JerryLove

You know what they say about a fool and his money Props to him for walking in the door and trying his luck... but he was foolish to bet on the outcome.

I certainly may be wrong on who the grappler in question was in the UFC... It's been a long time. I'm certainly not about to argue that BJJ is not an effective art (I never have made that assertion), and I'm certainly not about to de-emphasize the importance of grappling (I spend way too much time doing it to make that assertion); I was just pointing out that the difference in surface/wall in a UFC match is more favorable to being on the ground than your average social location; and that the lack of things wich normially occur and which aid the effect of strikes (say, shoes), is more favorable to grapplers than your average conditions. Thanks for the clip, I'll add it to my collection. That siad, the Karatika in question was completely outmatched (what the hell was that first swing at empty air supposed to do?) but it is anticdotal... which, while useful for establishing what *can* happen, does not really show tendancies. That said, I think that is the tendancy of a BJJ practitioner against a Shotokan practitioner; and I think that is largely the result of training methodology. Of coruse, if Shotokan changed how they trianed, they might not be doing Shotokan any more As a note: The wall was definately not bare concrete (you can see the seam of whatever is over the wall where it meets the floor) and I doubt highly that the floor was (or they are both now limping from knee damage). - Some corrections made for typos.

I suppose one test here would be to go back to the UFCs and see if you have grapplers hitting the ground or not. Not only have I seen them hit the ground first, and hit the ground deliberately, I've seen a grappler (I believe it was a Gracie) working an arm-bar on a much larget opponent who was literally bouncing the grappler's upper spine off the floor a couple times (then the arm/shoulder lock caught and the biger fighter tapped out).

News to me... I must have missed a meeting. We do seem to have that requirement as citizens of civilized country; but I am aware of no such rule I signed up for when starting MA. You could try the "take a picture it will last longer" defense; but, like others here, I'd suggest you "get over it". It is? Why? Who made up these rules? You either need to get your supermodel out of the 4-inch stillettos and fishnets, or put a bag on quazimoto's face... whichever is appropriate to your wife... I'd also avoid taking your wife around a lot of punks and gangsta-wannabe... besides, you might get a non-wannabe that busts a cap in yo * and takes her for his own (if Cindy Crawford... If quazimoto, he would take her for the circuis). Who knows, you might even loose sometimes. Case-by-case, day-by-day. Broad solutions include reclusing yur wife indoors or the use of burlap.

My concern is that there are a good many positions which, while tactically dominant, do slam you into the floor. Conversely, there are throws which do not neccessairily put you in a dominant posiion so much as server to bounce your opponent's head off the ground. I feel that canvased playwood causes a dynamic related to these throws which is signifigantly different than a harder surface such as asphault. To Warp: ROTFL, great post.

There's no need to speak of it in basics when we can speak of it in specifics. Many decades ago there was a man named Kano. Kano was, among other things, a Jujitsu practitioner; and he was involved in the Japanese educational system. Kano wanted a PE that children could do, so he took Jujitsu, removed a chunk of the material which made it more dangerous to practice, added a belt system, and called it Judo. Practically, Judo is more focused on wrestling than Jujitsu... If you have a basic idea of the differences between Judo and Akido, you'll find Jujitsu feels Judo with a bunch of the Akido stuff added.

Hrm. Both knights and samurai held codes of honor... none of which diminished their fighting ability unless this is a discussion on who would shoot whom in the back they day before our fight. This is a non-starter. A Samurai was a member of a warrior class; a knight was a member of a warrior elite. In theory, the average knight would be better trained; but it's a hair I'd rather not try to split. It is simply wrong to say that a knight was slow. It is simply foolish to say that a fast unarmored person with a mdeium sword could take a knight one-on-one but no-one throughout the medieval and renissance periods in Europe ever did it. The same with weapons... slow weapons would not have hit the enemy, nor would they have done damage (you cannot cut plate, you must hack or bash it). Different knights carried different weapons with different methods of use, though I stand by my statement weather you want a sweedish mercinary with a great-sword or a knight Templar with a flail. If you believe you can get small cuts on a knight, you certainly don't udnerstand the armor. And for reference, I presuming a knight in articulated plate with all the appropriate udner-armors... The knight will win because the armor will do its job; they were the tanks of the battlefield, and a samurai brings nothing into the mix which would fundamentally change the situation. Stick them both naked in a room and see who wins? Will depend on who spent more time with their wrestling/unarmed skills. I would tend to think the Samurai, but am really not sure.

The knight... better equipped.

Would you feel happier if I cited a bunch of Asian quackery? Or would you jist like some more rino-horn for virillity?

http://thehaca.com/

Part fo the point is that your brain will not be impactig on anything. Unless you are holding your head incorrectly, it will move very litle from this punch. No movemener = no brain injury. And nowhere to send the force... getting hit in the side of the head with power is disorienting.

Compared to a street, or a sidewalk, or a hard-wood floor, or a traction floor over concrete, or a concree stairwell, or most any "real world" envyronment, this is padded. They don't want to break their skulls when they hit the canvas either... and since all people are euqlly disadvantaged in that case, there is no problem. We do agree that training shoud be realistic. I think we will find differences in our approaches (you'd rather go fulls speed with protection against a resisting opponent in many cases where I would rather go low speed without protection against a resisting opponent). Judo (IIRC) has a good number of throws where you throw yourself to the ground with them; as, I believe, does wrestling. I would have to check to name specific throws. I believe they are... and the footing issue is relatively minor (I had thought I had inferred taht, but realize that nuance is hard to accomplish in text).

My ultimate Ki technique is called "Fred"

And easier than that to find someone teaching staff forms, and easier than that to find someone teaching chess; since he's specifically looking for use of a Celtic sword however...

Umm. You could get 2 gis and save yourself a bunch of sewing.

Wow, those videos could not be any worse. I definately make out a man wrestling down a small bull, but the rest is very unclear. The rock frames look out of order and everything is *very* pixelated.

Weather I agree or disagree depends on what you believe constitutes "realistic training methods". The mantra I've heard from MMA people is "you have to try to do it full speed and full power against resisting opponents". If this is an accurate (and exclusive) representation of what you mean, than I disagree. I should have been more specific, my bad. I'm actually concerned that the padded floors advantage fighting on the ground; particulary important with arts that like sacrifice throws or deliberately putting themselves on the ground (BJJ). The softer surface has some negative impact on footing and striking power as well (certainly sneakers on asphault have better grop than wrestling shoes on canvas), and the soft walls allow someone to get pounded agasint them without much risk of injry. I've equivocated, when I should have been specifically talking about the upright fighter vs the ground fighter more than the garppler vs the striker (though obviously some apply GvS)

Take a look for a local SCA (Society fo Creative Anacronism) or HACA (Historical Armed Combat Association)... Google should be able to help you find them. Otherwise, the only European sword training readily available AFAIK are sabre, foil, and epee fencing... Experts in other European combat arts exist.. but they are hard to find sometimes.

I frown on choosing to go to the floor... I frown even more on choosing to go to the floor *before* you've started the grapple.

Screw the patch and worry about doing Karate?

The action involved tiltign your head for 2 reasons. One is that really ahrd part of your skill is about where most people's hairline is; the second is that the angle of hit produced would do little to jar your head around (bouncing your brain in your skill, which is what causes knockouts and brain damage). And the Chinese MA were know for conditioning their heads. That said, I'd like to see the videotape of Mas before I come to any conclusions regarding hat legend... unfortunately it does not exist. So two of these people punching each other in the fist would do what? After all, it's just bone they are hitting.

That said, I can't seem to easily imagine where I would want a haymaker over a faster/harder to block/ harder hook.

A realistic fight? "They Live" comes to mind. "Fight Club" is good too.

The point was that thease are viable weapons to use, and ones you may have o defend against. There was also (IIRC) the point that despite NHB being closer to street-fighting than any other competitions, there is still a signifigant difference between the two. Personally, while I would certainly desire to remove adventageous position from my opponent; I cannot see that it is normal that I would look to move out of grappling range at that point (though I can come up with scenerios). I would rather simply work from where I'm at in terms of range. But I believe that you fight how your practice. If you practice MMA-style with the mindset for those competitions; yo uwill not likely suddenly develop a focus on things like getting bitten when the fight starts. Agreed. A rule added to make the fights "more exciting to watch". That said, the use of a (relatively) soft floor and walls, the removal of clothing, the disallowance of weapons, etc. makes a UFC less adventageous to a striker than a bar-room would be. That's not a true caracterization... BJJ can fight wihtout going to the ground, but disallowing going to the ground would be disadvantageing BJJ.

Would seem unneccessary after you were in a dominant position . I'd use them when they readily presented themselves... same as most any other thechnique. Firstly, there are a good deal of people who would not use these techniques. Secondly, one of the worlds most skilled competitors against "some guy on the street" should be uneven enough that no techniques are going to have effect (IOW be successful). How would you end such a grapple and "reaquire range" without attacking? What ever happened to "working from the clinch"? Holyfield knows.. but I don't think "bite him" ran through his brain. What happened is that the guy who got bitten was thrown off, same as the guy who get's jabbed... It hurts and is distracting and thereby creates a moment of opportunity (like a feint, or a jab, or any of a dozen other tools of distraction). In the case of an eye attack, it can also be debilitating (causing vision "issues"), and had Tyson chosen the side of Holyfields neck instead of his ear....