bushido_man96

It isn't just something brought about through modern MMA. I've done research on the evolution of MMA through the years, and a Wrestler's ability to take the fight to the ground has been a fact that has commanded respect for quite some time. It doesn't really matter how great a striker you are, if a Wrestler wants to take a fight to the ground, its most likely going there.

I completely is disagree with these statements. IMO Bjj is great and has it's advantages in the octogon but JJJ is hand to hand combat. Bjj is a submission based system with some basic effective self defense peppered in as I've seen it. Explosive athleticism is essential. JJJ I the application of physics, using momentum, levers and knowledge of the body- proper technique wins. - think aikido and judo with punches and kicks. We had to show intent on dislocating the joint, not just getting a tap out. I believe BJJ is an evolution for competition, at the same modifying level as judo, but does not replace JJJ for real life situation. - these are my opinions of course and I've argued this point before. It's usually with people that feel like bjj is the ultimate evolution of martial arts and usually these same people have pretty terrible things to say about kata and pretty much everything that doesn't compete with BJJ in the octogon. Just my 2 cents, and I am no expert. And btw I've seen some damn tough jjj green belts. maybe they won't get the tap out, but then again they aren't training for the tap out. The bold section highlighted above is the same for BJJ. It isn't just about the tap out. BJJ is based on leverage and technique, just like JJJ is. Explosive ability isn't necessary to do the style. If it was, I couldn't do it.

That's a great idea to do. That way, you still stay sharp on your technique. It might even help technique more, focusing on it like that. And the lower impact might mean you can do even more of it. Find a training partner and get after that, I'd say.

There is a lot of good advise here, so I can't add much more. Like ps1 mentioned, practice at home. Take one or two things home from each class, and drill those one or two things until the next class. Don't overwhelm yourself with too much early on. You'll get plenty of stuff in class. If you take one of two things from each class, or, better yet, drill those one or two things for a week at home, you will start noticing that you feel better about them, and will probably be noticed that you are improving in class. Once you feel more comfortable with those things, move onto another thing. Break things down into their component parts, and build up slowly. And as someone else mentioned, perservere. It comes with time.

As much fun as it is to train, train, train, sometimes, less is more. It will be a tough decision, but in the end, it may work out better for you. And who knows, maybe in the future, one of the others will need to fade out, and something else will shade in.

That's great. Let us know how it goes, and your thoughts on training.

I don't care for Rousey's approach as the heel, either, but its her life, and she can do as she sees fit. Whether or not she is disrespectful really remains to be seen by those who are close to her in her personal life. All we really see is what she shows us when she's on the screen, which a big part of that is providing entertainment, which she does. Also, when fighting at this level, there is a certain amount of ego that comes with it. I'd add that its a very testosterone driven sport, but that can't be with the females...but, I imagine it has to do with the fact that in order to be a winner, you have to go into the ring and physically and mentally dominate another human being, which is tough to do. So, what they do in order to do that job, can make the a little off the wall in manner sometimes. As far as the sexism of the match between Carano and Rousey goes, I think it could become an issue. I'm not sure if women's Boxing ever encountered this, but the only woman Boxer I can name is Laila Ali (and may have spelled that wrong). With all that said, who would watch the match between Carano and Rousey?

What I am interested in is who would make up the stable of fighters from that time frame? I may do some digging, and see who the big time world class Wrestlers were from that time frame, because I'm sure someone from that style would have jumped in, too, and a lot of people don't thing of Wrestlers at first when they think of Martial Artists.

I tend to agree with ps1 and where he is going with his argument. I have some grappling experience, most of it with the GRACIE course I've taken through LEO training opportunities. I don't think that if I started added in 30 minutes of grappling work in the classes I taught that it would allow me to call what I teach MMA. Nor would it be if I started adding Combat Hapkido into the curriculum. We would be doing multiple styles and working them together, but I would not be training anyone to do a whole lot in an MMA fight. I wouldn't feel right if I started saying that I was teaching MMA.

I think these two sum it up very well. When I think MMA, I think of what I see in the UFC today, and what the gyms that train these fighters are teaching. I'm of the opinion that it has become its own style.

It was what was available in my area. The town I grew up in wasn't a hotbed of MA schools; TKD was all there was. So, I took it up, and here I am, still working at it.

That's pretty cool. You've done your job well. Its hard to pick just one. I'd say that getting my original black belt when I was in the ATA was way up there. Getting to train with Royce Gracie is way up there, as well. Meeting with sensei8 and doing our training time together is another great one, and on that I think we will repeat sometime this year.

"Best block, no be there..."

Ok, I'll bite here and admit that I don't comprehend that too well. Could you elaborate a bit more, please? I think most of what we do is deflect, but it depends on the form of attack coming, too. Arcing attacks are going to be more easily defended by blocking (but not always necessary), and straight line attacks are going to be more easily defended by deflecting. We also have to take into account what many of us refer to as moves that are blocks in our forms and one-steps, and if that is what they actually are. Everyone will have a different view on this matter, but it should be addressed. Take Bob's high block example. It can be both a deflection and a block. If someone throws an axe kick up to bring down on top of your head, and you bring the high block up and stop it in its tracks, then you blocked it; high block. But, if someone punches at your face, like in Bob's example, it becomes more of a deflection, because the punch doesn't stop, it gets pushed aside or up; high deflection. So in conclusion, it depends.

Let me know what you think!

Miesha Tate had some interesting comments on the possibility of a bout between Gina Carrano and Ronda Rousey in women's MMA: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/443666/Miesha-Rousey-vs-Carano-is-kind-of-a-joke/ She has some valid points, and I think does make an interesting, and valid statement, here: So, this raises an interesting question. Is women's MMA going to end up being driven by sexism, or by legitimate competitions? Is there a problem with sexism in women's MMA competition that doesn't exist in the men's competition? Do you think she has a good point, and where will this lead women's MMA? Do you think Carano deserves a shot this soon? I'm not going to say that Carano isn't a legitmate contender for a title shot, because I don't know what her training has been like. But, Tate does make a good point about her not being around fighting for quite some time. For her to get a shot over some others that have been fighting, doesn't seem too fair to them. But sometimes, life just isn't fair, and that's the breaks. What are everyone else's thoughts on the matter?

Bumping this back up a bit, I found this article on MMA underground that actually evaluates Chuck in regards to his training, and how he would fair in MMA today: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/443653/How-would-a-young-Chuck-Norris-fare-in-the-UFC I think it makes some valid points, and the author of the article takes the emotion out of it (of being a fan of Chuck or not), and takes a realistic look at his training, what he trained in, and what else he would need to focus on. It doesn't mention much about his BJJ training, so I'm trying to figure out if the author is talking about what training he had at the age that he would have been in his prime, matching up with today's fighters. The other point that I would bring up is the fact that Chuck was a point fighter, and not a full contact fighter, like Joe Lewis or Bill Wallace were. But other than that, he probably would have been able to get in there and mix things up. Another angle I'd like to take on the topic is this: if MMA was around in his day and age, who would he have fought from back then? Guys like Lewis and Wallace? I believe Lewis was a high school Wrestler, so that would have helped him out, and I believe Wallace also had previous Judo training (I thought that was where his injury came from to his right leg). What does everyone else speculate here?

Welcome to KF. What is csw? I feel like I should know it, but am drawing a blank.

Welcome to KF! Glad to have you here, and I can't wait to here your perspectives on training.

Sounds like some good training there, Alex. Very cool. 5/5/2014 TKD class: 6:00 - 7:00 pm. Taught class, and also jumped in for some work. Did a different format, too. Lowest rank was high green belts, so I broke the class into two groups, and did forms. In the process, I reviewed all the colored belt forms, and everyone did all the forms below whatever rank they were. Moved onto one-steps, and then did some kicking stations, using paddles, shields, and standing heavy bags for different stations.

Congrats!

I don't do any other than class right now. Maybe when things settle down more, I can find time in my schedule to do something. I need to do some, though.

I don't know that it has more to do with a "quick fix," some people learn better in different ways. I think the attitude of "lifetime study" for what are viewed as the traditional styles is misrepresented; one should be able to spend a lifetime doing it, but it shouldn't take a lifetime to get good at it, to realize an ability to make the art useful. But, if someone comes in and states that they would like to learn how to defend themselves in an efficient amount of time, and they get told that there is no "quick fix," and they should go train Boxing or MMA or something. There is also a misconception that there isn't as much to learn in a style like Boxing, Kickboxing, or MMA. There is a lot to learn. It just isn't all covered in a philosophical manner. So honestly, I think there is quite a bit of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.

Those Browns have had it tough for the last several years. I don't know what it is with that organization, but I feel for you.

You'd have to look at the rules of various tournaments to find that out. Some do, some don't. MMA allows face punching. Perhaps you could train for a competition like that? Lots of areas have small organizations putting on local fights.