Jump to content
Welcome! You've Made it to the New KarateForums.com! CLICK HERE FIRST! ×
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

MMA_Jim

Experienced Members
  • Posts

    275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MMA_Jim

  1. Thats like saying you're a black belt in boxing... I know Tiger Schulmansm apparently gives out "black belts in MMA." The ones I've seen looked like beginner white belt jiu jitsu students on the ground. After all, most of their instructors are around blue belt. They do it just to make money. Martial arts can be a big business, and belts are their best selling item. I'll make fun of them for doing it, but at the end of the day they are making bank.
  2. Thats supposed to support your argument?
  3. We are of the opinion that 80 percent of Dillman's stuff is great. The rest seems like it's just for show or maybe hypnosis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsSzSflkns8 80% of it is great? 80% of Dillman's curriculum consists of pressure points and chi. I would like to hear the opinion of others on pressure point fighting. I would, but I dont want to be banned
  4. In my opinion there are two major reasons people hate BJJ, and these lead to an unusual response. 1: it beats whatever it is they're doing- I wont name martial arts to avoid bashing, but if you do BJJ you know what I mean. This inevitably leads to number 2 2: They try to justify whatever style they do. Some believe that "all styles are equal" and "its the practictioner not the style" when the bottom line is that certain style are superior to others at particular things- period. This is reflected in what styles people train in for fighting. Which leads to... 3: Everyone that did whatever martial art pre-BJJ now feels threatened by it. Instead of being .martial artists, they decided to become "street fighters" where "everything goes in the street" and "there are no rules" and "we train for more than one person for the street" because "going to the ground is bad in the street" etc etc. This is an appropriate response because it cant be measured, and allows them to percieve that BJJ isnt as effective as its proven to be
  5. Again, you're making assumptions- Im not trying to get into a Judo bashing argument either, but Im also trying to make sure things are set straight. How do you know Yoshida was choking Royce? He was attempting choke, thats for sure, but do you know how many attempted chokes fail? If a ref stopped a fight everytime someone tried a choke, every match in every tournament would be stopped cold. In regards to Royce not moving at all- that even reinforces the suggestion that he wasnt being choked. Why would one choose not to move? Let your opponent gas himself off. I've done it on more than a few occassions, and given the Gracies notoriety for wanted to wear an opponent down before submitting him, its something I'd expect him to do. What I would NOT expect him to do is to sit there and just take the choke while he slowly went unconcious. If you're getting choked thats not the time to hang out and do nothing. Again the ruleset stated the ref was not allowed to stop the fight. He shouldnt have assumed anything, shouldnt have listened to Yoshida, and shouldnt have stopped the fight. Fact is, he may have actually robbed Yoshida of getting a legitamate victory since that was the best position he got in either of the fights. And again, an unconcious person (or even one who was getting choked for 10 seconds) doesnt jump straight to his feet when the match is stopped prematurely. Royce stood up faster than Yoshida did and showed no signs of ever being choked (a choked individual would be a little light heady, woozy, and wobble on his feet). Hey, Im not disagreeing with you- thats the way that MMA is nowadays and thats how one must accept it- Im just telling you how they look at it. As far as Royce being arrogant, well I'll tell you you're not the first person I've had tell me that (and Im not saying you're wrong) but again, Im not aruging about the guy's character
  6. I'll give you a perfect example, one reason why I hate people such as George Dillman.... Say George went ahead and shows you some of his pressure point and no touch KO's stuff. You're a woman, afraid of being attacked and assaulted, so you figure something is better than nothing, right? Then the day comes when you're put in a particular situation, and you feel that you've learned well enough off of George that you can defend yourself. You stand your ground, and start throwing chi and pressure point strikes all over the place... but they dont work! Next thing you know your attacker has thrown you to the ground and you find yourself assaulted and/or robbed. So, rather than simply doing your best to run away, or do something as simple as punch your attacker in the face, you tried to stand your ground and do the techniques you've been taught only to find they dont work at all- and in the end , you're paying the price for it. Lets not forget that you bought into all of this stuff because George told you it was a good idea, and he hasnt a clue what hes talking about. THATS why martial arts frauds need to be confronted and stopped cold in their shoes and why many styles put you in a worse situation than better one. After all, if there were no frauds, you'd be taught proper techniques that work when you sought out your self defense training. Again, novices dont know anything about fighting or self defense- they just take what the guy with the black belt says for granted... after all, who would lie about something like that?
  7. I think you summed up an appropriate response to your own question. People giving "black belts" who have no idea how to fight whatsoever. Now, there are plenty of people that say "martial arts are not about fighting." They most certainly are. No martial art has ever NOT been about fighting. You're practicing punches and kicks- thats fighting if I saw it. Most people have no idea what they're getting in to- thats what it means to be a novice. They see someone with a black belt and assume he must know what hes talking about (after all, they dont just give these things away, right?). After awhile they buy in to whatever this guy is selling, and try hard to repress obvious questions (will this really work) because they've invested so much time into the style that they NEED it to work so they dont have a psychotic episode and realize after all these years they really didnt learn anything....
  8. You were speaking of exceptions rather than rules' date=' I would say that fight was an exception to the rule of Yoshida kicking butt in general. I think it was obvious there was something wrong with Yoshida that fight (besides getting his --- handed to him). And when two practitioners of different styles face off, one with a general focus on grappling, and the other with a focus on submissions, I think it says something when the submission stylist gets mounted and choked out by the general grappling style. Of course I am referring to the first fight between Yoshida and Royce. [/quote'] In the first fight, Yoshida never mounted Royce. The best he did was get half guard. In a grappling competition, he would have gotten an advantage at best. The sleeve choke also was far from being secure. Ultimately the only person who can say whether it was really choking him or not was Royce, but the alternate angle of the fight shows Royce jump up the very second the fight was stopped. In fact he was actually on his feet before Yoshida was, and unconcious people dont exactly stand up-theres no disagreement as to whether Royce tapped or not- both side agree he didnt. Yoshida cranked that choke for about 10 seconds- if Royce were being choked, he wouldve been unconcious by then. Yoshida may have thought he was choking him, but he should have said nothing to the ref, because he blew it when he stopped the fight, as the contract stated the ref did not have the authority to stop the match. Frustrated feeling that he'd been set up in Yoshida's homeland, he demanded a rematch. Royce chose MMA rulesets because he felt Yoshida held too much- a few punches to the face will hasten anyone and if anything was settled after that fight, it was that Royce is simply on another level than Yoshida is on the ground- despite giving up 50 lbs. He had nothing to say when he lost to Hughes- I'd protest the match against Yoshida too- if some ref screws me over so his hometown hero can claim victory. As far as steroids, I dont know if he did or didnt- to be honost, I think the rematch was too late in either's career for it to matter. Everyone will always speak of their first fight- I dont think anyone really cared about the second. It was too long, Sakuraba had been through way too much beatings- I dont really think Royce avenged anything in that fight. As to why he and many of the other Gracie's may complain when they lose- well that majority of them complain when they lose a decision. Given that they're all about finishing a fight, they get frustrated when someone just fights a little bit, doesnt do any damage, and eeks out a decision. That frustates me too, but unfortunately its part of the game. I guess what they're really trying to point out is that if you want to claim to beat a Gracie you have to BEAT them (i.e. KO or submit them) and they dont consider decisions to be losses (again, Im speculating). On a side note, I didnt say you had to like Royce
  9. I have- transition takes time, its not overnight. I've seen plenty (and trained with plenty) who are tough guys with the gi, only to be pushovers when they take it off. Some of these guys were Pan American Champions, Brazilian National Champions, and Mundial medalists at the higher ranks. It happens. Example: there are guys who are world class (or world champions even) that are phenominal with the gi. Take a guy who's a strong guard player with gi. Some I've seen that take the gi off can no longer pose a viable threat from the bottom, because they're too used to RELYING on the gi instead of simply taking advantage of it. It happens plenty, and this is how you can see someone who's a world champion BJJ fighter go into MMA and perform god horrible. It happens. There are some who make a transition well, and some that dont. I agree The debate? Well, lets just say Im a logical person. Many people in the BJJ world are all about the gi, but sometimes for all the wrong reasons. There are many BJJ'ers who cant compete in no gi, because their game is faulty, relying on something such as a gi to get the job done. The debate is perhaps as to whether gi or no gi is more technical. I love competing no gi, and theres alot of BJJ'ers who like to repeat over and over "hey, well gi is more technical" when its simply isnt the case- they're parrots reiterating what their instructors said is all. People can rely on slipperyness and strength in no gi just as one can rely on strong grips in gi. Again I've trained with people that are acustomed to doing both- a strong wrestler who just uses strength and power to escape submissions suddenly isnt doing so well when a gi is slapped on him- thats a common example. Not so common an example is someone who uses a grip on the collar, spider guard, or variation thereof to the extent that the rest of their guard is poorly developed. When the gi and grips are taken away from them, these fighters often times prove to be just as lacking in technique, unable to move their hips and know proper escapes and positioning. They have an unpassable guard in gi, but you find you slide through that same guard like a knife through butter when you take that gi off. So yeah, its about which is more technical, gi or no gi and again that most people cant provide a viable arguement that one is more technical than the other. There are technical and not so technical people that compete/practice in both- just because you decide to put on a jacket doesnt make you more technical.
  10. Hey is sounds great, and I wouldnt complain too much- I'd agree except the technique doesnt work well against any but completel beginners. The problem is this: " If this hurts your partner, isn't it something positive then? Because your partner can then train how to manage pain. " Tell your students that and see how many still stick around....
  11. This thing has erased what Ive written twice over- its really making me angry.... I'll have to respond to each indivudual topic as a result Of course they preach it- they're jiu jitsu fighters Arguments are more effective combined with logic- according to yours, its MORE difficult to hold someone in no gi (since they can just slip out). As a result, your logic holds one becomes more technical training to hold someone down in no gi than with. Therefore, a no gi fighter is more technical on top than a gi fighter, since he must hold his opponent down without the aid of a gi Ive trained and competed against the best over the world, and I've got my fair share of victories. Im not someone stuck in some corner in the world. Again of course they advocate the gi, they're all jiu jitsu instructors and fighters. Some BJJ guys are similar to religous zealots- any blasphemy of BJJ demands a fight. I wont blame them to much, because I kinda do the same, but some people hold on to ideals so tightly that they cant see the forest from the trees That doesnt legitimize your argument that gi is more technical. Of course a gi fighter can compete no gi with more ease- if you're used to trying to move when people are grabbing you all the time, its not going to be too difficult to do it when people have less to grab. The reverse does not hold true. I have trained with and seen many top notch BJJ fighters who have trained their first day of no gi after 10 years of training gi. It took a little getting used to- they got tapped by lower belts, sometimes even blue belts. After they adjusted, most were able to make their transition fairly easy (say within 6 months). According to your logic, they should have jumped straight from the gi into no gi and torn stuff up.... So what is it that is really different between gi and no gi? Is gi really more technical? Why would one want to train with a gi when training for a no gi or MMA fight? This will be told by someone who couldnt hold a more neutral ground 1: Im a BJJ fighter and instructor 2: As such, I too also advocate the gi (but not because my instructor told me so) 3: When preparing for no gi or MMA fights, I train predominately with the gi So to start- gi is no more technical than no gi. Most people advocate that because there are more techniques available in gi, it must therefore be more technical. If BJJ has taught us anything its that specialization is more important than generalization-quality over quantity. Carlson Gracie said himself "You may know 10,000 techniques, but they're useless if you cant make them work." He was right. A technical fighter is one who can apply a single technique to numerous situations. A person who always happens to get that armbar from the guard, always manages to get that one sweep, what have you- but hes very good at a few techniques (rather than trying 100 different moves in a single match). THAT is the definition of a technical fighter and what it means to be technical. So whats the difference? WHy train gi for no gi or MMA? Well I'll tell you- no gi training is exceptionally hard on the body. Its very physically exhausting and demanding. Gi training, on the other hand, can be just as demanding, but due to the introduction of grips, it gives the participants the option to grab and hold the match at numerous times, allowing them to rest. As a result, if you're exhausting after 30 minutes of training in no gi, that same person may be able to train for 60 minutes with a gi, since they wont be denied rest due to "holding" the game. Because that person can train longer, they're able to apply their techniques more often. The more you practice or apply something, the better you get at it. As a result, one can argue a gi fighter has used his techniques more than a no gi fighter and will obviously be more proficient in them. But no there is nothing magical about the gi, and hard work, determination, and good instruction is what makes fighters- not some piece of clothing. So why train with the gi for no gi or MMA? Well, again Im able to train more often while putting the gi on. It beats up my body less, and while I will take advantage of the grips available in gi, I do not rely on them. As a result, my game does not change from gi to no gi. Im equally dangerous on bottom and passing the guard in gi and no gi. I pass not because I rely on a grip or because I try to trick you by running one way and then the other- i pass because i know how to drop my weight in the right places and use leverage to my advantage. Likewise on the bottom- I rely on my hip positioning and proper leverage and NOT a grip to make my moves work. Some may say the same things, but watching their game live suggests otherwise. Many people, "world class" blackbelts and beginners alike, rely way too much on their gi grips for their game. I use my body as a whole to sweep someone rather than a grip or two. Neither is more technical or better than the other, because at the end of the day they are the same thing- grappling
  12. I decided to respond to this argument in a separate post, as it will take a little longer to address..... The technical jump... I always hear that one "gi is more technical than no gi, training gi will improve your no gi game," etc etc. So, alright come on guys- you're just reiterating what your instructors told you.... Now, my background- I've 8 years training BJJ from an acredited Gracie school (who's about as traditional as they come) and from two other world champions who are arguably the best in the world. I have no wrestling experience, really like to fight no gi, and really hate footlocks and consider them to be "below" me So whats all the fuss- first off, to suggest that a grappler with the gi is more technical is a slap in the face to every person in the world timeline who ever grappled without one. Seriously, are you going to say that people like Alexander Karelin, Dan Gable, or Karl Gotch were not 3 of the most proficient grapplers that ever lived? None wore a gi a day in their life. If a gi fighter were so much more technical, how did American catch wrestlers absolutely manhandle judoka in the 1950s which led to the inception of shooto- a more "no gi" oriented judo if you will. So, the reality is this- gi and no gi are practically the same thing. As a result, neither is more technical than the other, because the same options are available to both fighters. Both fighters wear a gi when competing in gi, and both without when doing no gi. The same options are available (and not available) to both fighters. Its like arguing which is more technical- boxing or kickboxing, or if you will, football or hockey, or anything else. Each is just as technical as the other, because the ruleset applies to BOTH competitors. So back to this whole thing "oh well, more gi fighters and blackbelts are so much better than no gi fighters." The reason why a BJJ blackbelt is so proficient isnt because hes wearing a gi- its because of the strategy taught in BJJ. Virtually every other grappling style didnt break the ground game down the way BJJ did for a real fight. Look at the catch wrestlers, the shooto guys in Japan who fought Pancrase- takedown and footlock, from everywhere. BJJ realized how important position dominance was in a fight and what could be achieved by it. Since the emphasis on passing the guard, getting the mount, and taking the back is so much more prevalent than other grappling styles, they've developed to be more suited for a real fight. Pouncing on a foot may work, but if you fail, your opponent can drop bombs on your face. So again, the emphasis on positional dominance and positional heirarchy is what made (makes) BJJ fighters so much better- its not a peice of fabric guys. I can make a good grappler with or without the gi. I'd be willing to bet that Royler Gracie, Jacare, Xandre Ribeiro, and many others can as well. No one is RELYING on the gi. The gi simply gives more options (but again- this doesnt make it more technical!). The overall strategy of BJJ is what proves to be its most powerfull tool and what seemed to be so vacant from other grappling styles prior, and they could have done this with or without the g. I'll be back to write the second part of my post, but I've got to go to the gym now...
  13. This is something that people always argue back and forth, and I have a feeling such an argument will never die. First off- to those (Misasailant) who say no gi is more realistic- thats not always the case. Where do you live that people regularly walk around with a pair of fight shorts and nothing else? In Philly, for example, people are wearing some kind of sports jacket 2/3's of the year, making grips possible. If grips arent availabe- a jiu jitsu fighters game shouldnt change all that much- hes not going to panic and explode, you know? If your game does change significantly, thats a good indication of your technical weakness....
  14. Again, there are options that are there when you grapple someone, and options that are not there. Sure, grabbing someone CAN take away some striking positions, but it certainly sounds as if you're not being grabbed by people who know how to take advantage of it. Predominately we're talking elbows and knees from a clinch when you're striking within a grapple. Unless you've dominated the clinch at this point, your attempt to attack is probably going to lead to you being taken to the ground. Again, we're not talking some stooge who tries to tackle you- such a person doesnt really know what hes doing- but someone with the same amount of training on the ground as you have on the feet.
  15. Cant say I'll agree with you on this one- 1: just because 2 people attacked you and you used aikido techniques to defend yourself doesnt merit it as being more or less effective- one needs to take into account the skill of the attackers involved.... 2: I've seen aikido and trained with aikido-ists (?) The most resounding thing I've been told was "Aikido is so fun to practice after you start to get good at it, but you can not use this stuff in a real fight- its just not made for that." And that was from a guy who trained BJJ with me- Aikido was (and still is) his first style, him being (at least) a 4th degree black belt instructor with over 30 years invested in the style.
  16. To reiterate what has been said: Grinding your elbows into an experienced persons thighs will yield absolutely no positive results. Getting caught in triangles is probably a direct result of this. Its not illegal but is considered "rude." You actually want to take care of your partner when you train with them. If you're continuously rude things to your opponent, they're not going to want to train with you, and you'll be unable to get any better =)
  17. Most dont know until its too late- again, its severely underestimated how effective it could be- think about the last post similar to this one (that was deleted by the mods) about stopping a takedown with an elbow to the neck. Seriously, have you ever seen an "anti grappling" seminar taught by someone who appears to be at least a blue belt? Most look like they trained on the ground for about 3-4months (and have already got it all figured out!) Proficiency is relative, but with a couple years of training, you can learn well enough in all phases of a fight to take great advantage over someone who doesnt know what they're doing. I dont think the first is so much the case in the US- perhaps elsewhere throughout the world. I would say yes to the second most likely because if someone taught standup, but really understood how effective the ground game is, they'd either be training extensively themselves or would have brought someone in to teach it at their school
  18. Well, you need to seriously consider what the styles are good at. The problem with aikido is that so many people misunderstand what it was designed for- aikido techniques are primarily to disarm a sword bearing opponent, hence so many wristlocks off the feet. What its not designed to do is to catch someone's punch mid flight and toss them through the air Steven Seagal style. It can be done, but only against the most novice of opponents after significant amounts of practice. What would I recommend over it? Well, if you're looking for a grappling style, there are plenty, but I get the feeling you'd probably like judo. More effective throws with a good mix of the ground game.
  19. A man has the capability to enhance his strength well into his 50's- what starts to severely diminish is his cardio and his recovery. Fighting isnt like the karate kid where the old wise man can tear a hole through the young spry athletic student. Again, still at 52 you have (and will continue) to be able to develop your strength to be moreso than someone half your age, but the same does not hold true for your endurance and recovery. As a result, an athletic guy with good cardio can become troublesome. (i.e. a young former wrestler)
  20. TV... They can or cannot mean all that much. Its kinda like if you tell people you've got a degree- most intelligent people will ask from which university. If you've got a degree from an accredited institution, people are probably going to hold your degree with higher esteem than if you got it at a local community college or worse- online.
  21. The reason why people take sides and tend to get so defensive, whether they believe it or not, is fear. Similar to religion and its views, everyone wants to believe that what they're doing it right, and everyone elses way is wrong. The more you can defend what you do, refute what someone else does, or gain more supportors for your cause, the more "right" and confident you feel that your way is the "best" way. There are also those that attempts to be liberal and say "all styles are equal- its the practicioner." The bottom line is that some are better than others at certain things. A muay thai fighter will always kick harder than a wrestler, a boxer will always slip faster than a judoka, a jiu jitsu fighter move better on the ground than a karateka, etc. Not realizing that they are still thinking within a box, different styles do have different things to offer, and fighting has not always been as it is in modern society. A kung fu practitioner with deep stances does well in a mountainous terrain where footing is unsure-where a mobile boxer may slip (his footing) and never gain his balance. A Japanese Ju Jitsu practitioner practices strikes to areas that seem to have limited value- why attack ones armpit rather than hitting their face or jaw? Again not of much use in modern day society, these targets are the only ones available when an opponent is wearing full battle armor. These are small examples of why certain techniques and styles are so greatly different than others, and why styles like BJJ, Muay Thai, or boxing get the reputation for being so good- its because of the demands of modern society, but times change, and some time down the line, so to may the demands of what techniques are best suited for a fight.
  22. I concur! Excellent post, a solid post! Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not belive that Yoshida trained jiu jitsu, and neither did Sakuraba. And Yoshida was defeated rather soundly by Royce noless.... Giving up 40-50lbs, and being a mediocre black belt, Royce was able to sweep, pass the guard of, mount, and take the back of the man who could easily be considered one of the best Judoka in the world. Sakuraba trains (trained) extensively in catch wrestling and judo. The three have very similar techniques. The guy has rather sick grappling skills, what can you say about him? But he tends to be the exception rather than the rule. BJJ spat out more skilled grapplers than did any other style, though as the differences between styles have gradually faded over the years to where the best is incorporated from all styles, other styles have started producing good grapplers in their respective styles as well. So, if you were to nit pick, change "ju jitsu" to "grappling" as a generic term, and you're set
  23. Yes it is, but imho, the Ikken hisatsu of today must to tailored to the times of today, in that, one might not be enough. I'm very aware that I won't be the only one hitting. In Shindokan we start teaching "ground-work"/grappling at the Green belt level and up. So, I've 40 plus years experience on the ground. So, I personally, feel very comfortable on the ground. Not just strictly Shindokan methodologies because I believe that the answer to complete totality lays with cross-training with other martial arts that are very, very solid in their ground-work. But, while I respect a pro-wrestler...I've no concern with them. So thats 40+ years of grappling in a live environment with fully resisting opponents who are doing the same to you, ala a typical BJJ class yes? I mean seriously, I've trained with guys who claim to have 20+ years experience in ju jitsu or some other grappling art, and after training with them I judge them to be about the level of a 6 month BJJ white belt. Lets not also forget that if you've got 40+ years, you need to consider your age. To put things into perspective, some guys play pickup hockey, softball, or flag football, having played such sports since they were kids. Again, they have 20-30+ years of experience- that still doesnt mean they have any idea what they're doing....
  24. As a tradionalist, this is nothing more than a saying from times way past. Yet, the meaning is still understood by every traditionalist. I'm not going to kind-of hit them, no, I'm going to hit them as hard as I can and more. If they still don't fall, I'll keep hitting and hitting and hitting them until they drop. And if they want to go to the ground, great, I'm more than affable on the ground as well. Not all traditionalist come from the same mold. I'm not a patty-cake type of traditionalist at all! Isnt that the general plan when you're striking anyways? The biggest problem here is sheer size and strength, as Im envisioning a 275lb 7% body fat pro wrestler who throws weight around like its nothing. So we're talking great discrepancies here, and strikes are allowed on the ground (and the feet- you wont be the only person hitting). The ground game CAN change alot (it does for most people, unless you REALLY understand your jiu jitsu) when strikes are introduced. Lets not forget that it took Royce Gracie, who had 20+ years of training, 15 minutes to successfully land a submission against Dan Severn, who had almost no submission defense to speak of. Not to be meant as a slight against him, it took him that long because he gave up around 80lbs in that fight. And again, he was a Gracie Jiu Jitsu black belt with over 20 years experience. So since you said it- how much experience do you have on the ground that you'd feel comfortable with such a weight disparity?
  25. Manhandled? To me, it seems that you don't think much about traditional martial artists, that's cool, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Well, you're half right, but the amount of muscle they've got on their bones, you could hit them as hard as you could and they'll probably laugh at you. Again you'd better be a sizable individual yourself (around 200+lbs) if you're expecting to drop them with strikes. I've trained with a guy who was a former pro football player- around 6'7 285lbs when he was "light" and believe me, it was all muscle. When sparring against the Muay Thai instructor, who was an undefeated pro, but around 165lbs, he'd walk through many of his strikes and smother him against the ropes. It helped a little that he had some Greco experience as well. The point is that theres so much muscle surrounding these guys that you're not going to drop them with one shot. These guys are used to taking some of the hardest shots that humans can muster- trust me they're no stranger to being hit. In a thai fight, the shots would add up and probably drop him against that same opponent, but one strike one kill is not going to work in this case, and you'd better have some good takedown defense (read: grappling skills) if you want to keep them from taking you down. Now, you're welcome to disagree (obviously) but ask yourself- who's the largest and strongest person you've sparred/trained/fought against? Any professional athletes? Thats what pro wrestlers are- pro athletes. Im not trying to give a WWE wrestler a credit for being a good fighter, but I am giving credit where credit is due. You'd be suprised how far size and strength will take someone in a fight, ESPECIALLY if you're looking to trade strikes with them, and these guys have plenty of it.
×
×
  • Create New...