MMA

[SevenStar]

hmm, i've only seen one or two san shou matches and they strike me as being kickboxing with a different bag of rules.

 

from what i've seen here in the uk, mma fights are better cos you have more freedom than in san shou.

 

the different rules make it necessary for different tactics, i.e. the lack of sidekicks in muay thai and the emphasis of them in san shou. San shou is a chinese development.

 

* * *

 

like you say, there are rules and certain types of strikes that are not allowed in a sport fight.

 

unfortunately, some styles rely on these to get their 'win'

 

that merely requires a tactics change. Does WC have to use biu gee in order to be effective? Does a longfist stylist have to use chin na? All styles have strikes that may be used in competition.

 

i don't like that 'lethal moves' argument because i also believe that you should be able to apply the principles, which should be more important than actual moves, in ANY situation to gain you the advantage.

 

agreed.

 

 

if you remove some of the basic effective strikes (elbow to back of head/neck/spine, knee kicks etc etc) you are moving the fight that little bit away from street type defence that a lot of traditional arts concerntrate on

 

Things that they cannot even practice with decent power, meaning they can't really gauge what they are going to do in a fight.

 

which is one of the reasons i don't like to use these events as a judege against what works and what doesn't.

 

they don't judge what works and what doesn't. They are a means of testing yourself. And they are the closest approximation to a streetfight available. The what works/what doesn't thing was started by TMA. They started saying "the easy way to defend a double leg is this" but then none of them could back it up. How can you say how to defend a proper double leg if you don't even know how to do one? a shot is different from a tackle. A thai roundhouse is different from most other roundhouses.

 

i see it like this.

 

in a mma/ufc event, the traditional guy has more things taken away from him than the ground fighting/grappling guy.

 

Nothing that is required for them to win a fight. knees, elbows, atriking a downed opponent, etc are allowed. And remember, if those things were allowed, the mma guy could use them too. Think about it,striker tries to eye gouge from a standing position - no control, plenty of free movement, etc. grappler tries to do it once he has his opponent pinned and controlled, where their movement is greatly minimized. Whom do you think would become more effective with it?

 

for the traditional guy to cover what has been taken away, he has to learn new skills that he would otherwise not need.

 

Why do you think so? Would he not have any use AT ALL for ground skills? He'd learn new tactics he may/may not need, like broken rhythm, when to attack certain areas, etc. but that would still be useful to them.

 

some of these things will fit with his base style.

 

some will not.

 

Don't use that which does not. CMA striking and footwork, bjj groundwork.

 

add to this that if he never intended to participate in a mma fight, he would

 

a) have spent most of his time learning lots of things that he will not use in the ring

 

b) not gain as much fight experience due to time learning

 

c) be entering an unfamiliar environment with almost unfamiliar (compared to his base style) moves.

 

not necessarily. I have a TKD friend who fights fill contact all the time at local events. He's been doing TKD for like wo years - had no intention of getting in the ring initially. The transition wasn't bad for him. My base was karate. Same goes for me.

 

the mma guy.

 

all of his training life has been geared towards that particular type of fight anyway, whether or not he participates in another matter.

 

he hasn't trained in things that he will not need and so his training has been quicker and he has more experience.

 

His training will progress him quickly anyway, due to the nature of the training.

 

the ground fighting/grappling guy.

 

the nature of his style means that he has a built in advantage; he has an extra range of fighting that most traditional styles cannot handle.

 

even though he also loses the same moves that everyone else loses, his proficiency on the ground makes up for it.

 

Which tells us what? That the tma should try ground fighting. It's no biggie to cross train. What if you run up against a wrestler on the street?

 

basically, the traditional guy has more work to do if he wants to fight in a mma/ufc fight.

 

the bjj guy has a lot of work to do also.

 

again i ask, just because i can't win a mma event, does that automatically mean my style is not good?

 

See above.

[SevenStar]

dangit... I started that post last night and fell asleep. I wake up this morning, finish it, and the read back and see someone already said some of the stuff I was oging to say...

[Drunken Monkey]

we are kinda going in circles here.

 

all i am trying to point out is that i believe that at the end of the day, the person will determine who wins, not the style (all within reason of course...)

 

um, are you refereing to bil gee as in the move or biu gee as in the form or bil gee as in the concept?

 

 

should point out, that if a 'wing chun' guy tells you of bil gee only in the sense of of the 'thrusting fingers attack' then he either doesn't know much about bil gee or he is not telling you everything.

 

more than anything, bil gee is a concept/set of theories/tactics that cover what to do when you are beyond your normal 'comfort zone'

 

i.e you have been forced into a compromisable position or forced off centre.

 

AND

 

the actual bil gee move itself is more intercept than attack.

 

anyway.

 

i'll address some of the points now.

 

i was under the impression that the side kick does exsist in muay thai and is in fact one of their major weapons (but it just doesn't feature much in ring fights).

 

anyway, i was just trying to point out that the san shou, although it is a chinese development as you point out, it still is a long way from a totally free fighting forum.

 

about the tactics change.

 

i also believe that you should be able to change your tactics to suit the situation.

 

after all, more than any other martial arts group, the traditional chinese arts emphasise CONTROL.

 

back to wing chun cos i know it best.

 

well, i'm going to have to say that it does indeed need bil gee (in it's entirety) not to be successful but to win (which is not the same as defending yourself) because that is the nature of wing chun.

 

unlike many of the older styles, it doesn't really focus on 'control' rather it aims to win and in order to win and usually that involves going way beyond any line drawn in a competition fight.

 

whereas some of the older traditional styles say give mercy, wing chun was always about kill the bugger.

 

if you like, that is a weakness, especially in today's society and the competition environment.

 

it is an extremely short sighted style but the things it does focus on it does very well (at least it used to...)

 

i know we don't train in anyway like they used to do and we sure as hell do not have to rely on what we train to survive like they used to, we no longer really know if what we train works (for us) or not.

 

again, that just points to a flaw in training, not the style.

 

hmm, maybe i should read what i just typed...

 

well, you get the idea i hope.

 

anyway.

 

yes, these types of events are for testing yourself.

 

i have said before that i believe that all types of training and all types of sparring are good parts of training and that includes these mma events.

 

what i was pointing out though is that many people do indeed base their judgement of a style totally on these events.

 

that is what i do not agree with.

 

like i have said before, these things are really not comparable.

 

the perfect stand up guy will prevent you from taking it to the floor.

 

the perfect ground fighter will take you to the floor.

 

i am not saying that ground fighting is not neccessary because if you are going to participate in a mma event then you are definitely going to want to be able in that area.

 

my question is, do you really need it outside of that arena?

 

i know, better to have and not need.... but still, i have so much to learn already.

 

i think i rather be thoroughly versed in my wing chun before i take the big leap and start a new style.

 

i'll end here with what i've been trying to get an answer to.

 

just because my style does not win events does that mean it is not effective?

 

i ask because that is what everyone seems to be trying to say.

[Iron Arahat]

Fights are won on positioning. The guy in the better position has the advantage. Be it seperated, clinch or on the ground. Whoever has the better position can throw there techniques while the other can't.

 

Now it doesn't matter if it is dirty tactics, or clean ones, that rule applies.

 

MMA covers that in all ranges. Many traditional arts don't really cover it at all.

 

That is why grapplers did so well early on. They trained in all of those ranges, and how to transition from one to another. Striking arts don't do that.

 

A skilled wrestler can keep you standing, clinch or take you do and keep you there. A Striker does not have those skills.

 

All the dirty tricks in the world won't help you if you can't secure a postion to throw them from. Yes you can eye gouge, but the guy mounted on you can too, and his might actually land.

 

All this "deadly" technique nonsense is just that, nonsense. MMA fighters understand this. Arm bars alone are garbage too, as are chokes. What makes them work is the positioning and set ups that allow them to be delivered.

 

True positioning matters.

 

MMA may cover all ranges, but in what detail? Obviously this depends on the instructor, and to a degree his preferences.

 

Believeing that traditional schools do not cover all aspects and ranges, is a misconception in many cases. Many traditional schools will also cover weaponry ranges, in addition to fighting.

 

"Dirty Tricks" as you call them work, are almost always a surprise, and the only reason one may refer to them as such is because it's against the rules in their "sport". They can change an outcome of a fight, and the midset of an opponent quickly.

[SevenStar]

 

MMA may cover all ranges, but in what detail? Obviously this depends on the instructor, and to a degree his preferences.

 

depends on the school. Where I train, bjj, mt and judo are taught by different instructors. Naturally, they have a preference for what they do, so we get detailed instruction in all three.

 

Believeing that traditional schools do not cover all aspects and ranges, is a misconception in many cases. Many traditional schools will also cover weaponry ranges, in addition to fighting.

 

It's no misconception that may tma don't address groundwork throughly, which is usually the range in question when the above statement is made.

[AndrewGreen]

True positioning matters.

 

MMA may cover all ranges, but in what detail? Obviously this depends on the instructor, and to a degree his preferences.

 

Believeing that traditional schools do not cover all aspects and ranges, is a misconception in many cases. Many traditional schools will also cover weaponry ranges, in addition to fighting.

 

"Dirty Tricks" as you call them work, are almost always a surprise, and the only reason one may refer to them as such is because it's against the rules in their "sport". They can change an outcome of a fight, and the midset of an opponent quickly.

 

I'd say more MMA schools cover weapons then Tradititional ones cover Groundwork. Difference being that a MMA school doing weapons, will likely spend a lot of time sparring with them and work in all three ranges with them.

 

Weapons are not a seperate range. The same rules of movement and positioning apply.

 

Dirty tricks are no more effective then a "clean" technique that lands properly. However it is very difficult to land a technique solidly against a skilled opponent. If landing a fist to a face is difficult, what makes you think a finger to a eye will be easier?

[Drunken Monkey]

y'know, i've been thinking about this....

 

it isn't that chinese styles don't have ways of getting of getting you on the floor, it's just that they assume that they can do it without going the floor in the process.

 

too often they assume that once the opponent is on the floor, the fight is over because at that point you step in and really 'finish' it.

 

the point is how often do we really need to go that far?

 

it has been said elsewhere on this forum that effective 200 hundred years ago does not neccessarily mean effective now.

 

looking at it differently, i would say that appropriate 200 years ago also does not mean that it is appropriate now.

 

part of my training involves being able to take your balance to get you onto the floor (as well as joint locks, arm controls etc that 'force' you to the floor).

 

at this point, it is assumed that i can do anything to you.

 

BUT

 

i have never been to a pure kung fu class that mentions that your opponent might take you down with him.

 

reason? because the original use of these arts was to kill (with a weapon) and so, on the floor=dead.

 

it should also be noted that as a general rule, ground fighting does not feature highly in chinese styles.

 

following this, the chinese styles never needed to develop this area.

 

this is an inherent weakness and to say that it doesn't exist is a foolish assumption/claim.

 

but i still stand by my belief that if you really are goos enough, you should be able to

 

i) prevent yourself from going to the floor (or else be able to recover and get up v. quickly)

 

ii) be able to apply your principles on the floor to attack/defend (which admittedly is still far from ground fighting).

 

as i have said before,

 

i don't believe that any one way of fighting is superior to any other.

 

you have all said that you need to be proficient in all aspects.

 

the chinese arts tend to focus on one aspect and i have always seen the styles as being different aspects.

 

i have my punching style.

 

i have my kicking style.

 

i have my joint lock/control/throw style.

 

all just happen to be chinese.

 

the chinese styles never really say that they are complete, only that they have ways of dealing with things

 

(usually in theory.... ) which is not the same thing.

 

what you have to realise that while they say they can deal with some things, it doesn't mean that they can do them things.

[Iron Arahat]

To say that it is not a misconception that Chinese arts do not address groundwork is quite frankly that.

 

Qin Na is part of many Chinese Schools teaching, but if you tell me that isn't true I guess I'm wrong.

 

"Weapons are not a seperate range", this is likely a philosophy difference, but they are in our system. There are also ranges within types of weaponry, there is a big difference between a knife and a staff.

 

"If landing a fist to a face is difficult, what makes you think a finger to a eye will be easier?" Quite simple, experience, techniques work.

[SevenStar]

chin na is not groundwork intensive. Take a student who is proficient in chin na and put him on the ground with a grappler...

[Iron Arahat]

chin na is not groundwork intensive. Take a student who is proficient in chin na and put him on the ground with a grappler...

 

I assume that you are a master in the Qin Na section to make such a claim.

 

Again misconceptions...