JerryLove

So then for yuo, techniques like these will not come out until / unless you are loosing. You will be trying to throw them from a disadvantaged position and it's not likely they will turn the tide for you. I've read articles by more than one Gracie discussing fights they had outside of competition. If all they do is try to avoid the takedown, eventually they will be taken down. No one wins by defending. Someone bites *my* ear off, it makes no ****ing difference to me where we are.

By "if he felt threatened" do you mean at the time everyone agrees they will not help you? When you have functionally already lost? Of course he's physically capable.. but that's not what he actually does. Clinches do not universally end up on the ground, and fights i nUFCs have ended from strikes at the clinch. As to weather one of those distracing jabs being in someone's eye would be just that much more distracting... What kept him from doing it then? I don't know about him; but what I'm saying is these restricions (weather spoken or unspoken) differentiate a UFC from the most severe (and therefore most worrysome) of streetfights. Answers vary.. I like "slowly". How does your art practice knife work? How do you know that an expert grappler that includes briging and gouging as part of his base thinking cannot get them to work. Have you trained to defend against an expert grappler trying to do so to you? How do you know you can defendit? In a "real fight "? I certainly wouldn't. If he wasn't biting and gouging before; giving him a minute to think about it should chage that aproach. Exploit the distracting by taking out his eye, then exploit that distraction. Techinacally an eye-strike rather than a gauge.. but I tend to equivocate that myself

Nahm just someone flame-baiting.

I disagree both with the statement that you cannot simultaniously punch and kick and get a good hit, and with the assertation that one cannot rrecover from a kick and still have the distraction value.

Once upon a time, many boxing matched were bare handed. One boxer "trick" was to present the face as a target and then tilt the head when the jab came; the other boxer would damage his hand on the crown of the first boxer's forehead. I suppose you could argue that bare-knucle boxers didn't have conditioned hands, but I wuold image that claim would really need support.

Not all of that post was enccessiarily at you. The "not actually hit" iomment was not, the simultanious commet was (since you are mentioning "deliver the punch with a leg in the air", and obviously the one addressed directly to you is.

Since when do distracting techniques (ataemi in JMA) not actually hit; and since when are they neccessairil simultanious? And BTW WS, flamethrowers do not, as you mentioned, use a compressed-gas fuel... you would get functionally no range.

"kung fu" is any skill achieved through practice (such as cooking). "Weijia" is the chinese word for external fighting arts, "Neijia" for internal", "Wushu" for all fighting arts (as well as meing a single art/sport) China and Indonesia alone breech 1000 styles (by most estimations I have seen). If you are only looking at top-level groupings, you go by country.. allowing for a little breakdown: Weijia - Chinese external arts Neijia - Chinese internal arts Kuntao Silat - Indo/Chinese atrs (there are also pure Chinese and Phillipio arts by similar names) Pentjak Silat - Indonesian arts with cultural flavors Pukulan Silat - Indonesian arts without cultural flavors. Karate - Porminant group of Okinawan MA (also exist in Japanese varients). Jujitsu - Classic unarmed arts of Japan TKD - Official sport-art of Korea, older arts squished under japanese. Thai-Boxing - Catch-all term for Thai and Cambodian arts (such as Muay Thai). I'm not sure of goot catch-all terms for western fighting groups (brodly defined as "pugulism" and "wrestling"). A specific list, even only covering the ones *I* know (surely a fraction) would be more than I'd care to type.

Yep, he's a very solid and skilled fighter. Everyone does not. The answer for those that do is "because they will do it, and he will not" You assume too much. To begin wth, you assume that these attacks will be used solely after a clinch and take-down. People who wait till they are loosing to start fighting are simply going to loose. It's another fallacious assumption. Typson and Holyfied we both very skilled and compitent boxers. Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear. Right that moment, Tyson put himself in the dominant position. To use a more benign example, find out what "checking the oil" is in wrestling, and what effect it has.

Not that it's terribly on-topic... But the simplest thing to do is find your oldest relevent references. That said, there was only one church (Catholic) until 1054 when the Orthidox church split from it; and the Catholic church had only one elader (the pope). In 1517, Martin Luther nailed the "95 thesis" to the door of the church in Witburg and started the reformation. In 1536, when Henry VII split the Anglican church from it's Roman Catholic parent, he became the first possible "ruler who was in charge of teh church" that I can see. Charlemagne, king of the Franks, and the first holy-Roman emperor appointed by the Catholic Church was born April 2, 742 and crowned Dec 25, 800. What this has to do with MMA, I will never know.

In what way would meditating help you sneak quietly. Many home invasions occur when people are home. Many people will sleep through a reasonably quiet intruder. I see no connection here.

Yea, I'll tell you about them right after you tie your shoes Considering the range that a haymaker works at, I don't think moving outside it would be generally practical. Again considering range, ducking puts your face next to their knee and the back of your head well within reach. It works great against hooks in boxing, because legs and attacks to the back of the head are not allowed. It's not too bad agaisnt jabs because of the range. But I would not opt for it in close.

When in doubt, try google

The way to avoid that (mostly) is to pull immediately and keep pulling. If they can turn their head in teh direction of the pull, the pressure will move your hand and keep it out of harms way... turning their head in any other direction will not put your finger between their teeth. Obviously, this is not a problem with the nose. But agreed, be careful.

I believe you are correct.. Skin is very sturdy, but that puppy will indeed tear open.

Fishhooking is inserting one or more fingers inside someone's cheek and pulling real hard. It tears the cheek from the gum.

You are substituting myth for fact. One basic rule of metals is that if they are soft, they don't hold an edge well. Another is that no one made swrods with 1-3 angstrom edges (which is the edge of a razor blade). Your are also confused in that softer metals (to a point) are *more* when it comes to catrostrophic failure (the weapon breaking), though they genrally carry less tensile strength and are far more prone to incidental failure (bending, dulling, etc) I would also refer you to a whole slew of spears and pole-arms (the dual axe, that general-somebody's sword that's on a pole, etc) to show a general interest in large weapons amond the Chinese at the time. If I were to hazard a guess, it's that springy, folding (look he swings so hard the weapon bends), shiny ("hard" steels are typically high-carbon.. therefore dull) sword that can be moved quickly (it's light) looked better. Remember that the primary holders of kung-fu for a long time were the actors of the peking opera. A moment ago you said the swords were sharp. Making a blade thin does not make it sharp... all you have is the size of teh edge and the angle of incedence. I could attach a hunk-o-steel to the middle of a razor and it would have no impact on the sharpness at the edge. Typically thin=fast... it also says a bit about the intended fighting style. I do have some chinese swords that are a high-carbon steel (dull, heavier and thicker than performace swords, and generally reasonably functional). Again, I don't believe that modern Wushu has any real interest in a fight. See above. But you loose as much in transferrance as you gain in potential. Unless used as a flail, flails make inferior striking weapons.

Yes, but you are no longer training "full contact against a resisting opponent". And non-live blades are quite damagin on their own. So "pull the punch"? I thought that was exactly the type of training that MMA was railing was ineffective? And that's realistic how? In case you run into someone in a face mask with elbow and knee pads and a cup walking down the canvas-covered street? But how do I know which ones work? This would be analogous to point sparring where you attempt to successfully touh without ever getting a real reaction from which to gauge. A person hit with a paintball will not react the same as one hit with a bullet. Making the training "unreal" and therefore not what is being pushed as MMA here. Me? I think wearing geat you would not normally wear is "unrealistic". Buit you have not actually been performing breaks against resisting opponents in free-sparring? You have just been "pulling the hit"? Sounds like TMA. The guy who is used to allowing his protective gear to absorb the blow. There were plenty of rules. Royce beat Kimo in an arranged, controlled fight. I'm not saying he would have won or lost had it been in an alley somewhere; I'm just saying that the claim that there is no difference is false.

FYI, here are the things not allowed in a UFC. Are they disallowing them because they *don't* effect the outcome? Butting with the head. Eye gouging of any kind. Biting. Hair pulling. Fish hooking. Groin attacks of any kind. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. Small joint manipulation. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. Grabbing the clavicle. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. Stomping a grounded opponent. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. Spitting at an opponent. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. Holding the ropes or the fence. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. OK, admittedly "spitting" and "abusive language" rules are obviously not to do with the resulting damage. Of course, no "street shoes" are allowed, and no weapons (including iprovised weapons like pens and belts) are allowed. There are not multiple-attackers, and no intervening objects, and the surface is clear, and surrounded by a border which is soft enough to un full-speed into withou injury, and a floor which has yet to cause a single concussion (IIRC). What might be different on "the street" I wonder?

Shooting, biting, stabbing, fish-hooking, ear-boxing, hitting over the head with a rock, fighting on very hard surfaces (such as asphault) without protective gear. Oh, that's more than one. I suppose any of these *could* be done in Randori, but your injury rate will be high. What about the things you cannot test? I understand that the fastest way to take an opponent down when shooting him is to hit the cerebral cortex or the upper nervous system. I understand why, and have reasearched it; but I have not tried shooting people to find out. Don't like that because there is a weapon? OK, how about boxing ears? I've got one medical statistic after another telling me how damaging it is; but I can't practice it for effect in MMA because it's damaging. For that matter; do you know which of your grapples will cause debilitating breaks and which will cause disloactions that may reset during the fight? Why not? Haven't you delebreately done the breaks? Don't get me wrong; I'm a huge fan of testing what you do and trying to find out what works. I also see the benifit of being able to experience what you train on the mat, over and over, with resisting opponents... I do not think this is the only valid way; I do not think this way needs to be exclusive to other ways. If Treebranch's comment that Kimo broke the fence with Gracie; what would have been different is the material of teh surroundings. Getting your head slammed into chain-link or boxing-ring canvas can be disorienting... getting it slammed into a concrete wall or tile floor will kill you. That said, I'm only passingly familir with the fight, and therefore commenting from the posts here rather than having watched that particular match.

Unless he "sits", in which case all you've done is turn your back to him.

Actually, I believe many of the lead CMA people are not in China. The Chinese seem to see what they can get away with (as a generalizaion). They will attempt to give you relatively bad stuff unless you both establish that you know better nad threaten not to pay. OK, I admit that's from a few anticdotes, and I will not assert that it neccessairily applies generally; but it has been my experience / the experience of several I've spoken with and it certainly fits with the "common knowledge" regarding the Chinese national personality.

It does not on mine. Make sure your butt is tucked and your neck is relaxed... Where in your back are you feeling it. I'm more than a little leary to try to teach qigong over text I pick up on emotional intend much faster. I find myself reacting, for example, to an angry person waling in the room without realizeing the've walked in.

Because knock-outs cause brain damage; and fighting for knockouts has a much stronger tendancy to damage other parts of your body. If you wish to fight for "knock-out or submission" I'm sure a Google search will yield everything from boxing matches (if you prefer a lot of rules and equiment) to UFCs. Feel free to enter at your leisure and let us know how it works out for you.

And I'm speaking of "what works with various bladed weapons"