SubGrappler

Yeah, it really depends how you want to approach this. Some people choose to master a particular phase of the fight (i.e. Chuck Liddel is great striker, Randy Couture is great in the clinch, Frank Mir is great on the ground). Then there are those who go ahead and train at MMA schools, such as Lion's Den for example. They train in everything a little bit at a same. The difference between the fighters is generally this: the ones previously mentioned usually keep the same strategy in all their fights. (Chuck will always try to stand, Couture will always try to G&P, Mir will always try to submit) The advantage of these guys is that they know they're the best at what they want to do. Its very difficult to attain the level of skill these guys have in that aspect of their game by training at a MMA school. As a result, guys who train at these schools often become a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of fighter, though there are plenty of exceptions to this rule. The advantage of these fighters is that they can readily adapt to fight different kinds of fighters (i.e. Im fighting a good grappler, I'll keep it on the feet or Im fighting a good striker, I'll take him down). Take your pick, you cant make a "wrong" choice, so long as you plan in crosstraining. There are many examples of successful strikers, clinch fighters, wrestlers, and submission fighters so go with whatever you desire.

Dillman is a rather.... interesting character. Chicago news did a special on him, or rather one of his most well know students, on his no touch knockouts, and his pressure point strikes. I cant believe those who've put faith in his no touch ko's and his pressure point techniques. The only people Dillmans student could make his technqiues work on was his own students (this included both his no touch and pressure point ko's). I dont know if it was blind luck or not, but they took him to Carlson Gracie's Academy in Chicago where he could try his techniques on people other than his own students. He proceeded to attempt his moves on many of their fighters (UFC fighter Stephan Bonner to name one) and then got his arm dislocated in the training session when his pressure points failed to enable him to escape from armlocks. I despise these kind of people because there are many people who know nothing of martial arts. Everyone has their knowledge either because of trial and error, or through learning from someone else. To suck in people claiming to be able to do what they say they can is just downright atrocious. Someone's going to get killed or seriously injured because of them. The sad part is that after its done, (if it hasnt happened already) they'll still try to find a way to legitimize in their concious what they're teaching.

This is the very emphasis Im trying to make. Once again, in theory, you're very correct. Principals are very usefull things that should often be followed. Now, first thing Im interested in is this statement Once again, this is yet another theory in martial arts that sounds very logical. Physical principles allow many techniques to work, but theres a huge difference between mind and matter. The idea of practicing a move is to get your body to do what you're mind wants it to. There can be so many details to a single technique that its almost ridiculous and those are the times when it pays to have a competent instructor who's qualified in whatever hes teaching. For instance, I know practically all the same principles and techniques that my instructor does, yet he still manages to tap me out. The reason is due to human error. A skilled teacher is going to be able to teach techniques with much more proficientcy than someone less skilled, much the same way a general with combat experience is going to be a much better leader than some recruit fresh out of camp. My instructor has performed the same techinques he taught me thousands of times more than me, which is why he wins. According to your theory, everyone wins, which is impossible. A striker does everything right when his wrestling opponent attempts a takedown, so he shouldnt be taken to the ground. On the other hand, a wrestler shoots in and does everything right, so theres no possible way that his opponent can escape. Thats when it comes down to who's more proficient at the move they're attempting. If a wrestler does everything right in the clinch and a striker does everything right from the same position, who's going to win? The person who's better at their respective move. If the striker is better at breaking the clinch than the wrestler is at finishing the clinch, then he'll break free, and vice versa. Then there is also the the concept of timing as well (i.e. a "well timed shot", or a "perfect punch") which give considerable advantage to whoever executes the move. Martial arts/fighting is a great enigma. Sometimes it can be a complex mental game with so many possibilities. Then there are times when its something pure and simple as a physical skill. Fighting is a physical activity, therefore the physical aspect of it is going to be the most important. I believe the mental aspect of it becomes more and more important the closer in skill the two fighters are.

Its not so much that theres politics in the UFC as it is they have to take care of their fighters. They had BJ on a contract. Suppose he goes over there and fights Duane Ludwig and ends up getting a serious injury that may prevent him from fighting for awhile (say a broken bone, torn ligament, anything that requires surgery, etc). Now, the UFC may have plans for him to fight shortly after, which he would not be able to do if hes injured. As a result, the UFC would lose time and money and dissapoint fans. Its not just UFC that does this- Pride and many other MMA organizations do it as well. For instance, at the time when Dean Lister and Ricardo Arona fought, the Abu Dhabi World Submission Wrestling Championships were being held in California, and both fighters were participants. Arona won the MMA match, and as a result of his contract with Pride, was forbidden from competing in that or any other tournament to assure that he would be healthy for the following round of the Grand Prix which paired him with Wanderlei Silva.

The "lethal" is taken out of it by the referee who stops the fight when a clear cut winner has been established. Good point, the ref is another thing traditional arts don't train for. The ref is there to keep the other guy from being injured beyond what is required to win the fight. If Im in the process of battering my opponents head against the ground and hes on the verge of unconciousness, then we have a clear cut winner. The ref's job is to acknowledge this and break the fighters apart to prevent any further injury. You see I think when I refer to a primarily striking based art vs a primarily grappling based art I am reffering to something different then what you and the other gentleman are reffering to. I'd consider karate a primarily striking based art even though it contains grappling and at least 40% of the art (traditionally) is taugth with it. Strikers grapple enough to get to a position to strike some more. The saying goes that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Karate may teach grappling to an extent, and it may work against other people who do karate or are untrained. The problem is, most people who teach karate grappling have less experience than say a 3 month white belt. It doesnt matter whether it not its "in the curriculim" but rather on the expertise of the instructor. Strikes are in the BJJ and Judo curriculum, but you dont hear anyone claiming that they got their striking skills from those arts. The striker is at the same disadvantage as the grappler is- the rules apply to both. Its much easier for a grappler to eye gouge and bite on the ground than it is for a striker to do the same on the feet, simply because on the feet you have NO control of your opponent (you grab a pressure point or poke an eye, he simply retreats). In order to control your opponent you HAVE to grab him in some manner. Consider also that things such as eye gouges and pressure point attacks require the use of fine motor movements- something easy to address in a controlled setting (your dojo) against an unresisting opponent when everyone is relaxed. As your heart rate increases above say, 120, your fine motor movement skills GREATLY begin to diminish in favor of gross motor movements. Fine motor movements refers to small muscle groups such as those in your hands and fingers- gross refers to large muscle groups, such as your quads, lats, pecs, etc. Basically what this means is that beyond obvious difficulties in performing these moves (i.e. your opponent closes his eyes, hits you back) you've got a whole other set of problems brought on by the adrenaline in your system. The other issue is that people often say "you fight how you train" claiming that MMA'ists dont train deadly techniques therefore dont know how to use them- many fail to look in the mirror- people who practice these techniques only do so against unresisting opponents, which according to the same argument posed by them means they can only pull these moves off when an attacker doesnt resist. How many times have they ACTUALLY used these moves against a fully resisting opponent? Most never have, which means that they still never know if these moves will actually work or not. No argument on your first statement- a striker cant play it safe. If he wants to finish someone, hes got to put some power behind his strikes. As far as hitting those deadly targets and killing your opponent, consider an analogy. In boxing everyone looks for the sweet shot- right on the button of the chin. Now, in order for this technique (or your own for example) to be effective, it has to be in the right spot, at the right time, with the sufficient amount of force. Think about how many punches are thrown in boxing in ratio to how many knockouts/knockdowns you see. Now, it may be possible to make techniques such as a throat strike work in a fight, but they're not going to prove any more effective than a good knockout blow. Of course- I was referring to a specific scenario- if someone shoots on you and you do anything but sprawl, odds greatly favor you getting thrown to the ground. Not everyone theorizes. People do die in fights. I find it intersting that there have been so few deaths in the UFC. But I guess that wouldn't be good for buisness at least not in the long term. Still I firmly believe that if you told both the fighters in the "cage" that only one guy was comming out alive, you'd see a very different fight. There have been no deaths in UFC, and thats the job of the referee to stop the fight when someone wins- theres no sense in beating an unconcious victim- we already know who won the fight. As far as having a deathmatch between fighters, you'd merely see more intensity and more heart- the natrual aspects of the fight wouldnt change that much. You'd still see choke holds, joint locks, punches, kicks, throws, standup work, and groundwork. Funny that in the UFC, an arena with rules and a ref that other sport arts (ones that also trained in an arena with rules and ref) did better in that arena then arts that trained solely for the street. I'll just say that it doesn't come as a big surprise. Perhaps it'll come as a surprise that the first UFC's werent sporting events, and only after it became popular did it evolve more rules and become more of a sporting event. There hasnt exactly been 'MMA invasions" into traditional schools, but there certainly has been BJJ challenges. People fought everywhere before the days of the UFC (including "the street") and the fighters (many of whom where traditional) that didnt include resistance training in their regime faired no better then. Their deadly techniques failed time and time again as they were choked out. If you insist that these techniques can only work in life or death situations, does that mean your forever doomed to be severely beaten in any other case (i.e. someone jumps you outside of a bar). While there are many arts that people consider traditional gaining wide spread popularitly, they cease to be traditional when they begin to cater to the masses. Still even in these arts you can find those who cling to the old ways. They are always the minority though. Bottom line is that traditional martial artists GREATLY outnumber mixed martial artists and sportive martial artists. You'd think that with such a high number of participants, someone would come forward willing to prove what they taught.

I cant say I know much about Tai Kai either, but Im pretty sure that they're Machado affiliates. Personally, I believe that the Machado's are better than their cousins, even though the Gracies get all the hype, the Machado's are much quicker and more willing to experiment and adapt.

Agreed, but "curb stomp" is much quicker and easier to write than "kick the guy in the head after hes unconcious until you cause so much trauma so as to cause his death." Both convey the same idea

Andrew went ahead and explained how each of these is basically a grapplers tool. Bear in mind that UFC is only the premiere MMA event in AMERICA. There are many other events which still hold true to only the basic ruleset of UFC (no biting, no eye gouging). Mecca in Brazil is one such popular event. To briefly explain whats illegal, small joint manipulation never proved effective, hair pulling only works if your opponent has hair (these guys have buzz cuts) pinching someone in a fight is a laughable offense (dont look at the UFC, Nevada State Athletic commision made the rules), headbutts and elbows both produce cuts exceptionally well (and shown by wrestlers/grapplers Mark Coleman, Don Frye, and Matt Hughes) trachea crushing is a paper rule- chokes can do this often neck breaks are legal hooking under the neck is legal popping the ears is legal The "lethal" is taken out of it by the referee who stops the fight when a clear cut winner has been established. As was stated, most of these rules inhibit a grapplers fighting style, while few inhibit a strikers style. Elbows, headbutts, strikes to the spine are ALL grappler tools. What should you do when you fight a grappler? SPRAWL- not eye gouge, not bite, not elbow- these things often end up with you on your back. There have been many tradtitional martial artists who have tried their luck in the cage. You dont see BJJ'er, wrestlers, or anyone else killing someone in there do you? Many people theorize how deadly their hands are, and when actually put to the test, they find many of there techniques are not as reliable as once thought. I have trained in traditional martial arts too- they've got kicks and punches just like everyone else. Do you mean to suggest that a traditional martial artists attacks are so severely limited to deadly techniques that everything else is useless? Bear in mind that with these rules, not only can a traditional martial artist NOT use these deadly techinques, but neither can the other mixed martial artist hes fighting on the other side of the cage. True, it is an opinion, however its a heavily supported opinion. It is a FACT however, that traditional martial artists were far from succeeding as much as the other more sportive martial artists were. I also completely agree about what you said about popularity- you forget that traditional martial arts are much more popular and widespread than mixed martial arts.

I have a problem when people start talking about rules, weapons, and multiples. Yes, there are rules, but the ones people mainly argue about are the eye gouging and biting. I've heard numerous RBSD people and pressure point guys who think they're scary deadly because they're going to go for your eyes or bite you when you grab them- a half decent fighter is going to have knocked them out before they know whats happening. Weapons are another issue. I have never seen any kind of practical attempts at weapon disarms. Multiples are something that every standup martial artist tries to use to justify his system. The very same people who claimed to be able to defeat multiple opponents proved incapable of defeating even a single one when put in the cage. Bear in mind that the UFC did not just blindly pair up strikers with grapplers at every event- there were plenty of striker vs striker battles. And martial arts, while not intially designed for sport, have advanced, improved, and become more efficient when they were developed into sporting competitions. The most popular styles used in today's MMA are all sports (Boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo).

This is true- the rules favor strikers

Chuck would take the fight to anyone in any phase of a fight (ground top, ground bottom, clinch, or standing). Tito and Horn are great grapplers who were unable to take down Chuck because he himself is also a great grappler.

Martial arts have evolved over the centuries in accordance with what was demanded of them. This means that they all came into their own at one point or another and are far from being equal. Take for example, Japanese Ju Jitsu which taught many of the samurai how to utlize their array of weaponry, but after wars died out in Japan, became more and more focused on the unarmed combat aspect of fighting. Boxing started out bareknuckle before gloves were eventually introduced. If you've ever wondered why the old boxers stood and punched weird, it was because the punching technique was slightly different in bareknuckle boxing- punching like boxers of today in a bareknuckle match gives more power, but heightens the risk of fracturing your hand. Now, the UFC was set out to determine in a one on one unarmed match, who is superior? This was a great concept because it allowed martial arts to evolve more over the past 15 years than they have in the past 1000 years. Now, just because specific styles are used in MMA does not mean that all the others dont work. Also bear in mind that not everyone you fight is going to be a trained professional. One thing clearly established by UFC and other MMA events was the massive advantage martial artists could hold over their opponents when they introduced cross training in other styles.

Andrew, Im just pointing out that if wanted, a KO could prove to be just as deadly as say, a throat strike (if you were looking to kill the person.) If the person doing the choking has any idea what hes doing, you'll be unable to bite while being choked. In order to bite, you've got to be able to close your mouth around whatever it is thats choking you- if you've got enough space to do this, then you've got well enough space to simply slip out of the hold. Hey, hes just stating the facts here. Assume we're talking about one dimensional fighters with no cross training. Strikers have tried (and failed) numerous ways to prevent being clinched up and taken to the ground. This doesnt mean striking doesnt work, it simply means that its 10 x easier to force a clinch than it is to prevent one. Once in the clinch, theres an uneven level of skill which usually leads the grappler to winning the clinch and taking the fight to the ground. The other thing you fail to realize is that grapplers arent stupid- they know they'll lose if they trade strikes with an experienced striker, which means they're going to be covering up when they close the distance, making any attempted throat strikes or ko punches much less successfull than if they were exchanging blows. Not true. Mark Hunt, Mirko Cro Cop, and Wanderlei Silva get taken down all the time, and these are the best in the world when it comes to striking. Getting and preventing takedowns is based quite simply on grappling skill- you cant expect to defend one if you've never trained how to against someone that knows what they're doing. Not only that, but bear in mind that many grappling styles train their fighters how to take their opponents to the ground (in fact, this is the mainstay of many grappling styles such as Judo, Sambo, and Wrestling). They practice this every day- theres a reason why they're successful at taking the fight to the ground. If you dont want to get taken to the ground against a grappler, learn how to grapple. Just as if you dont want to get ko'ed by a striker, learn how to strike if you intend on trading blows. In order to throw a ko blow, the striker must commit himself, at which point hes susceptible to a takedown. The reason why people try to dismiss the idea that you dont need grappling training to defend against grappling is because they dont like the idea that after so many years of training, it can all be rendered useless after something as simple and quick as a takedown. This has already happened in MMA evolution- everyone thought striking was initially useless, until the strikers learned how to defend takedowns and fight on the ground and started knocking everybody out.

These are still difficult areas to hit. Most intelligent strikers will fight with their chin tucked and jaw low (so as to protect against a KO). Chances are much higher of knocking someone out than say, killing them with a punch to the throat. Im not saying what you're attempting wont work, Im just saying you'll more than likely end up hitting the guy right on the button rather than in the throat. Someone who doesnt tuck their chin can be dropped with either a shot to the jaw or to the throat- in either case he wasnt thinking. A ko is just as good as a crippling attack- all you need to do is curb stomp your unconcious victim after he falls to gain the same effect. Hyperextending/breaking a limb is exactly what armbars/joint locks do. Thats what they're supposed to do, they werent made to make an opponent tap out. you can't punch?? ugh...sorry man, that sucks. I hope you're a big guy That brings up another topic. There are times that you may be involved in an altercation, but it wouldnt be life threatening. In these cases thats when you feel comfortable being able to incapacitate someone will less serious results.

Sambo is essentially Russian Judo. They wear the kimono tops with shorts rather than pants (this is to encourage wrestling style takedowns as well as throws). Aside from that, main differences are that in Sambo, chokes are not allowed (though armlocks and footlocks are- Sambo is very popular for its kneelocks and footlocks.) Guard does not stop a pin. In Judo, you must get cross side before the pin count starts. In Sambo, the count starts whenever you're on your back, regardless of the position.

The grappler would get in close and protect himself before the puncher even has a chance to unload

If you're in New York, you shouldnt have any problem finding at least one of the following: Judo BJJ Boxing Muay Thai The big question is where exactly in New York are you? Give us a city, and rough indication of where you are. New York is a large state, so these can help us slim down your options.

People who study BJJ for 3 or 4 months and "easily" beat wrestlers are often doing this in BJJ. If a wrestler fought a BJJ fighter in wrestling, he'd do pretty well too. Wrestling doesnt have submissions, so to fight a submission fighters game when you've trained none puts you at a distinct disadvantage. To be specific, where most BJJ fighters find themselves beating their wrestling opponents is either from the guard position or when they manage to get on their opponents back. Both situations are a weak point for wrestlers. At the risk of getting flamed, a Traditional Ju Jitsu black belt is generally about the same level of grappler as a decent white belt in BJJ. Judo does quite well, because they're almost the same thing as BJJ- quite simply they have opposing strategies and different rulesets, but many of the same techniques- they simply dont have the time invested on the ground to keep up with the higher belt levels (they've invested their time in learning how to throw their opponents on their heads) Its not that BJJ or grappling is "magic" but rather that so many martial artists have ignored the ground phase of fighting to such an extreme that they know nothing about it. Think about it this way- moving around on two feet is a natrual thing, because we do it every day. Anyone who's anyone can make a fist and throw it at someone else, so even if they cant do it good, they can mount at least some kind of offense. Movement on the ground, to the contrary, is NOT a natrual thing. How often do you practice moving about while you're on the ground? Of course the person who's only going to have 6 months experience is going to do exceptionally well if they go there with someone who has no experience whatsoever. Its like having a swim meet with two people- one you've been training for 6 months and another who's never even been in the water before. The other aspect too is that most movements that seem natrual or common are often the wrong thing to do against a Jiu Jitsu fighter. In doing them, inexperienced people go from bad to worse. Wrestling is a great grappling style to have experience in. It barely takes any practice to learn how to protect yourself until you enter the clinch where you can use those takedowns. The general concensus is about 2 classes a week for about 6 months. People with that experience can usually mop up anyone else their own weight with no grappling experience.

Howd you do? What division did you end up fighting in?

If the guy just happened to beat him, I wouldnt say that its disrespectful that he only pointed that out. If he sounds like hes a little full of it, then by all means, tell him to put up or shut up. If he refuses to fight you, then you have your answer.

For two reasons. One is that a black belt is not, as you indicated, a determinate of a good 'teacher' and two, because some people prefer to instruct or study over making a significant income. It could also be, because this school is new to the area, that he is providing lower rates at the onset. Etc... Especially in the martial arts, price is absolutely no guarantee of quality. If there were a black belt in BJJ who only charged $50 a month for lessons, that would be absolutely great. Problem is that BJJ is natrually an expensive style to study. Not many people train in it, especially when compared to styles such as TKD, Kung Fu, and Karate. The fewer number of people would natrually yield a need for higher prices. Im not saying that the amount of money you pay directly affects the quality of instruction you get, its simply that $50 is a very cheap price for BJJ and the cheapest black belt instructors I've seen charge at least double that.

I disagree with you there. The Japanese audience is much more knowledgeable of the ground/fighting game than the typical American audience. As a result, they really appreciate a technical grappler who goes to work maneuvering through positions, wearing down his opponent, and looking for the submission. Since most American fans dont know about this stuff, they boo the moment a grappler gets a fight to the ground. As they become louder and more obnoxious, the pressure often gets to the refs (especially the inexperienced ones) to stand the fight up. It is also easier to cut off the ring on a striker in the Pride ring as opposed to the octagon (easier to keep circling in the cage). The cage itself is a two way weapon- people like Liddel can use it to stand up, while people like Ortiz and Hughes will use it to nullifiy an opponents guard (neither of which you can do in Pride).

1) Is there anything specific that I should look for in the Instructor? For such a cheap price, Im going to assume that the instructor is NOT a black belt. Judge him as you would any normal person you just befriended- is he friendly? Does he seem to care about what your interests are? Its also important to see whether or not he spars with or in front of his students. This is a quick and easy way to see if he knows what hes teaching. If you've never seen him compete before or if he refuses to train/spar with or in front of his students, that could be the red flag. 2)Is there anything specific I need to ask the Instructor? Ask him what his name is, what his rank is, and who it is that he recieved that rank from. Most people that are not black belt instructors belong to some sort of association of someone who IS a black belt (i.e. "Im a purple belt instructor and belong to Saulo Ribeiro's Association" would be a typical response). The web site is a bit out of date, but https://www.BJJ.org has made attempts to keep track of all legitimate BJJers. See if you find his name on there, but simply because you dont doesnt mean his not legit (as said, that website is quite out of date) 3) Is there anything that would be different when judging a Jiu-Jitsu school from a Tae Kwon Do school? Jiu Jitsu is not about learning katas or just practicing moves. If you're not doing resistant training everynight, or often at the very least, then you're not in a typical jiu jitsu school. Most schools will also allow you to participate in at least 1 class prior to signing any contracts (to see if its right for you). 4) Is there anything that would be different when judging a Jiu-Jitsu Instructor from a Tae Kwon Do Instructor? Jiu Jitsu is alot about put up or shut up. In other words, its not disrespectfull to see if an instructor can do what he claims to be able to do and it should be commonplace to see him train with his students. 5) What kind of equipment is generally expected? (They said they don’t require a uniform right away) Many schools will have spare kimonos available for those who want to try out an intro class, unless of course hes doing alot of no gi training. Make sure you either buy a Judo kimono or a BJJ kimono (karate and TKD gi's will be torn to shreds). Some people elect to wear cups, mouthpieces, sambo/wrestling shoes, and knee pads or knee braces as they see fit. Get a name, rank, and his instructor and post it on here and we'll most likely be able to find alot of info on him very quickly.

It doesnt matter how many "deadly" techniques a system/ style has if the practitioner cant use them effectively. Techniques regarded as "safe" such as punches, kicks, chokes, or joint locks can have the same effects as those techniques labeled "deadly" If I throw a punch and knock you out, I have the option of stomping you to death afterwards, yielding the same effect as say, a move designed to break your neck. The same could be said for a choke, all one would need to do is hold on after your opponent passes out. All techniques taught can have deadly consequences. Basically put, when people talk about "deadly" techinques vs "safe" techniques they're referring to techniques that can be safely use in sparring (ex: chokes)vs those that can not (ex: eye gouge)

Practice seppeku first and foremost.