McBeth

While Adonis already pointed this out, I wanted to reiterate that if you watch the whole video (when it begins in the water), the surfer brought it all on himself. He was asked to move to a different section of the water because of a surf competition. In fact he was told 3x. He refuses. At that point one of the local surfers came out to talk with the guy and the gringo takes a swing at him. The two fight in the water; the gringo gets beat and finally agrees to call it quits and head to shore. Then like an idiot he approaches the other locals. And rather than calling it quits, he decides to maddog one of the locals (but can't back it up). At that point, he gets his second beating (which you saw on that clip). Personally, I think the locals were being nice. If that boy tried that in Rio De Janero (another big surfing locale), he'd be beaten far worse 'cause no one would intervene to stop the fight. They'd all just watch.

Just because you see a technique in countless junior or senior high school fights or in a bar fight doesn't mean it isn't a viable technique. I've seen sloppy technique too but it still achieves the end result - the opponent's on the ground and you're on top. The problem is that most people who attempt a leg takedown of this sort do it improperly. There is a correct way and an incorrect way to apply the technique. You don't just bend at the waist and rush the guy (though even that can work some times and is still a viable technique, albeit not the ideal way to take someone to the ground). The idea is to change levels (bending at the knees). Then penetrate forward to shorten the distance. The knees are what are ideally supposed to be attacked. Watch a collegiate wrestler perform this same exact technique and you'll notice a difference in how most people attempt a leg attack and how real grapplers do it. Not the same.

Thanks for your posts. Informative. And from your post above I'm glad to know that you have a sensible head on your shoulders. It is not a good idea to willfully go to the ground in true street fight, and never on the battlefield. But the training you're getting still sounds useful. Heck! At least your training may help you in a bar fight in some Third World country

No! I'm saying that dirty tactics can be the fight enders that many people think. But it isn't the technique that should be the focus of the discussion. It should be the individual and his/her skill level. Let me illustrate my point further: Gordeau couldn't beat his opponents relying on eye gouges and biting. Now if he relied on boxing and kickboxing would that have suddenly given him the "power" to defeat his opponents? I don't think so. He was not skilled enough as a fighter. So he would've likely lost regardless, in my opinion. But if we now take a skilled fighter such as Rickson Gracie or Randy Couture and put one of them up against an opponent, dirty tactics can be very effective. In fact, it is my opinion that their fights would end much quicker. Now don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that dirty tactics are enough to win fights. But I am definitely stating that they are not overrated techniques as a few on this forum have openly stated. Assuming all things were equal, I'd be much more wary of an opponent who was attempting to bite my throat, eye gouge, or groin grab than if he merely tried to slug away at me. In addition, dirty techniques make it easier to set up an opponent for a whole host of other techniques, including submissions. It's much easier to force a desired reaction out of an opponent this way since nearly everyone (trained or untrained) reacts the same when someone is trying to rip out their eyeball or drive a thumb through the throat. The reactions are predictable, but the fighter still needs to know what to do once that reaction occurs and be good enough to captialize on the reaction. If he isn't good enough, then he may just anger his opponent even more and lose the fight anyway. Anyway, I think this discussion is done.

To Subgrappler - Again you are jumping to respond to specific statements and missing the whole intent of my post. My last post was directed as a criticism of your post, which implied that dirty tactics were of limited value. All of those rhetorical questions were merely included to show you that you cannot reach a general conclusion based off of a few examples. Here's a statement you posted: All this shows is that dirty tactics may not be enough... at least not against Belfort. But I've pulled such tactics off many times in fights. Most people you will fight will not be as good at boxing as Belfort and will likely never be a professional, trained fighter. (I am merely repeating my prior post here). You also stated: You are merely proving my point here. All of these techniques are useful and in my opinion, none of them lack value or are over-rated techniques. This goes for dirty tactics as well. They all work! But you seem to be isolating one set of tactics and implying that they lack value. That makes no sense. I can also give examples where boxing failed or kicking techniques failed or kneeing failed or submissions failed. But that doesn't mean they are without value or overestimated techniques to employ or learn. But if I follow your reasoning that should be my conclusion. All of these techniques would be overrated. This is irrelevant to our discussion. We are not comparing kicks to hand techniques, and I have not assumed anything. No one who's been in real fights would disagree with your statement above. If you are responding to my earlier rhetorical question on kicking, then please read my post again. You completely missed the intent of my post. Irrelevant to our discussion. Again, please read my prior post. You seem to be jumping to respond rather than trying to understand what it is I am trying to state. I would add here that I agree wrestling is a great sport/art. And it can be hard to beat a good wrestler IF the wrestler has actual fighting experience or training like the fighters in the MMA or is fighting an inexperienced or incompetent person. But I've seen state champions and even collegiate wrestlers beaten up very bad (i.e. hospitalized) by some tough brawlers. From the fights I witnessed I wouldn't call these brawlers martial artists and there was no evidence of them having studied a grappling style based on what occurred in these fights. And by the way, in 3 of the 4 fights I witnessed against these wrestlers, the brawlers used dirty tactics to aid them in defeating their opponent. The 4th brawler knocked the wrestler down with two successive headbutt then gave him a good shoeshine until the cops were called. In addition, only 2 of the fights actually went to the ground, though the wrestlers did try takedowns in all cases. One fight I particularly remember, the wrestler penetrated for a double leg. He did get the takedown but shortly after the two men hit the pavement, the brawler (on the bottom) bit into the guy's neck and did not let go. The wrestler was so desperate that he even tried an eye gouge, but the brawler was guarding and would not let go and began hitting the man's occipital. All I recall is that there was a lot of blood and the wrestler eventually passed out (I assume from blood loss). This isn't to say the brawler wasn't injured. He was beat up pretty bad too, but in the end he was the guy standing and all of the blood covering his body and shirt was his opponent's. Last I heard, the brawler was arrested and had to serve some time in county jail. No disagreement here. But that is not how your initial post came off. Considering how nearly all of your examples showed how dirty tactics failed to secure a victory, I presumed you were stating that dirty tactics lacked value. But again, the chances of meeting a professional MMA fighter in a street confrontation is small. It may happen, but not as likely as meeting a guy who's just a jerk but relatively inexperienced in fighting. And given the odds of NOT meeting a professional fighter (BJJ, MMA, Boxing, Muay Thai, etc) in a real fight I still state that dirty tactics are not overestimated techniques. You have to remember that guys on this board who believe in dirty tactics likely also train in some martial art. So they are not oblivious to boxing, muay Thai, or other arts. They probably train in these arts as well and are adding dirty fighting into their repertoire. So these guys may be able to truly end a fight with biting, eye gouging, or similar techniques. I've done it many times myself. I've also had attempts made against me and it's taken me off guard as well. I'm fortunate I did not suffer permanent injuries. The key word here is "supposed to emulate". The truth is while it is the closest style of fighting legally permitted, no modern NHB fight will emulate the full range of possibilities that could arise in a real confrontation. Two points to make here: First, your illustration only shows that Nakai is a better fighter not that the dirty tactics are without merit. What your illustration shows is that Gordeau is not good enough to pull off or rely on eye gouges or biting to win fights. That is, he needs to be a better fighter. But imagine if a good fighter like Couture or Liddell employed the same dirty tactics in a fight. Then you would see a lot more successes with such techniques. Second, most fights are stopped before life threatening damage occurs. Most people do not want to go to prison and most fights are broken up before the chance of death occurs (though it can and does happen). So it is much MORE likely that Nakai would be blinded and Gordeau left with a broken ankle and probably arrested. But Nakai would probably end up suing Gordeau for permanent injuries, in which case Gordeau may get the worst of it after the lawyers get through with him. In any case, in a real scenario, there's a greater chance that Nakai would've gotten the worst of it when the fight ended. Again, same thing. It isn't the technique that is without merit, but the fighter is not good enough to pull off the technique. Tank is a good brawler but lacks conditioning. He also lost to Maurice Smith when his thigh was getting pounded with Thai kicks, but I would not conclude that boxing is overrated because it. Tank is a tough guy and the fact that he would try fish hooking or eye gouging shows that it has worked for him. A technique is only as good as the fighter. That's why you cannot evaluate the merit of a technique based on a few examples. I think I am repeating myself again and again, so I will end my post here.

Karate25 - Thanks for your post. From the site you listed, the Army program does appear to be BJJ based. However, I still find it odd and think it is due to the popularity of MMA and good marketing on the part of the BJJ followers. I just do not see the likelihood of an unarmed, mono-a-mono ground fight scenario arising in a military situation for a general soldier, at least not enough to be make it the focus of a combatives program. Maybe a part but making it the focus seems a bit odd. Nonetheless, as stated in my earlier post I do think the arts listed in the combatives program are good for conditioning, body mechanics, self-confidence, psychological training, and teaching aggressiveness which are all useful to a soldier, both past and present.

Here you go, Hansen (and all the rest). I think this is the link that Karate25 was looking at. I found it by putting in Karate25's reference (MACP AR 3-25.150) as a search in google. Check it out: https://www.infantry.army.mil/combatives/content/Info_Paper_26may05.doc If you read the top it is a "concept plan" (i.e. not implemented yet), dated May 25, 2005. This was just 3 months ago and given the fact that the government takes a life time to implement anything I'm guessing this is far from being an official Army program. Maybe what Karate25 is hearing about is a pilot program? But it does appear that Karate25 is correct that the individuals who are pushing for this program plan to include "Muay Thai / Boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Weapons fighting, Greco-Roman Wrestling" in the training. All very useful, but still better suited for NHB 101 rather than life and death warfare. However, I was not able to find any reference or hint that BJJ was the primary foundation or key element of this program, as Karate25 stated in an earlier post. As stated earlier, it seems those who are pushing for this program are guys who have jumped onto the NHB bandwagon. There's nothing wrong with it. It provides great physical training, hard conditioning, and self-confidence. But I don't think it should be the foundation of a good solid military combatives program. Emphasis should be on weapons and defense against weapons. In my opinion, the old Col Applegate material is right on. His point shooting method is far superior to the methods propagated by many target shooters today and his military tactics are very instinctual and easy to implement in the heat of battle. BJJ and wrestling are also great but in my opinion these skills are frosting but shouldn't be the cake. If I was a military man, I'd take a combatives course that emphasized weapons over empty hands or grappling any day. The former is likely to save my life. The latter... maybe I can use it in a bar fight in some Third World country. But then again I'll probably have a bunch of my friends with me and improvised weapons to draw upon.

Interesting. If true your information contradicts what I've been told by people in the elite sectors of the U.S. military, including one Seal instructor. But thanks for the reference, I'll definitely check it out. But logically speaking it doesn't make much sense to have BJJ be the foundation of a military combatives program. If what you say is true then I would guess that BJJ's inclusion was the result of rather good marketing by military guys who studied BJJ or have jumped on the BJJ/NHB bandwagon. It doesn't seem to be based on sound military practice. After all, when would a soldier likely utilize BJJ in a military scenario? Weapons should be the primary emphasis and the foundation. For the empty hand portion (if taught to any significant extent at all) it seems more sensible to emphasize the simplest techniques that can be pulled off with minimal training and mimics the likeliest scenarios that a person will be faced with in a combat situation. I just don't see BJJ being a smart choice as the root of all combat for a soldier.

Actually, from friends I've spoken with who were in the Army Special Forces, their official combatives training focused on sentry neutralizations (usually with a weapon), close quarter termination (with a weapon), and improvised weapons. Grappling was discussed and even practiced, but was never key or a major focus of the combatives program. Also, one of my closest friends is a Navy Seal instructor, and from our numerous discussions on close quarter fighting, he's always maintained that in a military situation he would never recommend willingly taking a fight to the ground the way BJJ advocates. It would get him killed. But he did find BJJ useful for civilian life, especially law enforcement. (By the way, he is a purple belt in BJJ, just so you don't think he's anti-BJJ). I'm guessing you are misinterpreting a program that is offered in the military with an official government sanctioned combatives course to handle life and death, military situations. While BJJ is offered and taught, I've never heard of it being the official program they advocate for military self-defense. And if it is, it sounds more like good marketing on the part of the BJJ community and people higher up may be jumping onto the NHB bandwagon. Many years ago, boxing used to be offered as a program as well (and still is). In fact, they periodically have boxing competitions, but I've never heard of boxing being an official government sanction combatives program either. Even as far back as WWII when boxing was the combative sport of the Western world, the military advocated eye gouging, fish hooks, biting, throat strikes, and groin strikes in conjunction with more traditional boxing strikes. But the emphasis was on the former.

To Subgrappler, We've all seen strikers taken out by BJJ guys, does that mean striking is overestimated and that BJJ techniques are superior for the street? Then what about today's fights which are often concluded with hand striking techniques, does that mean BJJ suddenly has no value and is overestimated? Or what about the fact that fighters such as Nam Phan, Maurice Smith, and others have knocked out or forced opponents to concede with their kicks, should I then conclude that kicking is more important than hand skills? Perhaps I should conclude that wrestling is the supreme martial art since so many of today's fighters have trained in or come from a wrestling background. You cannot reach a general conclusion, at least not an accurate one, based on a few examples. Boxing is great but merely because Belfort used it to defeat Hess doesn't mean that boxing is superior. It just shows that relying heavily on eye gouges and biting may not be enough, at least not against Belfort. But most individuals that you're likely to encounter do not have Belfort's boxing skills and are not trained, professional fighters. Personally, I was not aware that Nakai was permanently blinded from his fight with Gordeau as you stated. But if he was, then it seems that Nakai got the worst of it, even if he won the tournament. I'd much rather have a broken ankle (which will heal) than be permanently blinded. And since we're discussing eye gouges, Tank Abbott also used an eye gouge on an opponent in an early UFC (while he was winning). It made his opponent want to tap out of the fight much more quickly than he would have otherwise. The main point of my earlier post was that eye gouges and biting are not overestimated techniques. I even stated in my earlier post that a person will likely have to punch and kick his way into the clinch to deliver these techniques. This would imply that the fighter better be a decent striker. But you seem to have missed all of that and focused on a few sentences to mount your response.

My answer - No. It has some elements and techniques that could be useful in an encounter, but as a whole I do not think a person should spend a large amount of time learning sumo unless they want to compete in sumo tournaments. If the primary goal is self-defense then take up another art.

Overestimated? Why would you say that? I've ended fights with eye gouges and biting. It's far more efficient than punching and kicking for ending a fight, though you may still need to use punches and kicks to get into the clinch. And against larger, strong opponents, its far easier to execute than an armbar or a heel hook, and requires very little training. There are people that I've taken out that I don't think I would've been able to handle otherwise. Also, because such tactics are so psychologically disconcerting, it helps set up an opponent for other techniques such as chokes or other submissions far more quickly. They lose their composure very fast when you're biting their face and drawing blood. As for eye gouges and biting being employed in MMA, I'm not aware of any that openly permits such tactics. Could you provide the forum with the specific tournaments you are referring to that have openly permitted eye gouges and biting? From what I am aware, the so called "eye gouges" that have occurred in a few UFC and Pride competitions were actually finger digs into the cuts underneath someone's eye, not actual socket gouges or attempts to rip someone's eye out or permanently blind them. And I am not aware of any attempts to bite during competition, especially nowadays since mouth pieces are mandatory. But I could be wrong. However, if such tactics have been used, the question is how many times have such attempts been made. I would venture to guess not that many, considering the number of NHB-style tournaments that take place and have taken place. Please provide us with more specific information.

I was interested in knowing what everyone's opinion was on purchasing a grappling dummy. Here are some specific questions: 1. Does anyone have actual experience with these? And if so, has it been useful or useless? 2. What were the benefits of having the dummy? 3. What were the limitations of using the dummy? 4. If you found the grappling dummy beneficial, what dummy (and what company) did you use or would you recommend that I purchase?

I say if these guys are for real (and I don't believe it), then I challenge them or their students to go into the UFC and make a name for themselves with their ki power. The fact that you don't see these guys in such tournaments is because it doesn't work. They'll get slaughted. My advice: Don't try this at home (or anywhere else) ... for your own safety!

If the article was not written as a joke, and the people in it can actually do the amazing feats testified in the article, then here's a proposition. The Amazing James Randi has a $1,000,000.00 reward for anyone who can demonstrate under scientific conditions, the validity of anything remotely supernatural. By supernatural I'm not referring to just ghosts, but anything outside of what we generally consider to be normal or natural. Ki would definitely fall within that realm. So if this is real, prove it to the world and become a millionaire. Here's the website: http://www.randi.org/ But beware, a lot of individuals have made attempts at this reward and despite the offer being present for a number of years, ALL challengers (without exception) have failed to prove the supernatural. Others have just run away for fear of being proven as frauds, such as Sylvia Brown and others. As for me, I wish it were true, but I ain't holdin' my breath. I'll keep training the good ol' fashion, tried and true way - hours of striking and grappling.