighting per se?

Basically MMA with a few dirty tricks. But I think that's a good thing!

Is that a compliment? Hey, you do hapkido! Do you learn the extended style of groundfighting similar to BJJ?

Yeah, but it is street-oriented, so going to ground isn't generally encouraged However, if we go down, we know how to deal with it.

I read one of his books, not really sure what to think...

That's the old One! Here's the new one: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/

I can't believe no one has posted this yet, but have you read the "Tao of Jeet Kune Do?" He has two whole pages of sketches of judo and jiu-jitsu techniques (Japanese arts), as well as many Japanese jiu-jitsu techniques shown in other sketches, but not labeled as jiu-jitsu. He certainly respected these Japanese arts. Bruce Lee may have disliked Japanese karate, but that's a far cry from being a racist!

Having fun?

All good points, White warlock.

Does traditional hapkido do much groundfighting? The Combat Hapkido groundfighting has a strong BJJ influence, amongst others.

Exactly.

I think "karate" is (more like "was") used interchangably with Asian martial art, probably for marketing purposes when karate was popular. Most people don't know what Tang Soo do is, but everyone knows what karate is. All the Tang Soo Do schools in my area have signs that say karate. Anyway, it's not real important to this thread, so I'll shut up.

Too few techniques?

Is hapkido brutal? Depends if I want it to be!

NO! HUGE MISCONCEPTION! GO TO GENERAL MARTIAL ARTS AND FIND MY THREAD "Ignorance of Western MA!"