MMA_Jim

A WWF wrestler would absolutely manhandle most martial artists out there- not so much because they're a WWF wrestler but because they're well conditioned athletes (BIG well conditioned athletes). We'd have to assume that whoever they're fighting is going to be at a disadvantage in terms of weight. The only people who I would see as decisively beating guys that size would be grapplers, mostly wrestlers and bjj fighters. Assuming they fought a skilled striker, such as a quality muay thai fighter, it would only take a punch or two before the "wrestler" decided to grab him and throw him to the ground.

You're making an assumption of BJJ based on one fighters personal style. Wrestlers are athletes- not all BJJers are athletes. Thats the lure of BJJ- it teaches the weak and feeble how to defeat the strong and athletic. That being said, Helio prefers the style he does because he wasnt big and strong. He needed to wear his opponents down, and since his takedowns werent top notch, more often than not he needed to do this from his back, since forcing his way on top was very difficult. There are many different styles of BJJ, just as there are different styles of Boxing or martial arts, if you will. Some jiu jitsu fighters are very aggressive while some are very passive. Usually the more athletic ones find themselves towards the aggressive styles.

Think of it like this: When you fight, you and your opponent both have armor. Think of your muscles as being your armor. When you're about to hit, or more importantly get hit, you breath out and tense up your muscles or your "armor" Pressure points only work when muscles are nice and relaxed, say in a demostration, and not when muscles are tensed and make strong, such as in a fight. Your best bet then is to look for the chinks in the armor. Those chinks could be joints where muscles have to stop such as your knee joints and hips, or it can be where your muscles are the smallest, such as surrounding your ribs, jaw, etc

Mixing opposing styles (ie grappling vs striking) is usually very helpfull in learning a complete fighting style. That being said, no one style is complete, and those that claim to be are often nothing more than poorly taught MMA. Combining styles of the same sort can be problematic, since not all styles agree on how to fight. One style might suggest deep stances, for example a kung fu type style. Another might suggest being light and mobile, for example a muay thai type style. If you know what they're used for its ok- a deep stance is good to use when the environment is unstable, such as a rocky landscape with poor footing. Mobile stances are good when the ground is good. Using one in the other instance is ill advised. It depends on what they're teaching and what its used for. Sometimes, it be be a waste of time if its conflicting styles- depends what your interests are

CBJJ= Confederation of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. The governing body of BJJ. The confederation that runs the Pan Ams and Mundials (Worlds) events

Yes, neck cranks are legal in UFC- the can opener for example. As far as wristlocks,they ARE legal in BJJ Competition under CBJJ rules

The differences are obvious: Karate lacks grappling, plain and simple. Judo lacks striking, plain and simple. Many people feel that when you explain the shortcomings of a style, they have to defend said style, especially if is the primary style they train in. Lots of people will tell you that "true" karate teaches grappling, or that "true" Judo teaches striking. I've seen what karateka have called grappling, and I've seen what Judoka have called striking. If you want to draw an analogy, karates grappling is about as good as Judo's striking (and vice versa), which is not very good at all.

Actually, most of the people who say "the ground is the last place you want to be in a fight" have absolutely no skill when it comes to ground grappling.... hence them making that statement in the first place. The reality is that taking the fight to the ground can be a good, bad, or indifferent decision/accident. Fight strategies are relative, and it depends on the circumstances of the fight whether or not taking the fight to the ground is a good idea. Most of these people like to pose the most grave circumstances as reasons not to go to the ground. Those that talk about multiple attackers and how to defeat them by standing and such dont understand that they're going to end up on the ground during that altercation, despite their greating intentions not to go there. I like to start with basics- prove to me you can beat up one person, or more easily prove to me you can simply stop one person from taking you down, let alone 2 or 3 people, and then I'll start listening to the advice that person has.

Yup... I think you'll find the two styles very evenly matched after watching and considering all of those. In the Royce Gracie fights, Royce loses both of them (one in a very contraversial decision). However, the Rickson and Royler visit demonstrates Rickson doing very well against olympic caliber guys. I haven't seen the other two. I would completely disagree with you here. First, the human weapon episode- Chambers and Duff are there to do an episode about judo and learn it, not to defeat it. They fight under Judo rules and Chambers clearly holds superiority over his opponent on the ground. The first Royce vs Yoshida fight was stopped early, theres nothing controversial about it- the alternate camera angle that shows Royce jump back to his feet at the same exact time Yoshida does clearly shows that he wasnt even dazed by the sleeve choke. Theres not much evidence in that fight. The second Royce/Yoshida fight shows a Royce Gracie whos outweighed by 40lbs completely dominate a Judo Olympic Gold medalist. To top it off, Royce's jiu jitsu is far from world class (and I mean far) in terms of his "sport" jiu jitsu if you will. Put a competition black belt in there, and I dont this Yoshida would last very long. I do believe that Roger Gracie is set up to fight against Yoshida sometime soon. That makes for a more reasonable comparison, since both are champions at their sport.

Catch works alot of leglocks because of what it was that made it popular. It used to be around during the high times of the traveling carnivals in the US, during which they would have contests "make our wrestler give up." Since there are no strikes, and wrestlers didnt know how many fights a day they may have, quick and efficient submissions were the most popular. Footlocks can be used from the top or bottom and require no positional dominance. As a result, they can be applied almost immediately when the match goes to the ground, hence their popularity

I broke my hand sliding into second base... So far, I havent topped that

It wasnt taken out of BJJ, but it simply isnt emphasized. Small joint manipulations are taught in self defense BJJ to be used to de-escalate a situation, before the fight has started and before the adrelanine kicks in. Once the fight has initiated, small joint locks are practically useless and therefore are not to be relied upon as being a fight ender. The are not many pros to small joint locks. One is that they're usefull for breaking simple locks, for example the frankenstein style front choke. The cons are that small joint manipulation is simply not that effective and not as reliable as it is said to be. MMA nowadays has to balance itself between being proving grounds and also being entertainment. Looking at it from a promoters point of view: 1: Small joint locks are highly unlikely to stop a fight. Fighters will simply fight through the pain until the fight is stopped by another means 2: In the event that fingers are broken, said fighter is probably not going to fight until said finger is healed up, which put him on the sidelines for at least 5 months (2 months to heal, 2 more months to train for his next fight) in an optimistic scenario. Remember how long Fedor was kept from fighting when he broke his thumb on the face of Gary Goodridge? Think about how much money Pride lost in the time that Fedor was kept from the ring. So what you end up with is alot of fighters constantly needing more time off after a fight to heal up a broken finger, and if the fingers are constantly broken they'll less likely to continue their career due to arthritis. Eventually you're fight cards become weaker and weaker when your star attractions need more time to recover from their bouts. Bottom line is you lose alot of revenue So, that all being said, small joint manipulation is simply not effective at being a fight ender or even having a significant role in a fight.

Catch is basically the predecessor of Shooto/Pancrase. For example, Ken and Frank Shamrock are considered to have a base style of catch

Hey dylan, let me address a few issues that you seem to be having, or questions probing your mind. First off, as has been said, you're making the assumption that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu always advocates taking the fight to the ground. This is not the case, as the situation you pointed out clearly shows. That being said, the fact that you want to avoid being taken to the ground in the situation you mentioned makes a grappler the best suited for that situation. The most difficult people to take to the ground are grapplers, since they spend their time learning how to defend and execute takedowns. The easiest are non grapplers. What you need to know is that grappling experience is what determines your takedown defense and NOT striking experience. When you're being attacked by multiples, the fight is almost surely going to hit the ground, despite any type of strategy, style, or what have you. When it does, those most qualified to survive the onslaught and get back to their feet are once again, the grapplers. You can have the most dangerous striker in the world facing you, but have your friend grab him from behind and throw him to the ground and hes no longer a threat. Try keeping a skilled grappler on the ground when he doesnt want to be there (i.e. Chuck Liddell) and its a different scenario. Beyond that, let me say this- there are no solutions to dealing with multiple attackers. The martial arts world is filled with people who claim to be able to teach you to defeat multiple attackers. Let anyone who claims to be able to defeat more than one person at once publicly demonstrate it. The very first UFC's were filled with people who made these very claims. What was shown was that the very same people who claimed to be able to defeat 2,3, or even 4 attackers at once were unable to defeat even a single attacker. So thats food for thought.

Whenever you throw a punch, you should exhale to tighten your muscles in anticipation of getting punched yourself. Breathing out your nose is the appropriate way to do this, as it allows your teeth to stay clinched should your opponent catch you on the jaw with his own attack. "Kiai-ing" is not a practical option. Regardless of what it MAY offer in terms of an attack, the fact of the matter is that should you be on the recieving end of a punch to the jaw the moment your jaw is open (i.e. kiai-ing) you're going to get knocked out. Boxers dont kiai, and neither do thai fighters and for good reason. The WCL is a karate kickboxing league and even you dont hear them kiai. Granted they're all wearing mouth pieces, but they're wearing them for good reason. The kiai in my opinion stems from the old karate adage "one strike, one kill" in that one is putting all his/her power into a single strike that ultimately defeats the opponent. If this is the case, your kiai is fine since you dont have to worry about a counter attack-however most fights are not decided with one punch

Im distinguishing between the two. For one, boxers tend to shell over to protect their front, that is, they over sugar foot, if you will. For another, even should you want to bait your opponent with a leg in wrestling, its not prudent in MMA. In wrestling you're aware that its a grappling only competition. In MMA, you can quickly become sidetracked when someone throws a quick jab to your face. This affects your balance, and the leg that was otherwise a bait is easily accessible for a takedown. Beyond all this, the name of the game in MMA is offense since you're not always fighting someone thats from the same base style as yourself

The most effective techniques and styles usually arent entertaining. I'd rather something be effective and boring that showy and useless. On a side note, I am a BJJ fighter, and some jiu jitsu matches are like watching grass grow

I wouldnt even say that MMA fighters use a boxing stance- its much more a thai stance if you will. A brief synapsis: Cat stances, or any other type of stances which keep your balance uncentered (ie your weight is on the back foot, or in the front foot for a front stance) arent practical when having to defend against takedowns. Deep low stances suffer this as well. Rooting your stance low, or otherwise staying immobile, will allow your opponent to pick you apart with whatever he wants, be they kicks, punches, and especially takedowns. Boxing stances are more sugar footed- that is, they stand sideways similar to what you'd expect a karate/tkd point fighter to do. The difference being the handwork. This is a good stance for limiting the striking targets of your opponent, but is still very vulnerable. A sideways stance doesnt allow you to check low kicks, which means your opponent gets to tee off on your lead leg. This stance also doesnt allow you to sprawl, so one is very succeptable to takedowns from this stance. Wrestling stances arent favorable for obvious reasons- you want your hands protecting your head when someone can throw punches and kicks at you. The thai stance is arguably the best one because its more square and allows for good mobility. Leg kicks can be checked, and the stance allows for a good sprawl to defend takedowns.

By definition just about every basic move you're going to attempt against a non grappler is going to work, simply due to the fact that said person doesnt even have the knowledge to defend whichever particular technique you're attempting.

Its not Thai Ju Jitsu, but rather Taijitsu. Its Japanese Ju Jitsu. Unless Im mistaken, Taijitsu is the overall reference to samurai martial arts, if you will. While it does teach standup and grappling techniques, I wouldnt call it a complete style. Its a little outdated in terms of what it was originally used for, and just because you can find moves within a particular styles curriculum doesnt mean that the instructors are proficient at it.

Wristlocks are legal in all professional MMA tournaments, such as UFC. Their practicality is much more so for gi than no gi, I agree. Usually they're seen when grip fighting on the feet, or from cross side when opponents protect themselves incorrectly and leave a wrist available

Hey A-zo, perhaps you could tell us what city you're in, then we could help you out with finding a suitable gym. Given time, I'd say that within a year you may be able to step into the cage for a couple of amateur bouts, especially considering your athleticism

What he said Dazed and Confused- in my experience, a JJJ black belt is somewhere along the lines of an experienced BJJ white belt. In context to the rest of JJJ's techniques, Im not as fond of it as is ps1. Wrist locks are allowed in professional tournaments (all submissions are legal at the professional level, be it professional jiu jitsu or MMA). Theyre not very applicable in MMA due to the simple fact that a fighters hands and wrists are taped to prevent injury, which then makes wristlocks far more difficult. In regards to professional jiu jitsu, wristlocks are allowed but are very seldom seen simply because they're so much more difficult to apply in the practical sense than they are the theoretical sense.

My personal thoughts on RBSD are as follows 1: Very underqualified instructors Often times instructors at such schools are very underqualified. For example, in many "military" and other RBSD systems, one only need to study for a brief period of time (say a few weeks or a few months) before being "qualified" to teach that system or that style. Most people who are beginners are ignorant to the idea that someone would be ill experienced yet still attempt to teach a self defense style- money is a powerfull motivater and leaves many people decieved. 2: Lack of credentials This is probably one of the biggest problems I see with RBSD systems- no one has any experience in fighting or competing. The entire emphasis is " WE TRAIN FOR THE STREET, NOT FOR THE RING." Sounds like a good premise but a couple of things to understand: 1a: anyone can claim to have any number of unrecorded street fights, bar encounters, and prison brawls or what have you- its the most beautiful thing about these systems- you can claim any of these "real life" circumstances and never have to worry about someone disproving your credentials, because things like these cant be disproven, which brings us on to the next 2a: The purpose of ring fighting is that it can be recorded and documented without being corrupted- that is, when all is said and done with a ring fight we are left with one story about how the fight went down. There are no death touch or ninja gang stories. The other thing to take into account with ring fighting is that it is much more stressfull to step out onto a competition mat (assuming its a combat sport such as wrestling, BJJ, judo, muay thai, boxing, or sambo) or into a cage than it is to fight in real life. If you can handle the nerves you feel while getting ready to fight into the cage, real life encounters will be cake. 3a: Most instructors like to list military experience or some other form of service (such as swat/police, body guards, or my personal favorite, bouncers). The problem with this is that these services do not lend very well to hand to hand combat. The military teaches their recruits the most basic of h2h and for a good reason- we'd rather that you learn how to shoot a gun or operate a tank than how to effectively ko someone. You're almost never going to see a h2h confrontation in modern warfare and the military knows this. As such, even the military instructors are quite novice in terms of their skills. The same can be said for SWAT and police agencies, and being a bouncer is about as difficult and sitting in a corner and flirting with girls all night. Once again though, if one puts on their resume that they were a bouncers, they're free to fabricate any story they want and it cant be disproven. Its not to say that all former bouncers lie about their stories, its just that when it comes down to it, we cant use their word as objective evidence. And finally # 3- over reliance on "deadly" techniques Most RBSD schools teach and overabundance of eye gouging, groin grabbing, and biting. Such techniques are vastly overrated. Learning something basic such as how to throw a 1-2 combination or learning how to standup in base from your back is going to be so much more valuable and usefull than someone telling you to eye gouge someone. Such techniqes are desparation moves and quite honostly, are easily defeated and countered. Every girl knows from the age of 6 that it hurts a guy to get kicked in the groin, yet thousands of rapes still occur despite this, because its not as easy to execute in a real life situation and its an overrated technique thats not the guarenteed fight ender that its put out to be. So, pick a school with instructors that can have actual fighting experience that can be proven and you'll be much better off in learning how to defend yourself

Any school can be labeled as being MMA. This looks like its a school thats trying to teach MMA with Japanese Ju Jitsu instructors. It doesnt make them bad, but bear in mind that a JJJ black belt DOES NOT is not comparable to a BJJ black belt. They openly acknowledge this though. Their hearts my be in the right place, but they may not be the best teachers. I can only suggest you go and see