SubGrappler

not true at all. You do see tkd & shotokan guys fighting in the mma, they're just not as common. As I said, it's how you train the style, not the style itself. The way you practice is also often a trademark of whatever specific style you train in. For example, most people know that grapplers, boxers, and muay thai fighters train full contact with plenty of resistance- Most people also know, however, that when you mention karate, TKD, or Kung Fu, you're talking about point sparring (this does not mean ALL styles). So now, if you take a karate guy and start training him full contact, then by all means he could make quite a good striker- It happens a lot quite actually, but the reality of full contact fighting does not support karate's "one strike one kill" doctrine. As a result, a karate fighter would start throwing combinations, at which point EVERY karate fighter in the world goes out and say "look- hes not using karate- hes doing boxing/kickboxing." I hear it all the time- people (Not referring to you) say that K-1 and MMA events are just "thugs" who have no technique but are tough. When you bring up names like Andy Hug and Semmy Schilt though, suddenly these guys have skill and are proof that karate works in a fight (though this apparently doesnt apply fighters from other styles). Bottom line is that styles matter- a karateka is NOT going to be able to teach you how to fight on the ground like a BJJ fighter will- a boxer cant teach you how to take someone down like a wrestler can. The opposite is also true when learning how to strike. If styles meant nothing, then there would have been just as many successful pure strikers in the early days of MMA as there were wrestlers and BJJ fighters.

What "seasoned" martial artists do you know that have actually trained the defense against a double leg? Not only trained the defense against it, but have ACTUALLY done so against someone who knows what they're doing (i.e. a seasoned wrestler or grappler). A grapple attack (shot, leg pick, clinch up) is like any other attack (punch, kick, elbow). To say that a "seasoned" martial artist is never to fall victim to a double leg is like saying that hes also never going to get hit in a fight. If you square off against someone who has thrown 10,000 single leg takedowns in his career and you havent actually tried to defend against a single leg- you're going down.

You're in Chicago- take a look at Carlson Gracie's Academy

When most people prepare for a fight, they often train for the worst, not the best. This means you'll often see guys training to escape the mount and back mount more often than you'll see them working their finishing skills from those positions (and for good reason too). If you mess up when you have the mount, it sucks, but it never really costs you in a fight- if you mess up when you're defending the mount, you lose.

You're not going to keep a grappler "at bay" with jabs or kicks. The range required to shot in on an opponent is the same required to punch or kick- in other words, if you can touch your opponent, thats when you know you're close enough to shoot for a takedown- any further away and you dont have a chance for a takedown (unless you're Mark Kerr ) In boxing and kickboxing there is a such thing as "kicking range" and "punching range." In MMA, you're either in range to attack or not. A puncher will always prefer to punch- jabs from a distance, hooks in close. A kicker will always prefer to kick- roundhouse kicks from a distance, knees from in close, and a grappler will always prefer to grapple- shots from a distance, clinch from in close. (in close= the clinch). Lennox Lewis can do what he does because there are rules against clinching in boxing. The boxers he fought such as Mike Tyson, wouldnt have a problem with getting in close on him so much as they had a problem getting in close and hitting him.

It makes the knuckles much tougher, no doubt, but the second century of evidence would show an awful lot of arthritis.

Sure its possible, but when I say "rush in and clinch" Im talking about from a close distance. At best, a striker is going to get a chance for one good shot. This does not mean hes only able to throw one attack, it just means hes only able to throw one good attack. A clinch and a shot attempt are executed from the same range as punches and kicks are, and they are often setup. Now something like body shots is often something thats reserved for wearing your opponent down and not so much knocking him out (not to say that it doesnt happen). Someone clinching is going to be covering up in anticipation of blows, so most will end up hitting his guard. In the event you manage to hit him, you've got to do it hard enough that you knock him out, which is going to be rather difficult. Uppercuts are usually set up from within the clinch. As was stated, no one is going to run in at you like a bull from 10 feet away. The chances of someone throwing a successfull uppercut precisely at the time the other tries to clinch is almost in the same boat as claiming you'll simply knee/kick the person in the head when they attempt to shoot in for a takedown. Once again, its possible, but once again, your opponent is also covering up. An uppercut will still most likely hit his guard and elbows which will most likely not succeed in knocking him out or detering him from finishing for the takedown. If hes under your arms, he has an underhooks situation which gives him far greater control over you than you over him. I demonstrated this on my brother who literally weighs twice as much as me, yet when I have underhooks and he has overhooks, Im in control. What you're referring to is often called a "thai clinch" since Muay Thai is what made it popular. Fighters often get there when their opponent has a weak posture and isnt close to your hips. For example. Wanderlei Silva uses this clinch often in MMA, but he uses it often when people attempt to shoot for a takedown on him. After sprawling out and creating distance between his hips and his opponent, he'll THEN proceed to grab the head and look for knee strikes. To make effective use of this clinch, it requires that your hips are kept far from your opponent (watch when someone throws knees in MMA from this clinch- they'll pull the head down, walk their hips back, and then deliver the knees). As you can see, theres a great deal of technique required to both get to this position and use it effectively. Only after defending the initial clinch and takedown attempt do you see fighters like Silva utilize this method of attack. Possible, but your opponent is going to have his agenda too. To do all those things on a trained fighter is going to be quite difficult- you cant plan too far ahead in a fight, because you never know what your opponent will do.

Ah ha! Take a combination of things when you throw a punch- your opponent is moving- he has his chin tucked, decreasing your area for a good punch or he may even lower his head and trying to run at you like a bull. Now, you're not trying to hit the top of his head but: 1: You end up throwing a hard punch with intentions of knocking him out 2: Your opponent decides to drop his head down and force a clinch (you're opponent's got his agenda and gameplan too). 3. The target you initially wanted to hit (the jaw, front of the face) is no longer in the same spot- rather you've got a hard forehead and dome of the skull in the way. At this point, you either make contact with the forehead or dome of the skull while you're throwing full force- Something needs to give to absorb the impact of the blow- its bone on bone. I guarentee you his head isnt going to break. or You try to correct your punch halfway through to make contact with his face. The result is that your shoulder, elbow, and wrist are no longer aligned since you threw a cockeyed punch. With the misalignment, once again something has to give in order to absorb the blow- the very small bones in your wrist are the most likely to give before your elbow, shoulder, hands, or your opponents face.

Many people are starting to jump on the wagon in preferring side control to the mount ever since Bas Rutten said that he thinks side control is better. Its much easier to set up your submissions from the mount and back than it is from cross side or half guard. To put it simply- you need to practice your mount more. Take a comparison between fighters- Fedor Emilianenko and Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira. Both have great submission skills and both have fought Mirko Cro Cop who was desribed as being at a blue belt level. Fedor could get side control, but was never able to do anything from there in his fight. Nogueira gets the mount, and within a minute finishes the fight. Theres a lot more pressure on your opponent when you have him mounted or have his back. You also have far better striking options from there. Striking from the cross side isnt as efficient, since you really need to hold your opponent with your hands (your legs do this from the mount). There is the option of knee strikes from side control, but I believe they give too much a chance for the bottom guy to escape to guard or back to the feet. The reason why you'll find yourself having more success in cross side and half guard than mount or back is because: 1. you're fighting from those positions much more often and 2. you havent practiced your mount and back mount enough. I myself am just starting to get a good mount- its difficult to do when you're a beginner, because you have to get there in the first place before you can start to work it when you're training. When you're a beginner, you're not going to be mounting hardly anyone, whereas a more experienced guy can easily get himself to a position that he wants to work on (mount or back mount for example).. With as little time you're going to spend fighting from the mount and back when you're a beginner, its no wonder you're going to be losing the position often- you didnt quit throwing armbars because you couldnt make it work the first couple times you tried it did you?

Yeah side control is probably the most common way to catch the position. You'll see it more in grappling tournaments, mostly gi. To maintain the position in no gi and MMA is rather difficult because of the lack of grips.

I can understand how wrapping the hands can protect the hands from impact injury by promoting the rigidity of the finger joints and wrist, but I cannot understand how it can make you hit harder. Hitting harder depends on the acceleration of the punching arm, putting the body mass behind your punch, rotating or vibrating the hips and other biomechanical motions needed to achieve maximum acceleration of the punch. You're missing one thing as well- surface area. When comparing the impact of something, you need to take into account its surface area and that of the target. This is why when you swing a knife it cuts, but when you swing a flapjack (a handheld lead filled piece of leather about the size of a knife) it knocks people out. The same is said when comparing a baseball bat with a samurai sword. Lets assume Im wearing a helmut that's going to protect me from the fatal wound of a sword. You swing the samurai sword at my head, and then follow up with the Louisville Slugger- which is going to have a better chance of knocking me out? These are extreme comparisons, but you get at what Im saying. Gloves are an advantage towards the strikers, and any fighter that would insist on not wearing a pair of the 4 oz ones they give you when you step into the ring is not a very intelligent one. I'd advise you to pick up a pair of these gloves whenever you get the chance. Seriously people, the gloves are FOUR OUNCES- they're not the rock em' sock em' pillow punchers you pick up at the mall. Try to find someone to spar with, full contact, with and without the gloves and I'll guarentee you that you'll start fighting with the gloves on. Jump?

There is no way to protect the hands with pads which do not weaken the impact of punches. Not true. By using gloves, you increase the surface area of the punch, which actually gives you a better chance of knocking someone out. Any striker who trains in some form of MMA or full contact knows full well the reasons for using the gloves. Im serious when I tell you to go rent a UFC video (suggest the first one for this debate) and watch how many fighters will break their hands when they start throwing. Once you break your hand, you're not going to be punching with too much power anymore. Instances of KO's went UP after the introduction of gloves, not down

Please offer what leads you to believe that the UFC competitions favor grapplers over strikers. Is this an observation you've made after watching many events, or is this the opinion you heard of someone else? Sure it does. There are martial artists pulled in from every possible venue to fight. You cant claim to be the best, or even among the best, if you cant somehow validate your claims. Its like Muhammed Ali saying "Im the best ever" and never stepping into the ring. You can, however, claim to be the best if you fight all those who challenge you and leave that challenge open to any and all comers who wish to take you up on it. It is true that many people have no desire for competitions. Even most BJJ practitioners (which has the label of being UFC hungry power mongrels) have no desire to do any form of mixed martial arts. Now, as far as a fighter losing and not the style, this is true.... to an extent. If I bring together two anonymous fighters- one striker, one grappler- and have them fight, just because one loses doesnt mean their style is ineffective or that they dont know how to fight. This is the basis of any scientific experiement- the more times you repeat your experiment, the more valid your claims become. If instead of only two people, I bring together a hundred, or perhaps a thousand people, then my results will eventually start to be more and more realistic. This is what happened in the early days of mixed martial arts competition- it wasnt just one particular fighter who was unable to make work, but it was a collection of fighters who all met a similar fate. After all that evidence builds up, it starts to point to a conclusion, which was that some styles were superior to others when they were isolated. There were many competitors who had "legit" lineages. I feel that if these MMA competitions would have been around when karate and ju jitsu were being established, you wouldnt have as many hacks as you claim. Be serious- it was no rules unarmed combat- what does having a bat or gun have to do with learning how to punch, kick, and grapple? Also note that the strikers did not fair well in the early competitions at all. People began to make the assumption that striking arts were obsolete after seeing grapplers defeat them time and time again (these assumptions were premature however, as time saw strikers cross train and learn how to defend against takedowns and how to defend themselves on the ground- then we would see the strikers start to defeat the grapplers). More emphasis was placed on the ground fight because thats where most of the fights went, even if the two fighters happened to be strikers. The evidence was piling up after a few events, and it showed that strikes were not as effective as keeping someone from getting a hold of you as previously thought. Very true, but that doesnt change what happens in the UFC. The UFC asked a single question- which style of martial arts is the best- if a bunch of martial artists who were considered masters in their respective arts were brought together and squared off against each other, who would win? In doing so, it started to set standards for fighting styles, and after awhile there was a clear heirarchy of styles that were having success as opposed to those that werent. Define what you mean by "worked." They may be effective, but were no more effective than a punch from a good puncher, and were far from being the fight enders they were once thought to be.

If you cant prove something, it makes credentials a little difficult. Without any facts whatsoever, who becomes a leading authority on what proper "chi" usage is and isnt? How can one person discredit another, or credit himself with anything when there is no medium established? Believing the world is round and believing in chi are two completely different things. Its a known fact that the world is round. Your analogy would be better suited this way- Believing in chi is similar to believing in religion.

Very much agreed with Andrew and Warlock- in keeping a back stance like the one you described, you've got no chance whatsoever to sprawl. Your front leg would be easy pickings.

This is not a good idea Ben, for a few reasons. 1: A low stance with your feet rooted in the ground makes you easy to take down. You'd rather be light on your feet, which enables you to quickly sprawl. 2: In the event that a grappler manages to catch a hold of your legs when he shoots in, no amount of striking is going to enable you to escape. Sprawl out, twist your hips, and fight to get distance between your hips and your opponent. You dont have the effective range to build up power for your strikes to hurt your opponent enough to get him to let go of your legs, and you'll also be off balance to an extent that your strikes will have no power behind them. 3: Reaching for vital areas is not a new technique or suggestion. If you do not know how to fight on the ground, I woudl suggest avoiding doing any of these, since you'll most likely be exposing yourself from a bad position, giving your opponent better submission opportunities. Its not very difficult- takedowns are how to deal with strikers, and grapplers know well enough to cover up and protect as they go in for the clinch. He got a little ahead of himself- its not a fact that a grappler wins every time all the time, but it IS a fact that a pure grappler defeats a pure striker upwards of about 90% of the time You had a great post until there. First off, the padded mats- who's going to be the one who's getting picked up and slammed on the ground- the wrestler by the karateka or the karateka by the wrestler? If its on concrete, and the wrestler picks up the karateka Matt Hughes style, the fight is over when he puts him through the ground. When asked whether he wanted to fight on mats or on concrete in the early days of the Gracie Challenege, Rorion Gracie used to respond to his opponents "that depends- do you want to land on a mat, or do you want to land on concrete?" As far as padding the hands, this is to prevent strikers from breaking their hands- a very common occurance in early MMA events. Gloves allows fighters to punch as hard as they can with no fears of breaking their hands. The padding protects the hands from the head, not the head from the hands. Pure striker vs pure grappler? Sure it can- watch any number of early MMA events that had fights featuring these types of matches. Perhaps if you dont know what you're doing. The first time a person even attempts to put his hands close to my groin, hes going to get caught in a triangle and choked unconcious.

Its not uncommon for people to convulse and seize up when they get knocked unconcious- perhaps thats what happened. If you've ever seen anyone get choked unconcious, the same thing happens for a few seconds, and then the person simply wakes up and everything stops. Getting a good shot on the jaw or getting choked out gives your head a massive brain fart- its like a nintendo game that keeps blinking on the opening title and only needs a little push of the reset to get everything back in order.

There are many types of tournaments, so its hard to be specific. The best thing you can achieve that I believe to be universal among all tournament goers is getting used to the adrenaline dump. Fighting becomes a whole different situation when that happens- the more experience you have in it the better.

I enjoyed it for the brief time I trained in it. My biggest problem with the style was no punches to the head.

The first thing I would try to do is hook up with someone in your area who maybe shares the same interests as you. Nothing beats a training partner, so only go solo if you're unable to find anyone else.

Even if you're NOT holding on to your opponent and someone comes to his aid you're still going to be beaten by his friends. So, in the event that someone attempts to hold you for one of his friends to pound on you, you'd be happy if you knew how to grapple so that you'd know how to escape from his hold.

Today, we see who trains hardest. In the initial competitions, we saw which worked best when one wasn't prepared for the other. a grappler with no striking training vs a striker with no grappling training. The grapplers proved that it's easier than most people think it is to take a person down. Doesn't mean it's the best, but it opened the eyes of the general public to some things. Take us as an example: I know because u told me, you train like an athlete. I'm a normal college sutdent whi just happens to train whenever he has the chance. If we were to fight, you would have the advantage right off the bat just because you train like an athlete, I dont. If we trained exactly the same, we would both have the same chance of winning the fight. The nature of the style is very much responsible for this though. For instance, when I group my entire workout schedule together (lifting weights and training) most of my time is by far spent training. The reason why I have the endurance and strength I do is because I have to fight every night. The same is said for a boxer, a muay thai fighter, or a wrestler who trains often. The inherent nature of the martial art is going to produce tougher fighters because they have tougher workouts.

Im not dismissing the notion of politics in the UFC- Im just saying theres a very logical reason why MMA events try to keep their fighters from going to other events while under contract.

Basically, I believe that Lloyd sat down and figured out a precise set of techniques and when to train them in order to meet maximum results. For example, you go to a typical BJJ class, it seems you learn moves at random- Lloyd Irvin I believe put some method to the madness to get you working on the techniques that can best improve your game. I cant explain in too much detail- I dont follow it, but check out https://www.lloydirvin.com if you dare to be spammed by email........

The only thing more annoying then people making certain claims is when you ask them to back up their talk. "I can knock you out before you even touch me" when asked to prove it.... "I can only fight if its a life or death situation- sport fighting is dishonorable." I guess this means they're doomed to forever be picked on by any bully or drunk bar patron, so long as his doesnt brandish a knife or gun.