TriangleMan

Its too deadly

Ah, the no touch knockout- utilizing the ever difficult to find "chi" First off, no touch knockouts are possible, so long as the other party knows hes supposed to faint when his instructor kia's =) Second, people insist that they're using, manipulating, or in some other way shape or form utilizing this thing call "chi" If such a person is so skilled at manipulating this magical life element, let them do so under scientific studies- wheres the harm done? This applies to touchless ko's, dim maks, delayed death touches, etc etc.Not only that, but once they're done, they'll most likely win a nobel prize and advance the scientific world by about a few hundred years, not to mention opening up doorways with answers to questions about life. They'd be reknown as one of the great men of human existence. But who wants to do that when you can always just fly around the country doing seminars for money?

Ah yes, you are so correct- groundfighting isnt for fighting multiples, but neither is standup. If you're a lone person fighting a group of three, the chances are very high you're going to end up on the ground (if they're competent in the least). What determines your ability to stay on your feet in a fight is your grappling skill, not your striking skill.

He was also very cocky when he was asked about the possibility of fighting in the cage during one of the early UFC's. When asked, he said "man, I would kill those guys" to which one of the other commentators said "get real Don, those guys would eat you alive."

they won't do a lot of things' date=' which is why there is so much controvery about "real" kung fu today. Nobody really knows what is real anymore. regardless, I can't even think of any legends I've heard of involving a throat being completely ripped out... [/quote'] Agreed. Thats the whole "Im above fighting" argument. Im not talking about a skeptic, Im talking about your sifu shows you a move and you question whether it can work or not, but he refuses to prove it to you- what kind of a teacher is he then if hes not asking any questions? "What if" is the killer question of martial arts and too many instructors are unable to answer this and hide behind things such as "this move is too deadly." TMA who compete have the same opportunity. a boxer avoids fighting on the street as well. testing yourself regularly though, is a different animal, and a missing component from some tma. Its great to avoid fighting, but Im going to lay it out for you- the more you fight the better you get at it- its called experience. As a result, someone who actually fights is going to be able to tell you exactly what its like to be in a fight and teach you accordingly. Such people that never get into fights can only speculate, and how much can you trust someone who has never actually done a particular technique before in his life?

Pancrase is a tournament that showcased popular catch wrestlers in Japan. Pancrase is a ruleset (strikes on the feet, no closed fist attacks to the head, 10 second knockdowns, no punching on the ground) whereas catch wrestling is a style.

A. In Wing Chun (in most if not all major kung fu styles) you do not strike an opponent unless you have at least some kind a control on him. And B. There IS (as you know by now, through discussions in other threads), grappling in Wing Chun and most major kung fu styles. To draw a comparison, there is also grappling in Muay Thai when you take into account that they're allowed to clinch up at the neck and throw knees. When a muay thai fighter fights someone who's a superior grappler than they are, the muay thai fighters knees are almost never seen. This is because the setup is more important that the attack, and since the other fighter is so much more skilled from the clinch, the muay thai fighter is never able to attain a dominant clinch with which to utilize his knees. So against another striker whos not trained in clinch work, it could possibly work- against someone else who knows what to do from there, its very unlikely. Good, then lets take away the prize money and other financial contracts and see how many people would participate in events and for HOW LONG. E&K said it all about how big amateur fighting is, and not only that but take into account all the tournaments helds by all martial arts. As far as professional fighters are concerned, they barely make money at all. King of the Cage is probably the largest NHB tournament in the US after the UFC. Typical pay for fighters in those events runs about $300- $500 a fight. Championship belt holders can make as much as $4000, which is quite pathetic. And that may have something to do with the attitude of many of those are who ARE competitors in such events. Professional fighters are no different that any other class of people. There will be those who are cocky and arrogant and those who are humble. Those that are arrogant often have a good reason to be so- its not that they know they're tough (since I hear people say that all the time) but its that they've actually proven it. Those that are humble often times just choose to be so. What will often times frustrate both the humble and the arrogant of those fighters is listening to those who can claim expertise over them when they've had almost no fighting experience whatsoever and are unwilling to back up their claims. Bear in mind that Im not saying that you or your sifu arent skilled or that you may fall into this category, but I hear that all the time- people who have the "real" kung fu. The problem I have with such things is, once again, people are unwilling to back up their statements (using excuses such as honor, loyalty, deadliness, etc.) and beyond their talk have no evidence with which to support their claims (except for loyal practitioners). No amount of belief makes something a fact. Yes they can prove it. He can show you the power of his claw on another part of your body, without actually tearing any of your muscles. In the old days some masters use to tear of tree barks with their claws as practise. You don't have to shoot someone dead to know if a new type of bullet is effective or not. Well, thats because we've actually seen bullets kill people, so there is evidence to support that. Once again, to draw on another analogy, there are breaking competitions all the time showing people crashing through many blocks of concrete and brick, something a pro boxer couldnt probably do, yet the pro boxer will still ko more people. Add to that a more power and a lot more technique and of course Chi and then you have something approaching a Tiger Claw tear. Chi has never been scientifically proven and is therefore not presentable as evidence.

Catch is different from High school (folkstyle). In all forms of wrestling but catch, submissions are illegal. Catch Wrestling was very popular in the mid 20th century. Catch Wrestlers were often featured in traveling carnivals. At first, they would just do their traditional wrestling with pins with advertisements "Pin our Wrestler" but with desrepancies over what was a legit pin and whether it was held for long enough or not, it quickly changed to "make our wrestler give up" which would account for the submissions. In this sense, catch wrestling is very much like any no gi tournament you'll see in the US these days, but there is much more to it than that. The strategy and mindset of catch is much different than the more popular BJJ styles you see, although BJJ has by now incorporated so much from other grappling styles that it is also not pure by itself now. Major differences between BJJ and Catch: -BJJ uses the gi, Catch does (did) not -Catch had a different strategy than BJJ ---For example, catch prefers the idea of being able to attack from any position- this includes being inside your opponents legs (guard/body scissors) or even if your opponent is on your back. As a result of this "aggressive attack" philosophy, footlocks were very popular (since footlocks do not require positional dominance in order for you to attempt them). This means you'd be more likely to see a catch wrestler go for footlocks galore as soon as you open your guard- a BJJ fighter will most likely attempt to pass your guard and get to a dominant position. ---Catch does not advocate going for submissions that would result in a loss of position. Your standard armbar from the mount is an example of such a submission. If you miss the armbar, you lose the mount, which is something catch preferred not to do. As a result, they're more likely to be more conservative in their submission approach (such as attempting a keylock/kimura rather than a straight armbar). If you watch closely, you'll see exactly what I mean by seeing your opponents different strategies. Catch wrestlers often arent going to be very good at attaining dominant positions in comparison to their jiu jitsu peers, simply because it was just never emphasized as much, but you're going to see them go for submissions much more often. BJJ fighters are often much more effective with chokeholds while catch wrestlers are more likely to attack with joint locks. Examples of catch wrestlers would be Frank and Ken Shamrock and Josh Barnett Examples of BJJ fighters would be Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Frank Mir, BJ Penn, and Royce Gracie

You have to look at things objectively when you're trying to analyze a situation if you want to make the best decision. It is very possible that you're statement may be true, however massive amounts of evidence dictate otherwise. If it were true, then various types of people from all different martial arts backgrounds would have won NHB competitions- this is not what happened- you saw particular martial artists win time and time again. Royce Gracie was no where near as athletic as his opponents where when he fought, yet he managed to beat them all because the strength of his style happened to be the weakness of all the other styles. Wing Chun is not going to teach you how to grapple on the ground, wrestling, judo, and jiu jitsu are not going to teach you how to stand on your feet and throw hands with someone, and Muay Thai isnt going to teach you how to take someone down. This is exactly what it means to be of a particular fighting style.

Thats one of the things I hated about karate when I look back on it- what else would you expect when you try to block someone's kick with your arms?

Its not that Bob Sapp grabbing you is a problem- its that huge gorilla slam that comes afterwards that is

Not if the swift hook is blocked and the kung fu exponent moves into the central line at the same time and delivers the throat strike. A preliminary strike can also expose the throat to a secondary finisher technique. Lets say a punch to the nose or a jab/punch to the eyes followed by the throat strike. The effect of such blows are more than enough to create exposure to the throat as well as other parts of the body. When the old kung fu masters put together the kung fu techniques and their concepts, they weren't assuming that any potential exponent would just stand there and let the kung fu exponent strike their sensitive areas at will. There is a logic and methodology involved in kung fu. I think E&K has wrapped up most of this conversation, but I just wanted to add one more thing- one of the first things I was taught in my muay thai class was "everytime you try to attack your opponent, expect him to attack you. In other words, every time you hit your opponent expect him to hit you as well." This is why they teach you to exhale when you're throwing a punch so as to prepare for the hit you're going to take. So, as E&K pointed out, you threw your strike to the throat and want to move in to take the center line, but hes also throwing his jab and has a nice cross thats ready to follow it up the moment you move to the middle.

They say that the people who are the best at defending the takedowns are the ones who know how to do the takedowns/grapple. This is 100% true, no doubt about it- thats one of the reasons that WC's "anti grappling" gets slammed so much. There are too many people out there trying to teach what they do not know. I suppose that if they admit they dont have answers for everything, they feel their style is inferior. Your ability to stay on your feet in a fight is dependant upon your grappling skill- not you striking skill. Elbows and Knees did a good job of pointing out what a takedown involves, which is off balancing an opponent. If you want to learn how to avoid takedowns and stay on your feet in a fight, train with someone who's going to teach you properly- you'll find that it works 100% better (and by working takedowns you'll now have that option in a fight)

And Elbows and knees saves me the time needed to reply to that post

Wrap their own arm around their head, ala Rickson Gracie beatdown from the mount- This prevents the person from turning towards you at which point you can either hold their hip or other arm to prevent them from turning the other way- if there is two of you, you have the option of letting one person secure the hold while the other can make use of the other side of their body to put them in a russian tie, making it virtually impossible for this person to do anything but flail their legs.

You'll have to explain to me what a gooseneck lock is' date=' prefereable with pictures if you can find them, then whether or not the lock is applied from the clinch or the ground.[/quote'] Have you had any locking/grappling experience? This is a fairly generic lock to most styles. A goose neck is not common in arts like judo and bjj. It's something you find in jjj and chin na. I learned it in chin na, but it was not called a gooseneck, so I had to look up the name. I found a link describing what it was, and a post from a cop saying it's not something you use against someone REALLY trying to harm you. He said it's mainly for a semi compliant drunk. http://www.karatekorner.com/messageboard/printthread.cfm?Forum=24&Topic=3524 Correct, it is not found in Judo. Judo is JJJ that was watered down for safety as a sport.. Watch how you use the term "watered down." I prefer to say that Judo refined their techniques more so than "watered down" the style- after all, they did do quite a good job of defeating all but one JJJ school when they emerged. Now that I think Im familiar with what this lock is (thanks to Elbows and knees- it looks like a wristlock) I've seen it before and I think its ridiculous- I had someone show it to me before and I didnt like it, for the simple fact that while you're attempting to set up the lock you're very vulnerable to being hit by the other hand, your opponent shrugging out of it, etc. When it was shown to me (by someone who thought he had a clue about grappling-thats a shot at him, not anyone who teaches the move) I simply just turned it into an armdrag and went to my opponents back, from which position I had the option of setting up a choke, a chicken wing, both, and an assortment of other moves. On top of that, by being on my opponents back, I was also safe should he decide to start fighting me

If he has the choke locked in, you're screwed- its like asking how to stop a punch when its an inch from your jaw- you should have defended it before it got there. Defending yourself against the moves in jiu jitsu is all about recognizing the setups of the moves so that you can defend it the moment your opponent attempts it. That being said, the best defense to a triangle (when he jumps the legs over your head and has not yet locked it in) is to get posture so he can not pull your head down. Throw your hips in to his and arch your back as much as possible so that you're literally looking at the ceiling and your back is straight.

You'll have to explain to me what a gooseneck lock is, prefereable with pictures if you can find them, then whether or not the lock is applied from the clinch or the ground. Yes, this is true- the body's endorphins are quite powerfull, but holding someone down isnt the same as putting them into a lock. It depends what kind of lock you're applying before you can label them as "useless." Chokes will always work, regardless of how much drugs someone has taken and how crazy they act. In terms of holding someone down, the biggest problem that people have when they attempt to hold someone is not moving with them. Holding someone down requires you to act more like a blanket on someone rather than just dead weight- you move as they move and you control their hips

Legkicker summed it up, but I'll add just a little bit more. Back when Kano was trying to spread the word about Judo by sending represenatives around the world, he inevitably ran into the American Catch Wrestlers who made quick work of the Judokas for a few reasons: They fought without a gi Emphasized wrestling takedowns and trips more than the Judoesque hip throws and trips Emphasized a lot more footlocks, which while may not be as effective in a MMA bout are thoroughly effective in a grappling match where strikes arent allowed. Simply put, I believe it was Karl Gotch that beat the Judoka represenatives and claimed the title of world judo champ. After the kodokan sent another judoka who lost, it kinda cemented catch wrestling in japan. People started to take off the gi, but the hip throws were still very popular, due to the great judokas in Japan, yet the facination with footlocks and lower body submissions prevailed, so you end up with a guy that has good throws/takedowns and good footlocks. To add a little to that, you're allowed to strike on the feet (not to the face) but not on the ground. It was a good honost attempt at mixing various martial arts together and was showcased in tournaments such as Pancrase. Its a very legit very effective style for fighting or self defese

The irony is that Im somewhat saddened by people that think martial arts is more about respect/discipline than it is about fighting. Look at any martial arts tournament and tell me whos regarded as being the best martial artist- its the guy whos carrying the trophy- regardless of how nice a guy he may or may not be, hes regarded as the best because he beat everyone else. If you want to judge the skill of the martial artist based on his development as a peacefull human being, than Ghandi would be at the top of the list- Im going to base it on their skills as a fighter and how well they can teach someone else to use those skills. Mixed martial arts tournaments are a good way. Someone else on here said something along the lines that not everyone wants to do that, and while that may be true not everyone wants to get into a fight either, but it still happens- this will make for good training. An added bonus to MMA is that there are many tournaments offerred, from amateur to professional bouts so its very easy to seed yourself in with the appropriate competition. When you can jump in there and learn to stay level headed and dont fold under the pressure the minute you take a punch or fight an overly aggressive opponent, you've accomplished what you set out to do.

The catch about those that I've italicized is that they have nothing to do with improving your fighting skill. To me, a true martial artist is someone who is refined in the area of fighting and bases their approach to it based on experience and logic- being a nice guy or helping others makes you a nice guy- it doesnt make you a martial artist. I firmly believe that if you dont like those who are arrogant or have a bullying personality, learn how to fight better than they do.

Security officers arent exactly trained personel, know what I mean? I have had engagements with people who were high, drunk, or a little of both. Yes, they certainly are much much stronger as a result of the drugs, but once on the ground, they're still not much more difficult to control than anyone else, simply because they have no idea what to do besides grab you and squeeze. Like I said, it kinda goes back to how much training you have- it may have been a combination of both factors rather than just one or the other.

You cant really give a position or a submission that works on "wrestlers" anymore than you could give a punch thats effective against a boxer- you have to take what he gives you. That being said, many wrestlers often fight well so long as they're on top, so I can give a basic strategy. Rather than insisting on submissions, attempt to sweep your opponent so you can put him on his back and increase the chances of you setting up another submission. You may find that as you insist on your sweeps, he just may defend the sweep so much that he opens himself up for a good submission attempt.

Ground and pound is something thats determined by your grappling skill on the ground, not your striking skill on the feet. The positions of jiu jitsu give you the option of throwing strikes. Jiu Jitsu guys have always thrown strikes, they've just always preferred to do it on the ground where their opponent can not effectively hit them back. If you look at pictures from Helios old challenge matches 50+ years ago in Brazil, everyone he fought emerged from the fight looking like they went through a meat grinder. If you want a more recent example, just look at any of Rickson Gracies matches- he always employed getting the mount on an opponent and pounding him from the top or the back. Ground and Pound is something that jiu jitsu fighters always did, but it was often overlooked due to their submissions prowess.

Ummmmm' date=' no. Unless you've been there, you wouldn't understand.[/quote']Hey, dont take it the wrong way- all Im saying is that you're probably much more experienced in your standup arts than you are your grappling arts- how long have you been training in BJJ/submission grappling? I dont care how much of an adrenaline dump a girl goes on- if I pin her to the ground and dont want her to move, shes not going to move. Not so much because shes a girl, but simply because I know how to hold her.