SubGrappler

I think thats just being narrow minded to think that one style has all the answers. Someone who spends their entire life doing nothing but grappling is going to know how to grapple a thousand times more efficiently than someone who just studies it on the side. The same is true with striking skills. There are strikes in Jiu Jitsu and Judo, but Im not about to ask Royler Gracie to teach me Muay Thai, you know what I mean? You can fine tune it even more so than simple grappling vs striking. Someone who does only takedowns (such as a freestyle wrestler) is going to be much adept at teaching takedowns than a grapple who is proficient in submission wrestling tournaments. A boxer is going to have better hands than someone who only practices it half as much- you get what Im saying. Those that refused to adapt and cross train, including the Gracies, found themselves falling behind the competition.

that doesnt make sense,they can get kicked in the head so that cant be the reason they dont have there guard up! Sure it does- its much more difficult to land a kick to the head than it is to land a punch to the head. Kicks are coming from a downward angle, which makes them a little easier to check even if your hands are down at your waist. Simply put, fighting with your hands at your waist is a bad habit of TKD.

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=297782&highlight=cauliflower+ear#297782 third post from the top.

Guess it depends on the quality of krav instructors that you're training with and what kind of kickboxing you're doing- just the term "kickboxing" is incredibly vague. As far as the krav maga, in theory its a solid style to train in, but there is a much greater amount of krav instructors who dont know what they're teaching than vice versa, and as a result, many of the instructors simply resort to limiting their teaching to deadly techniques. what area are you in? (city state?)

"What the hell is a Ninja?"

Sure it is, and the vast number of competitions and their results have more than proven this. Mixed martial arts is not a style, but rather a venue of fighting. When the context of "MMA" is to imply BJJ and Muay Thai, that is also correct. One who is a mixed martial artist will prove to be a much more well rounded and skilled fighter than one who is one dimensional. If you only know standup, or only know groundwork, and your opponent knows both, you're fighting at a serious disadvantage. What this simply means is that your shotokan karate (or "my muay thai") coupled with a grappling art will prove to be far more effective than shotokan by itself. Well, I hate to be the one that breaks the news, but Ryoto Machida is far from a "pure" shotokan practitioner. He has had extensive Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu training (he currently holds a purple belt under Wallid Ismael). Hes trained with Renato Babalu, Rey Diogo, and Frank Trigg. http://www.mmareview.com/FProfiles/profile-ryoto_machida.htm "Ryoto has a tendency to revert to a karate stance during competition, but the traditional side karate stance has proven to be risky in MMA competition due to the fact that it increases the likelihood of an opponent obtaining a single leg takedown" Hes far from a pure traditional karateka.

I would hope so- the guy is a 9 X world champion- 6 times in the Mundial's and 3 times in Abu Dhabi. Its safe to say that hes probably the best person in the world when it comes to fighting on the ground.

I wonder how many people, on whom dimmak was applied by real experts and not by Mc dojo-ists, are not here nor able to testify, and in person, to its effectiveness in internet forums such as this.. Lets put it this way- BJJ has never proven to be too effective for challenge matches. Take anyone who claims to be uber deadly with dim mak death touches to any BJJ school and make such a claim to the instructor- they will have no problem proving you wrong. Lets be serious here- the Gracie Challenge was up for many years- defeat a Gracie and you win $100,000. Surely a dim mak expert could come up and defeat such a person- after all, if you have the skill to execute such a technique, surely you could pull your deadliness just a little bit to subdue an opponent. The following statement is fact- no one has proven any kind of death touch to be effective in a real altercation in front of a general audience. As a result, Im forced to ask- how many people have you actually killed with a death touch? Until you have, what proof do you have that it actually works, other than your instructors word?

Just remember that what ever it is that you choose to take up is going to take time and dedication to learn. If anyone tries to sell you a technique that you can learn overnight, dont bother with them. Make sure that you can train against resisting partners too- if you learn how to escape locks, holds, and from being on your back, work the techniques first on non resisting opponents (say for like 50 reptitions a day for no less than a few weeks). Then, ask the person to resist you- to not let you get up, not let you get away from them, or not put them in a submission hold.

I've had a few people hit me with Dim Mak's before - needless to say Im still waiting to die There arent any shortcuts in learning how to fight- arent any secrets either. Its just like any other physical activity (basketball, football, baseball, etc). It takes time and dedication.

I dont wear em, simply because my ears are already messed up and they're very cumbersome to wear. During the time that my ears were swelling, I did get a chance to use different types of headgear. Any kind will generally suit you well, but I found the ones with the hard plastic covering did the best job of preventing your ears from getting smashed. It acted as a shell surrounding your ear, whereas other types of headgear actually rest against your ear. Either or will work- if your ears arent inflammed, doesnt matter which one you use, but if they're sore, I'd go with a pair that has a hard plastic outer covering.

"" to learn how to fight without fighting, is like learning how to swim on sand." Miyamoto Musashi" I just noticed that quote- I love it. Any chance you might have a link as to who this guy is?

Its hard to say- you have the opportunity to train with a quality Judo instructor- you have to weigh his credentials vs the credentials of the BJJ school- just because its a Machado affiliate does not mean that Jean Jaques Machado is going to be teaching the class. Its often said that Judo employs more standup while BJJ employs more groundwork, but this is an overall generalization of the two styles- its very possible to find yourself a BJJ instructor who has excellent takedowns (perhaps he has lots of wrestling experience) and you can very well find a Judoka who happens to be a ne waze (groundfighting) specialist. Most Judo schools will train according to Judo rules, which will limit your ground fighting and focus primarily on your standup game- almost to the neglect of your ground game. Most BJJ schools will train according to BJJ rules in which starting off the feet isnt a big deal since you can always pull guard- you'll often start off your knees in a BJJ class as the focus is on developing your ground game. In comparison though, your average BJJ class neglects standup much more so than Judo neglects groundwork (and Judo only "neglects" groundwork when compared to BJJ). With the introduction of tournaments such as Abu Dhabi however, standup work is becoming incorporated more and more into your regular BJJ class. Go to both and weigh what it is that you're looking for and ask as many questions as you can.

Im partial to BJJ's rape defense systems, simply because a sexual assault is often going to involve a grappling situation. You might like this: http://www.gracieacademy.com/women_empowered.html Heres a preview video: http://www.gracieacademy.com/rapesafevideo.html

That's a good reason to differentiate between tournament sparring and the real thing... I hope that the people who spar like this in tournaments know not to really fight this way -- one hit to the face and you're done. In tournaments I go to, we allow for points to the head as long as there is no actual contact (for safety reasons, contact above the shoulders is a DQ), and if anyone dropped their hands they'd lose in a hurry. Why not just have headgear and then allow full face contact?

Well, Im sure you could answer this question by looking at the poster's list of styles he trains in, so I'll change it up a bit. Some of my favorite martial arts to watch include Muay Thai, Kali/Escrima knifefighting, Savate, San Shou, and wrestling. Muay Thai matches are very entertaining to watch- there was this huge venue over in Atlantic City this weekend called battle at the boardwalk, and I think it pretty much featured every martial art you could find. The Muay Thai matches were great- I like them so much more than boxing- there isnt a fight for 12 rounds- they go out there and try to kill each other in the first minute. Knife fighting is fun to watch just because they're so precise with what they want to do- its the only martial art that I would conceed has the possibility of defending multiple attackers Savate is like muay thai, minus the knees and elbows San Shou is also like muay thai, except they add takedowns- you get points for taking your opponent to the mat when you clinch up, although the match is restarted back on the feet (there is no groundwork). Wrestling is also very fun to watch because its very fast and very dynamic- I get to see guys with good takedowns work on putting the other on his back. Since I like takedowns in wrestling, Im partial towards freestyle wrestling moreso than folkstyle.

To be honost, padding can be a blessing in disguise, it just depends on how much padding you use, and how realistically you spar. For example, since you're so caught up on being street realistic, if you were to spar full contact with no padding everytime you went to class, you'd get beat to hell, which would mean you'd only be able to actually spar full out maybe once every week or two. Padding allows you to fight with more power (which makes for a more realistic situation) and helps minimize the injuries. This allows for a much faster recovery time which means you'll get to spar more often. That being said, I believe any style that you train in is going to spar with protective equipment- its an advantage that modern fighters have over those of the past and it would not be wise not to take advantage of it. Tournaments are a different story. Kyokushin tournaments I believe fight with no padding. Amateur MMA has instep guards and 4 oz gloves. Boxing matches have gloves and headgear, and muay thai matches have gloves, headgear, and instep guards.

TKD is famous for being a flashy kicking style- the most common format for a TKD tournament does not allow punches to the head, hence making it unnecessary to protect against punches there.

Who says that BJJ fighters dont defend heel hooks? Any no gi competition you see will have heel hooks left and right- its a very common, very simple, and very devestating footlock. Besides that, Im of the opinion that while footlocks are so valued in submission wrestling matches, their value drops considerably once punches are introduced.

As Andrew said, theres so much complexity to these seemingly simply moves. For example, a jab and a cross are two of the most basic punches to learn, yet why is one fighter such as Chuck Liddel so much more successfull in knocking people out with this simple combination than someone like Matt Hughes or Renato Verrissimo? Aside from that, the simplest techniques are going to be the ones that are going to work the most effectively in a fight- a straight cross to the jaw is responsible for alot more knockouts than a spinning backfist, and a standard armbar is responsible for more submissions than a flying armbar.

I still disagree- those "adults" are athletically challenged in my opinion. Im not used to standardized tests for promotion, but I guess you could consider each time you train at the gym to be a "test." The best 12 year old kids are going to get rolled on by any adult thats their same size. Children are not fully developed physically in comparison with adults Of course, the larger you get, technically the weaker you become. For example, if you go by bodyweight, the strongest individuals are the lightest ones- guys who are 125 lbs but can bench press 300- thats almost 3 times their body weight. But a guy who's 250 lbs cant even do twice his weight if hes "only" benching 400 lbs. As was said, I have yet to see a kid who's "earned" it. They dont have to have the same power as a grown man, but if you're doing a striking art where the objective is to nullify an opponent via strikes, you can be as flashy or as quick as you want, and it means absolutely nothing if you cant put anything behind your attack.

Its not bad, in my opinion, but the numbers speak for themselves. Muay Thai and boxing have had much much greater success.

I'll disagree a bit with Andrew here- I think the best place to kick is on the side of the leg, i.e. your typical Muay Thai match. My reasoning is that your thigh isnt one large muscle but rather a collection of large muscles. Theres a fascea tissue along the side of your leg that works to keep your muscles there together when they contract- hurting this really hurts the leg. The other catch is that by hitting the side of the leg, you can get a shotgun type effect where you can damage many of the muscles in the thigh rather than just your major quad. Take your pick I suppose- I asked the same guys who are teaching me Muay Thai, and thats what they told me. They did say that boxing would be just as good, since the first 6 months of muay thai is boxing techniques anyway, as they are essential. Kickboxing is a general term used to describe any standup striking event where punches and kicks are allowed. Muay Thai is a type of kick boxing. To give an example of another, Savate is also a type of kick boxing, similar to muay thai, but minus the knees and elbows. ISKA kickboxing would also be another type of kickboxing, but fighters wear padding when they fight. boxing or muay thai.

As was explained in an earlier reply, one does not need to be invincible, but should prove to be a competent fighter in the least. Because children dont have the same skill level than grown men do. Just because a kid can throw a kick out there doesnt mean he doesnt have any power behind it, that he knows what hes doing, or that he can teach anyone else the mechanics. Its the same reason why a kid doesnt get a PhD it simply takes so long and so much work to get that by the time you're able to, you're an adult. I shake my head when I see kids with black belts, because they cant fight, but they're black belts like their heros- in their minds they think they can fight. I understand how they get their belts in the first place however, because most of the grown black belts in their academies cant fight either. So, to turn the question around on you, why should you give the kid a black belt? So that you dont hurt his self esteem? I know of two kids who are 17 years old- both have been training since they were infants (the ones father has a picture of him armbarring his teddy bear when he was 2). Both are quite skilled grapplers, but one is a purple belt, the other is a blue belt- purple is the middle rank, blue is the first belt after white- they arent getting their black belts any time soon. If you wonder why most martial arts arent given respect anymore, its because of things like this- handing out black belts at a dime a dozen to people who cant fight. A black belt is supposed to be difficult to earn, its supposed to be something that not everyone can achieve, but to satisfy monetary and self esteem issues, so many schools have overlooked this.

Where do you live? I only ask because I've never seen a pure TKD school that worked on basic ground work and takedowns effectively. The one I have seen that did it had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Im excluding Tiger Schulman, if you're going to consider that TKD.