SubGrappler

Try this one: http://lancaster.citysearch.com/yellowpages/directory/Lancaster_PA/150/323/page1.html Theres another guy by the name of Brad Souders who teaches out around the York/Lancaster area and is himself an amateur fighter. Only ones I can find

The only thing that was particularly sloppy about the attacker in that fight was that he used no setup and telegraphed his takedown attempt. This is kinda irrelevant though, since even though he telegraphed, the defended didnt know what to do anyways. As far as real fighting goes, its not always nice and neat and shows great technique. Lots of times it is ugly, nasty, and by no means pretty. There are lots of fighters who otherwise show great technique in a gym or whatnot, but look rather ugly when put on the spot.

Then stay away from Dux Ryu

I seriously hope you dont train in Dux Ryu Ninjitsu...............

A neck "lock" is a neck crank. Strikes are in the Judo curriculum as well, but they're still not legal.

Im pretty positive that neck cranks (which is what you're talking about) are quite illegal in Judo. Strangleholds and joint locks at the elbow (and bicep cutters) are the only legal submissions in Judo I believe.

You're making an assumption based on MMA events. In an MMA event (the early ones particularly) you had no time limits and a one on one fight with another opponent who often did not have ground experience- in this situation, of course its great to take it to the ground. The reason why you see alot of self defense on the feet in a BJJ class is because regardless that most fights end up on the ground, practically all of them start on the feet. The whole idea behind BJJ is "maximum efficiency with minimum effort." Take into account to that all fights do not take place like they do in the cage where both fighters start from 20 feet apart and come out ready to engage. Sucker attacks are very common (i.e. a sucker punch, a quick tackle, or a quick headlock). Now in the instance someone decides to put you in a headlock on the feet, a regular sport only BJJ fighter would most likely be able to break the hold, take the guy down, achieve a dominant position, and either submit or pound the opponent to a pulp, but this wouldnt fit in with the philosophy of maximum efficiency minimum effort when you look at simple counters such as into an armlock or choke that can be executed on the feet.

Acrobatic, yes. Martial artist with control of techniques, highly debatable, and my vote would be no. I said he was an acrobat- not a fighter

If he got beat and realized the importance of being a well rounded fighter (on the feet and on the ground) he may have fought the best fight of his life, since hes young enough to cross train for a long time. There are people 2-3 times his age who still havent figured this one out

Check the yellow pages =)

The wrist grab was a setup, not an attack. No one would have had the time to apply any kind of wrist lock that would have made the difference. When escaping from basic holds, its the general assumption that the person holding you is actually trying to do so. That particular wrist grab was weak, and the guy who was grabbed could have simply pulled his wrist away but that is what the guy intended to happen with the wrist grab- distract him from the main attack. Guillotine Chokes are applicable when your opponent shoots in on your with a poor base. You'll notice that he had good posture when he shot in, which does a good job of negating the guillotine, not to mention that a guillotine wont work too well if your opponent gets that much penetration on his takedown attempt. Now I understand what you're seeing. There is all the difference in the world between a bum tackle, which you often see in a fight between inexperienced fighters, and a double leg takedown. Yes, the takedown was attempted from far away and could have been executed much better, but a sloppy double leg is 10 x better than the best tackle you could manage to throw. If you compare the two techniques, often when someone attempts a tackle, they bend over at the waist, putting the lifting pressure on their backs and exposing their neck/head to attacks such as chokes, headlocks, and strikes. A double leg is executed by a level change which is done at the knees rather than the waist. The spine and neck are kept in alignment which puts the lifting pressure on the legs and body as a whole as opposed to your back (which is why you can see wrestlers picking up people who are in greater size). Not only this, but the takedown from a double leg is "finished" (i.e. the guy is dumped on his back) when you manage to get under him. A tackle attempts to lift and opponent from far out with outstretched arms. Imagine someone seeing a sloppy haymaker punch and saying "hey, thats a karate punch!" imagine how many differences you could point out between a good punch and a poorly thrown one

To be quite honost, the very moment you're trying to force the clinch is the point where you're vunerable. I'm covering up when I go in, so the chances of me being knocked out are slim. Basically that means Im worried about the sprawl because it shows my opponent has knowledge of ground fighting. Not only that, but if hes defended well (say with a front headlock) then once again Im in trouble either from knees from the front headlock position, or when I try to regain my feet. Its easy to brave your way through a couple of strikes if you're assured you can get the fight to the ground. If you dont know if you can get the fight to the ground, the worst part is getting tired as you attempt the takedowns. Getting tired makes you lazy, and getting lazy gets you knocked out.

Its not that BJJ or grappling in general is the "Ultimate Martial Art" but more along the lines of they know best how to defeat their own moves. The old adage "I'll just kick them in the face before they grab my legs" has been used many times, but it simply has not proven effective in over hundreds of mixed martial arts shows when it was attempted by standup fighters who said that very same thing. There certainly is something to do about when a grappler shoots at your legs- you sprawl out. When he attempts to regain his feet, you go to a Thai clinch and throw a knee into his face ala Vanderlei Silva. Not only do you lose energy and miss the takedown, but he makes you pay for missing the takedown by landing a heavy knee. If you're actually managing to hit your opponents in the head with a knee as they shoot in, I'd have to question their wrestling. Beyond that is a more important question though- does this knee to the face stop the takedown? Absolutely agree there- the problem, as you said, is people who think that a grappler is only allowed to grapple. I was reminded of a time when my instructor took a kung fu fighter up on a challenge that he couldnt be taken down. After he easily took him down, the kung fu fighter natrually demanded a rematch (they always do.....) and took up a very low stance with his arms down to defend his legs from a shot attempt. My instructor started to creep in, and proceeded to wind up and slap the hell out of the guys face, which surrised him rather well. Its not the question of whether you're going to start throwing strikes or not, but rather from where it is that you're going to throw them. The clinch is a grappling position as opposed to a striking position. Much like the ground, the effectiveness of your strikes depends heavily on the position you have on your opponent. If you do not know how to move/proceed on the ground (or in this case, the clinch) you'll often find yourself going from a bad position to one even worse. For example, if you start throwing punches at the head with reckless abandon, you're going to allow your opponent to get double underhooks unless you somehow know how to defend that position. Once there, he has control over you, your weight, and your balance- all of which you need in order to strike effectively. Dont take this as saying that striking is not effective in the clinch or shouldnt be used. It has proven very effective and has been a route to many peoples victories, however there are times when striking techniques are appropriate and grappling techniques are appropriate. In the instance of a clinch, you need basic grappling skills to know how to fight in the clinch rather than just fighting with your heart. Im not debating how fast or how hard you can kick- I've seen many people who were rather exceptional when it came to fighting on their feet, but theres a difference between initiating and reacting. Whoever initiates is going to have the odds slightly in his favor. This of course changes if the move performed is done so poorly, or if the opponent is anticipating the move. A shot is done when one is close enough to touch his opponent. Contrary to popular belief, shots should not be attempted if you can not reach your opponent with your hand. This distance is often deemed too far and a waste of energy. The mere physics of it are impossible- your weight is situated across both your feet. You have to shift your weight to one side of your body, prime your attack, and manage to kick your leg out to meet your opponent before he can cover less than two feet of space when he initiated the move. Not only that, but you have to mange to hit him and hit him hard enough to stop his momentum and either knock him out or knock him senseless. This simply is not a good move to rely on based on percentages. Possible, but there are variables. Generally, a striker is going to attempt to knock a fighter out on his feet. At the moment one commits to a strike, if it is successfully blocked (as many fighters will cover up when attempting a clinch) there is that brief moment when the clinch is going to have to be addressed, and breaking free from the clinch is neither a difficult thing nor an easy thing, but it is still something that needs to be practiced just like every other technique in your arsenal. The clinch is a relatively easy thing to force in a fight- I've never seen a fighter successfully defend against someone trying to clinch. This does not mean that people are always taken to the ground, or that they even manage to hold the clinch for an extended period of time, but rather that they can get there far easier than their opponent can keep them from doing it. Even a fighter such a Mirko Cro Cop, who has absolutely amazing grappling defense (and striking skills), still has to fight to break free of the clinch when fighters grab him. This is the reason why traditional striking arts (and striking arts in general) did so poorly in the early days of MMA. It wasnt because the grapplers are more talented or because they trained in a superior martial art. It was because they (the grapplers) knew their opponents didnt know anything about fighting in the clinch, whereas they spent a great deal of time training there. They'd force a clinch, get the mismatch, and take the fight to the ground. Now that everyone crosstrains, both striking and grappling art just as important in a fight, and anyone who neglects either will most likely pay dearly for it in their fights. Of course you can- there are always variables in a fight, but just because you find a technique that has worked in the past against a mediocre opponent doesnt mean its the right one. If you train for the worst case scenario, the best things will happen for you. Imagine that you're training for a guy who HAS a good shot and good setups (such as a skilled wrestler) where a sprawl is a much better option. Just the same would be for me to assume Im fighting a striker I cant take down and who has superb hands- the more I work my hands, the better my chances of surviving on my feet. Let me try to give you an example. I dont know how much you know about grappling positions and submissions, but in grappling events, it is considered a beginners mistake to attack someone from inside the guard (these are grappling events- no striking) with chokes or armlocks, since you actual open yourself up for the very same attacks back, which your opponent (despite being on his back) is in a better position to apply. So, assume you're in a grappling match and you stand up and throw a choke on someone from inside his guard, he taps out, and you win your division- the technique worked for you then, but an intelligent fighter would fix his mistake for when he fights someone who knows what they're doing from their back, he'll find that same technique that seemed to work so well fail miserably.

I disagree. It is exceedingly effective for many reasons. These are not useless punches, if you keep it in context as to what it is attempting, and almost always succeeds in doing. It is an overwhelm technique that is geared towards taking over the confrontation and causing the opponent to switch to 'defense.' Im not discounting chain punching, but rather poor chain punching. Many of the people I've seen who claim to be wing chun practitioners have no power behind their chain punches, which, just like a jab that has no power behind it, are almost useless. This seems to be the apparently problem with many of the wing chun practitioners I've seen as they sacrifice power for speed to make a martial art look cooler or more devestating to potential students. Its not just getting hit that puts someone on the defense, but rather its getting hit hard.

Happens when people get into quarrels over who's style is better (such as the old Ju Jitsu schools of Japan which lead to Kano's Judo) Theres lots of BJJ schools in Virginia and the surrouding areas. Richmond Top Team is down around there just as one of Saulo Ribeiro's affiliates and team Lloyd Irvin. Go tell them that you're going to kick someone in the face when they shoot in on you- Let me put your argument into context for you- when I box against Roy Jones Jr, he'll never hit me because everytime he throws a jab Im going to just back up so it doesnt hit me. If Im constantly running away, it works- if I try to back up as he throws the jab- it'll never work. Its legal in MMA- and I've seen it work once in over 10 years...... I encourage you to go to a school that teaches some sort of groundfighting or submission wrestling. Look preferably for a BJJ school and tell them your theories on how to prevent the takedown, and its very possible to do this in a respectful manner as well ("hey, I want to see how my techniques will hold up- can we spar?") Heres one more thing that many people dont take into account about the dreaded double leg takedown- a grappler doesnt always have to throw it. If I say Im going to shoot and you expect it, you're going to have a much better chance at defending it. There are many other possibilities. Any intelligent fighter will survey the situation- if a shot attempt isnt available, he can go into a clinch, or if hes overly protective of a grappling technique he could *gasp* HIT YOU BACK! He doesnt need to grab your arms- he simply needs to grab you I would respectfully suggest you do the same.

Im dying to hear what these are.....

It really depends on the law of the state. In most places you are allowed to come to someone's aid, but you may only match force with the person attacking them and not exceed it. For instance, just because the guy is being "disrespectful" in the way he talks doesnt give you the right to clock him. If he decides to hit someone, you cant stab/shoot him and you have to show that you stopped when there was a clear break in the conflict (showing an effort by you to escape). So, by that measure, if someone starts to physically threaten you, and I punch the guy in the face and drop him (and we both split) we're in the clear. If I drop him, hang around to run my mouth, and decide to further beat him up (or if I kick him while hes down) thats when the trouble is going to start.

double post

Forget about who he'd fight and who he could have fight- Bruce was the worlds first true mixed martial artist, and if he were alive today, the UFC would be what he envisioned martial arts to be.

WC gets a bad rep when they try to overanalyze a fight. For instance, to emphasize only speed when you chain punch at the expense of power is going to lead to a combination of useless punches. The great thing that wing chun has is the centerline theory, because it works quite well. Dont get too caught up in "proving" that wing chun can be used in competitions- I have already seen wing chun practitioners fight at lower level and local MMA events. Quite simply, you dont see anything new out of the fight when they go in there. A punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. Trapping has its limitations when the punch you're attempting to trap is being followed by another right behind it. As far as using Bruce Lee as an argument for Wing Chun, he left the style to create his own because he felt it had various holes and lacked sufficient training for actual fights after he had trained in it and attempted to use it in a fight. As far as reading the rules in a tournament and how you cant hit the throat or the groin (which is apparently the only thing holding karate guys back from decimating UFC events) bear in mind that your opponent cant do it to you either (as if no one ever thought to hit someones groin in a fight) and striking the throat is only illegal in UFC- just one of many mixed martial arts venues.

I'd still disagree- a kid under 16 is not going to be able to defend himself against a grown man- period. As far as not watering down the martial art, you dont notice because the style has already been watered down from so many teenagers/kids in the past who have already recieved their black belts.

Close enough to punch/kick is close enough to grab- to prevent the clinch, you'd literally have to run away, in which case its no longer a fight You wouldnt even have time to think front kick if someone tried a double leg takedown on you. Before the kick is even chambered you'd be on your back. Grapplers do not attempt takedowns from 10 feet out, arms spread open and diving in at the legs. Takedowns are setup with punches, feigns, and level changes at a range that is the same where punches and kicks are used. The only defense to a shot attempt is a sprawl, that is if you want to stay on your feet. Just make him angry without hurting him? I dont think you've EVER trained in any type of submission martial art. Submission holds are not pain compliance holds. Choke holds will render your opponent unconcious in a matter of seconds. Joint locks will dislocate/break the joint you're attacking. The reason why you see people tap out is because they're caught in these submissions. The pain you feel is just a nice little side effect- you bones breaking, your ligaments tearing, and your muscles being hyperextended are what cause the pain. After someone has broken your arm in two, its safe to say that regardless of how good your striking skills may be, you're no longer a threat to knock him out when you no longer have any use of your arm.

It depends on how often you're training (like how many times a day, how many days a week). Dont get so caught up in it in such a short time. I believe it was Jean Jaques Machado who said that blue belt is the most important belt in terms of how frequent you train. Everything you're seeing in terms of techniques and all the little suttleties you're picking up WILL eventually come back to you. Whether you can remember it off the bat or not is irrelevant- it will come back the one day you slap yourself in the forehead and say "oh yeah!" Beyond that, take into account that fighting the people in your gym is (or should) be much more difficult than fighting people in a tournament. The people in your gym know the kind of game you play, and will probably have their game altered in some way to best fight against yours. This is natrual and the only way to address it is to train more than they are. Whoever takes the initiative and dedicates themselves to training more often will always be one step ahead of their peers.

The only people I've seen from Pride get paid in the millions (or close to it) are the Gracies- particularly Rickson and Royce (due to his fame from early UFC). I also do not think the UFC pays fighters that little, not for actual events anyways (Im talking about actual PPV events, not TUF finales). Overall, the last time I checked up on fighters salaries, it went something like this: UFC: for your first 3 fights in UFC, fighters salaries averaged between $3000 and $5000 Well known fighters, such as Carlos Newton, Robbie Lawler, and Evan Tanner (and any others in that group) can make anywhere between $40,000- $80,000 a fight. Champions such as Randy Couture and Tito Ortiz made somewhere between $120,000 and $150,000 with win bonuses as high as $80,000 Pride: First couple of fights, fighters averaged $20,000 Champions such as Silva and such made as much as $200,000 a fight. I may be a bit off, its been awhile since I checked up on it, but I believe the numbers to be about right. The UFC can almost offer as much cash to its champions as Pride can, but due to the overwhelming popularity of MMA in Japan vs USA, Pride has a LOT more money to throw around and can afford to have an entire card of higher quality fighters, whereas UFC would most likely never be able to afford to pay all their top fighters for one event. Pride also has a chance of putting together your dream matches of the old school fighters, because they can dish out almost $500,000 for Royce Gracie to fight (whereas thats about the total paycheck for a UFC event)

I think giving black belts to kids is what led to the watering down of martial arts in the first place. Im of the opinion that one must be an adult (at least 18) before being eligible for a black belt. In my eyes, martial arts are supposed to be viewed as self defense (as many people try to turn it into some sort of religion) and promoting someone to what should be a coveted rank gives that person grave misconceptions about being able to defend himself. In other words, a kid will not be able to defend himself against a grown man, but he may have been persuaded otherwise because of his black belt. A black belt should have the required tools to teach and understand his martial art and should also possess the physical skills to an exceptional degree of what it is hes becoming a black belt in. In other words, he'd better be pretty good at sparring, fighting, or teaching.