ninjer

Black belt magazine always aggrevates me whenever they try to write an article concerning grappling or mma, because those people have no training or expertise in it. Trying to break grappling up into 3 facets- you can break it up into as many things as you want, it doesnt end at 3. What about takedowns, escapes, defenses? I think they just chose 3 because you can fit that on one or two pages for a magazine ;p Anyways, pain compliance holds are often nothing more than joint locks that havent been fully applied. Most of them are shoulder locks, wristlocks, and elbow locks that if executed properly will break whatever it is you're grabbing. Beyond that, trying to break the techniques up even further is only going to complicate things- a technique is a technique, regardless if its a sweep, escape, or submission- you'll hold your jiu jitsu back if you try to break it up the way black belt magazine did. For example, lets take a basic x-choke from the bottom closed guard. A choking technique, its quite effective to use when your opponent doesnt posture. A good combination is this with an armbar- when an opponent extends his arm to posture and defend the choke, he gives you the armbar. Defend a choke and you give your arm, defend your arm, and you give a choke. Thats the way jiu jitsu works, its about what you CAN do, not what you WANT to do. Some people will go now after reading that article and say "I want to work more" When secluded, the moves are not very applicable, at least not to anyone who even has a decent idea of what they're doing on the ground. Its the combinations that make the game better. Jean Jaques claimed the 3 aspects of jiu jitsu were gi, no gi, and self defense for a complete jiu jitsu fighter. The best thing you can do isnt work on your "pain compliance" techniques, but simply work on your grappling and take whatever your opponent gives you.

Against an inexperienced (untrained) person in a fight, the tendency to hold on to someone is going to be even moreso. A trained fighter knows when to abandon one technique and switch to another. For example, when you train with someone who's a novice on the ground, natrual instict is to grab a headlock. Should the other person start to capitalize on your mistake of a headlock (i.e. sweep, armbar, take the back, etc) someone with experience is going to know that their technique (the headlock) is being beaten by their opponents counter and are going to abandon that technique in order to start defending your attack. An untrained person most of the time grabs something and holds it just for the sake of holding it- and they often have no idea what else to do. Since they have no idea of how to fight on the ground, they're also not going to recognize that you're effectively defeating their position.

Being hit once the fight goes to the ground doesnt often happen immediately. For one, the person executing the takedown is using alot of energy to do so. He expects the person his taking down to fight with everything they have to avoid the takedown, and as such hes going to be holding on to whatever it is he grabbed (hips, leg, etc) to ensure he finishes the takedown and his opponent is grounded. It wouldnt make sense to do a takedown half way, only to start striking and lose the entire takedown- its a waste of energy. So, why doesnt the guy doing the takedown start blazing away with blows? Generally speaking, the person on top is going to relax his pressure (from the intial takedown attempt) once his opponent stops fighting the takedown. His opponent will either fight the takedown, in which case the other holds on and drops his weight, or he feels his energy is better spent defending himself since his not winning the takedown fight. The moment he decides this he usually goes on the defensive and grab ahold of his opponent in some way, keeping him close to avoid strikes. Now the person on top has to fight to get his posture before he can start to strike effectively. Heres a nice "Judo in MMA" clip showing alot of takedowns. You'll notice that when they execute their takedowns, they want to make sure they're maintaining their position before they move on to the next step in attacking- its common sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln-S0m0NQXs

Pressure points arent effective the way you may have been lead to believe, or as you suggest in your post. Most pressure points work well only as accessories to a move, i.e. a cross face. On top of that, considering that kyokushin is a striking style, you're less likely to use pressure points. Pressure points are more likely used in a grappling style to get your opponent to react. Off the feet its hard enough to make contact with large targets (head, ribs, etc).

ps1 summed it all up for you there-thats the reason that theres breakfalls in judo/jiu jitsu. When he slaps the ground, hes doing exactly what ps1 explained- increasing his surface area and preventing himself from reaching for the ground. There is no momentum to be taken advantage of when you're thrown. You have no control of what happens to you when you're getting thrown, its all up to how your opponent has control of you. When your feet arent touching the ground you're at your opponents mercy and he can throw you how he sees fit. Perhaps Hock overlooks the fact that either way, you're going to be "in place" once you get thrown. The difference is the person who knows (and it accustomed) to getting thrown is going to hit the ground and be in optimal condition still prepared to fight from his back, whereas the person not accustomed to falling is either ko'ed or disabled from having the wind knocked out of him. Sounds like a great plan, however most falls go this way | | | \/ Not this way -----> As such its quite difficult to roll out or away from your opponent, especially considering the fact that your opponent is often falling on top of you at the completion of the throw. Heres a Judo highlight from youtube: What you're seeing when people are "rolling" out of the throw isnt a result of any technique they're doing, but rather the person executing the throw. Its known as "overthrowing" your opponent when you generate too much momentum during the throw. The throwers momemtum is often going forward or backward while the person being thrown has momemtum going straight down. The overthrow is just a result of the person on the bottom who still holds on to the person who threw him- if that person generated too much momentum and is unable to base out he falls over and his opponent just hangs on for the ride and comes on top. This is not a concious decision though. Often the throw happens so fast that the person getting thrown never released their grips from the feet. Heres a wrestling highlight As you can see its in a wrestlers best interests if he can do what you explained. Most of the time though, the other wrestler maintains control when he hits a good takedown

MMA is often just used to explain the ruleset to which people will be fighting- it does not tell you what kind of fighter someone will be. If you call yourself a boxer, then you're going to be a puncher. A jiu jitsu fighter is going to be using chokeholds, and a TKD fighter is going to be using kicks. Labeling someone a "MMA" fighter really doesnt help decide what style of fighter they are. Example: you can take any one person, trained in one, many, or no martial arts. Throw that person in the ring and they become a MMA fighter even though they study no martial arts.

The difference between a boxer exhaling through his nose and a karate guy kiai'ing is that the boxer still has his jaw tightly shut. When you punch, expect to be punched back hence the reason for the exhaling. This tenses up the muscles of the boxer and prepares him for his opponents incoming attack. If you're kiai'ing and that attack happens to his you near your jaw, you're most likely going out.

Good find- you're not going to be throwing sidekicks the way we've seen Bruce Lee when he steps 5 feet and destroys the heavy bag- its way too telegraphed. Without that step over, however, its very difficult to develop the power needed for the kick to be effective. Should your opponent catch or sidestep it, as shown in that video, hes also primed for a solid attack at your weakpoints.

It depends on what the purpose of your training is. If you're trying to learn how to fight, then dont bounce. As someone stated earlier in the topic, shifting your weight from foot to foot is fine, thats not bouncing- its the up and down movement thats going to cost you. The reason people bounce when they spar is because its essentially a game of tag. Being light on your feet allows you to be a little quicker, at the expense of power. You're not going to hit with any power if you dont have a foot on the ground to generate that power. The videos posted are still all point sparring. Even continuous sparring is still point sparring- you're gauging who wins based on number of hits. If you're concerned about fighting, keep your feet in contact with the ground.

Took me a couple of weeks to get my hips to turn over, now that I know how to do it, watching others who dont know how to do it looks so wierd (that they're not turning their hips). I had no idea just how hard a thai kick was. I had a friend with 17 years experience in TSD and a world champion. I've held the pad for him and thought he kicked hard. Then I held the pad for my friend with 4 years thai experience. The difference was I felt the TSD kick, but the thai kick went through me and hurt, even with a 3 inch pad.

I agree with this mindset. However, boxers don't line up in their first class and just take hits. There is no doubt that they can take a punch, though. Besides that, I don't see any of them taking those unblocked shots to the face. I would think that would be a high priority target on the streets. If you are going to take a cheap shot, that is probably where it is going to be directed. Agreed- theres no reason to have someone stand there so you can beat on them. There is a such thing as conditioning, but one is gradually conditioned (i.e. start slowly and over time as you get conditioned you increase the power). Conditioning generally applies to the forearms and the shins, and not just having your instructor plow elbows into your gut unprotected. Looks like the sensei is a sadist or just trying to keep himself elevated above his students by constantly beating on them- I hate martial arts teachers who try to show their power by beating their students mercilessly.

Crescent kicks were designed to be much more of a stretch and less of an actual attack. Its usefull in point sparring competitions where power doesnt really matter, but under full contact you're more likely to lose your balance than you are deliver an effective blow.

I think teaching people to kiai is one of the greatest flaws in many traditional martial arts. For one, many instructors tell you that it strengthens your attacks. Theres really not much physical evidence to support this. Mike Tyson generates an awful lot of power (as does any heavyweight boxer) and they certainly dont kiai. Another reason is that in order to kiai, you need to open your mouth which is inherently bad to do in a fight. If your opponent is also throwing an attack and clocks you on the jaw while you're in the middle of a kiai, you're going to get knocked out. Always keep your teeth clinched when in a fight. A happy medium is simply to breathe out through your nose (a hard quick breath). Its not so much that you're going to hit harder, but you're taught in styles such as boxing and muay thai that you each time you attempt to hit your opponent, you should be prepared to be hit yourself. This is for obvious reasons, when you're attacking your defense isnt going to be very good. By breathing out (your nose, not your mouth) you can contract your muscles to prepare for your opponents attack as well.

If his waist is longer than your legs, then you obviously wont be able to close your guard around him. An option to this is using your shins in your opponents shoulders as if to create space and prevent him from crushing you down. Since in this scenario your opponent will be putting his weight on you, you'll find that the same basic moves you use from closed guard (i.e. triangle, armbar, etc) will still work just as well because your opponent insists on staying close to you.

I agree with you here. However, as a Detention Officer, if I choke someone out, I have to deal more with the way it looks to everyone else, and not the effectiveness of the move. Agreed, and that comes down to the ignorance of the general public "Oh my god hes choking him! Hes trying to KILL him!" when you are in fact applying a very safe technique proven to be so numerous times. In regards to people having seizures, that happens sometimes as well. Its happened to me and its happened to others I've seen get choked out. The first time you see it happen, chances are it'll scare you. Once you get used to it though it becomes kinda funny- it gives us something to make fun of you for afterwards.

The first match was declared a no contest. Under the rules of the match, the referee was not alowed to stop the match. Yoshida got to a half guard position and attempted to do a sleeve choke, which Royce effectively defended. With his head covered, and possibly with Yoshida believing he had choked Royce out, the referee called a stop to the fight and immediately declared Yoshida the winner. Royce clearly wasnt choked out, because he immediately jumped to his feet the moment yoshida sat up. If you care to find the video- its old and Im not having luck finding it- do a search for Gracie Yoshida alternate angle which clearly shows Royce wasnt being choked at all. The rematch saw Royce dominate Yoshida on the ground, this time in MMA format, where he achieved the mount and the rear mount numerous times during the match and basically beat on Yoshida for the duration of the match. In order to avoid being hosed by the judges, the prearraged agreement was that if the fight went the distance there would be no judges decision and it would be declared a draw (these were the old rules that the Gracies had fought under for numerous years).

Seriously though, choke holds arent going to accidentally kill someone, that is assuming you know what you're doing. A choke hold causes unconciousness more so because of the change in blood pressure. Technically speaking, yes its the cutting of the blood supply that causes one to pass out, but they pass out because of the change in blood pressure, not because their brain is lacking oxygen. You actually have 4 arteries that will carry blood to your brain, and numerous veins that carry blood from there back to your heart. When you choke the caratoids, you're only blocking two, and even then you're still not 100% blocking the blood flow. To cause any sort of brain damage one would have to hold this choke for a considerably long time. Nervous tissue can survive as long as 10 minutes without oxygen, so for arguments sake, lets say that you have to hold a choke for about 4 minutes to kill someone- that is an obscenely long time. Most people pass out within 3-6 seconds after a well applied chokehold. They will come back on their own, just leave them be and they'll wake up. The instances that you hear of where people have killed others with chokes, 99% of the time its a choke that crushes the windpipe. Chokeholds as taught in jiu jitsu and judo are strangles in that they cut off the blood supply and not crush the larynx.

Hidehiko Yoshida, Olympic Gold Medalist, fought against Royce Gracie twice in Pride FC. I dont recall that any of the other Gracies have fought pure Judo practicioners since....

Both types have many of the same takedowns. Basically when you talk about "Greco" or "Catch" you're still talking about wrestling, you're just naming different rulesets. Greco involves mostly upper body takedowns and it is illegal to grab your opponents legs. As such, most greco fighting is done from the clinch, making it look alot like Judo without the use of a gi. The premise is the same as in most other forms of wrestling- take your opponent down and pin him. Catch Wrestling by contrast is basically submission grappling. With the recent resurgence of submission grappling as of the past 15 years, most people are exposed to all styles of grappling, therefore you rarely see people who are pure catch, pure judo, or pure bjj fighters. Catch wrestling is based around the idea of taking your opponent down and making him submit with a joint lock or a chokehold. Catch left the US many years ago when it found a foothold in Japan and eventually evolved into shootfighting. Watch old Pancrase tournaments and you'll get a good idea of what catch wrestling looks like (when the fight his the ground). Lots of takedowns and footlocks, as opposed to BJJ which emphasizes positional control and upper body submissions.

There are other types of guard besides closed. Against someone who's that big, you're best bet is playing butterfly guard or spider guard, so as to keep his weight off of you. It will also give you more sweeping options, a good bet against opponents that are larger than you.

I usually agree with just about everything you say. But keep in mind that Brazilian Jiujitsu has every take down that Judo has. The link below is of Rickson, Roion and Royler at a Judo club in 1987. This was the school of Howard Nishioka who is a legend in the sport (Rickson, of course, beats him a couple times). My point is that it's a good school and they all hold their own. Howard is even heard saying that Rickson and Royler could represent their country or the US in international Judo competition easily. While Royler's take first take down in the video was a little sloppy, the second one was text book. Watch how he hooks the leg and rolls through with it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1015797790370952500&q=royler+and+rickson&hl=en Thats an insult to anyone who's a judoka in Brazil. After Japan, I would say that Brazil probably has the best Judo fighters. Brazilians are very skilled at Judo, and Rickson and Royler, while having good throws, are far from being able to compete at the olympic level with their judo counterparts.

Roylers takedowns arent very good at all. As a matter of fact, in all of his grappling matches, he pulls guard. The difference is that its much easier to take someone down when they're trying to hit you. Its also much easier to take someone down when they dont have any formal wrestling training. Its easy to theorize how you're going to stop a takedown, but if you havent wrestled, chances heavily favor you're not going to be successfull. Technically speaking, striking would be the weakness of BJJ but in terms of their grappling skills, takedowns are what stands to be the most desired improvement in BJJ, hence the reason for so many people crosstraining in wrestling or judo.

First off, this challenge match occurred before the advent of Pride and UFC which would be before the Gracies achieved such noteriety. The karate instructor simply did not know who he was fighting (understandably so). Its easy to say what not to do in a fight, even easier when your viewing someones mistakes from outside. You know that turning your back is bad because you give the worst possible position (your back) in the fight. He was a Kempo instructor and wouldnt be expected to have known this. Its also difficult to not give your back when your opponent starts hitting you in the face. The kempo instructor thought he had developed a street lethal style and wanted to test it against jiu jtisu. Unfortunately, hes the kinda person who feel that he needs to insist more on his style, rather than learn what it was that he did wrong (i.e. not knowing groundfighting)

I'll try to be as PC as possible to avoid an inflammatory arguement I disagree, the physical evidence heavily supports in favor of the UFC fightser, and its not just ring fights. Agreed A Tang Soo Doo guy could succeed, but bear in mind there are no style restrictions for the UFC, and there is a vastly larger amount of people that practice korean martial arts (such as TSD and TKD) than there are those that do muay thai. Even those people who have a background in traditional striking arts crosstrain in muay thai and western boxing once they get a foothold in the octagon. You dont see muay thai fighters and boxers doing the reverse, however. To accuse muay thai and boxing of being "simpler" is also not fair. I have invested alot of time in TKD, TSD, Kung Fu,Karate, and Muay Thai. Let me be the first to tell you that muay thai is in no way shape or form simpler than any of the other styles. As a matter of fact, within the first couple of weeks of muay thai I was being taught simple blocks, parries, and counters that simply did not exist in the traditional styles (and yes my instructors in the previous arts were legit). The combinations run deep, and the footwork can get confusing. While it is true that all styles of fighting have something to bring to the table, it is also true that if you put two styles of fighting against each other, one is bound to win and the other to lose. Some styles have more to bring to the tables than others. No martial arts system was ever made for the ring. All were created with self defense or martial (war) tendencies in mind. As such, for one style to claim that the same restrictions that are being applied just as well to the other styles prevents that style from being effective is not a valid argument when the other styles are able to adapt just as well. You could actually view this as a flaw and a shortcoming of the style. If you only have two choices, one being not to fight at all and the other being the complete and utter destruction of your opponent, you're not a very skilled martial artist. The ideal of the technical and skilled martial artist is the one that can subdue his opponent with minimal effort, so what does that say of ones skills if hes unable to do that? Furthermore, do you not see the inherent flaw of making such claims? To claim that a style is of utmost effectiveness, but to be unable or unwilling to prove it as such doesnt leave much on the table in terms of proof Besides the obvious flaws of such an argument, the deadly techniques philosophy vs the safe techniques philosophy has already been put to the test, and the safe techniques won. Back in the late 1800's, Jigoro Kano put his Judo practitioners with their "safe" techinques against the best Japanese Ju Jitsu schools in Japan with their "deadly" techniques (which included everything you cited- biting, eye gouging, etc etc). The Judo fighters won decisively against their "deadlier" opponents because they were able to train their techniques against resisting opponents. This is one of the reasons that Judo is so much more popular than traditional japanese ju jitsu in Japan (even though JJJ preceeded Judo). Every martial art and every fighter prefers to finish his opponent quickly with minimal effort- thats what every style claims to be able to do. Name me a style that suggests dragging the fight on and taking unneccessary amounts of punishment. The point Im making is that everyone wants to finish a fight quickly and everyone trains to do just that. It becomes more difficult when your opponent is trying to do the same thing, hence the reason its called a fight. I should also note that I have had experience with people attempting eye gouges, fishhooks, and biting on me and its attempts were laughable at best. What does it mean to fight "dirty" or to fight "clean?" As was stated, all styles of fighting have martial backgrounds and the idea was to win. Just because people morally choose which is dirty and which is clean doesnt verify how effective a technique is. A knockout punch, while clean, is going to be just as effective as the deadliest bite, eye gouge, or whatever. Once your opponent is unconcious, hes no longer a threat and you have the option of killing him. Other vital points include the ribs, jaw, temple, and spine, all of which such fighters are attempting to hit. If someone takes you down and and you try to eye gouge him, he need only move his head out of the way (or close his eye) because his positional dominance enables him to do just that. Because you are in an inferior position, you are not able to control your opponent to secure your technique. As such, the techniques themselves are not a means to an end and their effectiveness depends heavily on what position they're being applied from and how effective the person is at maintaining that position. Since most people who claim to know such deadly techniques have novice skills at best in grappling, this is why many who train MMA laugh at such claims and make fun of them. To put it into perspective, imagine if you had the best armbar in the world from the mount, or the best rear naked choke in the world from the back, but you had no idea on how to get to the mount or how to get to the back. Those techniques, as well as you know them, are completely useless to you because you cant get in the proper position to apply them.

26,000- now thats not a whole lot- 20,000 people die each year from falling. Compare 26,000 fatalities vs how many fights and you're going to get a rather small percentage. Beyond that, how many of these deaths were intentional? Im willing the bet the vast majority were accidental (as you said, a ko blow that sends someone falling head first to the concrete). Chokes ARE kililng techniques. Try to understand WHY people tap out and WHY people stop the fight when opponents are batterred senseless. When someone is choked unconcious, one only need to hold the choke to kill them. When you apply an armbar/joint lock and break your opponent limb, you severely decrease his combat effectiveness to the point of him no longer being a threat to you. At this point you have the option of stomping his head into the concrete until death. The same goes for someone who gets knocked out- with no ref and a fight to the death, a fighter keeps beating on his unconcious opponent until hes dead. Fights are stopped because we KNOW who won- we dont need someone to outright kill someone else just because of it. You mean... would I abandon the techniques that I know best and have been proven to work in a real life altercation against professional athletes who were well aware of the exact moves I applied on them in favor of a set of techniques that hasnt proved to be as effective in the same situations? No. When my opponent is unconcious, hes no longer a threat to me. One of the best ways to render someone unconcious is by choke hold or knockout. Interestingly enough, thats the goal of MMA. Addressing what I wrote above in regards to deaths related to fighting Compare how people fought when someone died, and compare how people fought when they both went home, and Im willing to bet that the fights are going to look relatively the same. You're not going to see some super deadly technique being used when someone gets killed. You're going to see punching, grabbing, and a whole bunch of other things, just the same as the fights of those people whos fights didnt include a fatality.