Rule Dependant Venues

[sensei8]

Right, rules have to exist to keep competitors safe.

That said, may of the rules you list sensei8 either weren't in effect early in the UFC's or were never in effect for Pride, where stomping downed opponents was not only legal but, apparently by the frequency of it, encouraged. Despite these rules (or lack thereof) grappling arts and training methods that were less than traditional proved to be necessary to press competitive levels forward.

As to rules favoring grapplers, I don't think this is the case anymore. The refs are now encouraged to get people up when there is a lull in action. This makes it harder for grapplers to "cook" strikers and wear them down. Not to mention it means that grapplers are constantly getting stood up and put back into their opponents potential strength range.

I'm not saying that the tactics outside those rules are ineffective, just that they are not the great equalizer that they are often touted as. For instance in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFFsWF3FoLI

you can see at about :51 seconds the cop on the bottom attempt to eye gouge the attacker on top and then fish hook him. Two often touted "there are no rules on the street" tactics. In both cases they are ineffective and defeated by the attacker simply turning his head. Again, I'll never say these tactics won't work, but that they are secondary to learning good positional grappling.

Also, here are the thoughts of Draculino, a highly respected BJJ or illegal strikes, he makes some valid points:

you'll notice during all of this his exceptional positional control that prevents much of the effectiveness of this particular "illegal" attack.

So, I guess my point in summary is that- yes, mma makes certain techniques illegal for safety. However, this does not invalidate what we've learned as a result of mma competition.

Yes, several karateka have made successful transitions to mma. Machida is the most often touted. It has obviously influenced the way he fights. He's done very well. But again, we look at what we've learned from the competition of mma. He's not tearing it up as a karateka alone. He's also a high level grappler who's trained with some serious black belts. And if you watch footage of him training, he's training like a prize fighter, not your average karate practitioner.

This is one of those things that goes back to the attitude you often encounter with BJJers in regard to other arts. There is a real lack of time for anything theoretical in nature that can't be shown, proven to work, on the mat. Kata is about a theoretical as it gets, hence the lack of seriousness given in by a lot of BJJ guys. There is a lot more credence given to knockdown styles and such because you can see that what they are doing works. It's a perception and a mindset and it comes from the fact that there is nothing in BJJ that is theoretical. You can either do it on the mat or you can't. There is no maybe about the functionality of a tool.

MMA has inherited this from it's ties to BJJ and Vale Tudo.

Renzo Gracie has a great section in his book "Mastering Jiu Jitsu" that discusses this. It's well worth the read. His thesis is that people who train and rely on tools that are theoretical, even if those tactics are highly traumatizing to another person, are behind the 8 ball compared to the martial artist who rely on tactics that might not be AS damaging but CAN be practiced full speed and resistance.

Now, progressive minded martial artist can work around this to a degree based on modern equipment. But we'll never entirely overcome this until we can all rip up realistic robot ukes. Part of it is psychological as well. Largely, humans aren't wired to kill and mutilate one another. It's actually harder to do this than one would think.

Yes, we all talk a good game, but research shows that when push comes to shove, even in life threatening situations, it's hard for the average human to kill or maim another. Look at the non-firing rates of soldiers research done thru WW II to present. We, as a warrior community led largely in this area by the military, have figured out how to get around this. But it's still an issue. Especially for the civilian martial artist who's NOT training to tear apart a human being realistically.

Again, I'm not over-bashing those tactics, just saying that there's a lot to the subject that gets over looked most of the time.

Lastly, yes, there is ego on both sides. However, mma has shown us some great lessons on training, cross training, and mindset. We limit ourselves if we don't learn from it and adapt.

Solid post!!

I apologize if I'm failing to make any solid points.

I just hate it when some style of the MA is touted as solid and others weak because of ANY rule laced venue.

Edited April 15, 2012 by sensei8

[sensei8]

Solid post ps1!!

UFC in its infancy...those were the good ole' days.

The attitudes who've supported the theirs-is-all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips hadn't been from just the few. No, I've been reading/hearing/watching this attitude for many years.

I try to just shake my head in dismay...and I'm dong so much better in shrugging it off.

Thanks.

Regarding the bold print:

I post BJJ videos on youtube. I get a ton of comments. The vast majority of the comments are about how the move won't work in multiple attacker scenarios! That would be a valid point if my video was at all geared toward self defense or multiple attackers. But they are clearly videos geared toward defeating/countering other BJJ techniques. Yet these guys want to tell me that karate or boxing or martial art x will beat this.

All I can think is how foolish these people are. I've never seen a BJJ practitioner demonstrate a ground move and say it's great for multiple attackers. Heck, Royler Gracie himself told a guy "jiu-jitsu doesn't work magic" in response to a ridiculous situational question.

Further, Rickson Gracie is quoted as saying, "Competition in jiu-jitsu is only about 30% of the art. Without learning defensive striking, self defense, and a combat guard, you have not learned jiu-jitsu!"

So, just like other arts, what is seen in competition is not the entire art. So for people to draw judgement based on competition is quite unfair.

As i said before, the arrogance is on both sides. Quite frankly, any great proponent of an art will tell you what the art's weaknesses are and how to fill in those gaps. Then they will do that to the best of their ability.

Solid post!!

Again...

I apologize if I'm failing to make any solid points.

I just hate it when some style of the MA is touted as solid and others weak because of ANY rule laced venue.

To me, when people say that "theirs" is amazing and mine isn't because their only argument is venues like UFC, it's like a pro-wrestler saying that he/she is all that because of all of the championships they've won, yet, that pro-wrestler forgets that the promoter determines who wins and who loses.

[tallgeese]

Right, rules have to exist to keep competitors safe.

That said, may of the rules you list sensei8 either weren't in effect early in the UFC's or were never in effect for Pride, where stomping downed opponents was not only legal but, apparently by the frequency of it, encouraged. Despite these rules (or lack thereof) grappling arts and training methods that were less than traditional proved to be necessary to press competitive levels forward.

As to rules favoring grapplers, I don't think this is the case anymore. The refs are now encouraged to get people up when there is a lull in action. This makes it harder for grapplers to "cook" strikers and wear them down. Not to mention it means that grapplers are constantly getting stood up and put back into their opponents potential strength range.

I'm not saying that the tactics outside those rules are ineffective, just that they are not the great equalizer that they are often touted as. For instance in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFFsWF3FoLI

you can see at about :51 seconds the cop on the bottom attempt to eye gouge the attacker on top and then fish hook him. Two often touted "there are no rules on the street" tactics. In both cases they are ineffective and defeated by the attacker simply turning his head. Again, I'll never say these tactics won't work, but that they are secondary to learning good positional grappling.

Also, here are the thoughts of Draculino, a highly respected BJJ or illegal strikes, he makes some valid points:

you'll notice during all of this his exceptional positional control that prevents much of the effectiveness of this particular "illegal" attack.

So, I guess my point in summary is that- yes, mma makes certain techniques illegal for safety. However, this does not invalidate what we've learned as a result of mma competition.

Yes, several karateka have made successful transitions to mma. Machida is the most often touted. It has obviously influenced the way he fights. He's done very well. But again, we look at what we've learned from the competition of mma. He's not tearing it up as a karateka alone. He's also a high level grappler who's trained with some serious black belts. And if you watch footage of him training, he's training like a prize fighter, not your average karate practitioner.

This is one of those things that goes back to the attitude you often encounter with BJJers in regard to other arts. There is a real lack of time for anything theoretical in nature that can't be shown, proven to work, on the mat. Kata is about a theoretical as it gets, hence the lack of seriousness given in by a lot of BJJ guys. There is a lot more credence given to knockdown styles and such because you can see that what they are doing works. It's a perception and a mindset and it comes from the fact that there is nothing in BJJ that is theoretical. You can either do it on the mat or you can't. There is no maybe about the functionality of a tool.

MMA has inherited this from it's ties to BJJ and Vale Tudo.

Renzo Gracie has a great section in his book "Mastering Jiu Jitsu" that discusses this. It's well worth the read. His thesis is that people who train and rely on tools that are theoretical, even if those tactics are highly traumatizing to another person, are behind the 8 ball compared to the martial artist who rely on tactics that might not be AS damaging but CAN be practiced full speed and resistance.

Now, progressive minded martial artist can work around this to a degree based on modern equipment. But we'll never entirely overcome this until we can all rip up realistic robot ukes. Part of it is psychological as well. Largely, humans aren't wired to kill and mutilate one another. It's actually harder to do this than one would think.

Yes, we all talk a good game, but research shows that when push comes to shove, even in life threatening situations, it's hard for the average human to kill or maim another. Look at the non-firing rates of soldiers research done thru WW II to present. We, as a warrior community led largely in this area by the military, have figured out how to get around this. But it's still an issue. Especially for the civilian martial artist who's NOT training to tear apart a human being realistically.

Again, I'm not over-bashing those tactics, just saying that there's a lot to the subject that gets over looked most of the time.

Lastly, yes, there is ego on both sides. However, mma has shown us some great lessons on training, cross training, and mindset. We limit ourselves if we don't learn from it and adapt.

Solid post!!

I apologize if I'm failing to make any solid points.

I just hate it when some style of the MA is touted as solid and others weak because of ANY rule laced venue.

Quite the contrary, I think you make a lot of good discussion points in your posts. I'm just presenting an alternate view point.

[Ueshirokarate]

All I can say, is that I blame the Gracies for this art is better than that art mentality. That is how they sold their style. I have seen the clips on Youtube of the supposed "karate" practitioners fighting a Gracie. They don't do anything I recognize from karate. That said, I would not want to fight a top level practitioner of any martial art whether it is capoeira, kalaripayattu, BJJ or whatever.

I really enjoy BJJ, but it is a lot of physical work to wrestle someone to the ground and then pin them. Perhaps this gets a lot easier when your skill level goes up, but if I were fighting for my life I would much rather whack the guy in the neck or solar plexus and be done with it. The thought of having to wrestle or throw someone down to the ground and then role on concrete or whatever, all the time worrying about my fingers being twisted or being bitten at anytime and knowing what it takes to submit a guy does make me pretty happy to have a solid karate background too.

[MasterPain]

I remember a Jens Pulver fight that was a real showcase of the weakness of not having a strong striking background. It was a 15 minute sprawl-n-brawl clinic.

Personally, I think it best to have at least a basic understanding of all ranges, then have a specialty later on. In early MMA, we did not see many high level TKD-type kickers doing well. Now we are starting to see it, difference is that now no one is completely ignorant of grappling and clinch ranges, so they are better able to dictate the range at which they fight.

[ps1]

In early MMA, we did not see many high level TKD-type kickers doing well. Now we are starting to see it, difference is that now no one is completely ignorant of grappling and clinch ranges, so they are better able to dictate the range at which they fight.

I agree. But I site the change as people finally getting over their egos and learning they do have weaknesses. So they train to fix the weaknesses and now know how to fight in different conditions.

A really tough Rickson Black Belt was just destroyed on TUF. Why? Because he thought BJJ alone would win. That just can't happen anymore.

[tallgeese]

In early MMA, we did not see many high level TKD-type kickers doing well. Now we are starting to see it, difference is that now no one is completely ignorant of grappling and clinch ranges, so they are better able to dictate the range at which they fight.

I agree. But I site the change as people finally getting over their egos and learning they do have weaknesses. So they train to fix the weaknesses and now know how to fight in different conditions.

A really tough Rickson Black Belt was just destroyed on TUF. Why? Because he thought BJJ alone would win. That just can't happen anymore.

It's an interesting side note you bring up here ps1. After watching that fight, and I agree he was totally destroyed, I don't think it was because he thought BJJ alone would carry him. It seemed to me that after a total lack of serious takedown efforts, it was more like he didn't expect to resort to it.

It was either arrogance in other aspects of the game or a push, which I think we've seen in mma, to finish via strike to impress people who will buy pay per views. Maia seems to have suffered in a similar fashion.

That said, I certainly agree that we're seeing now high level stuff in other aspects of the game that we didn't see initially, or even after a few years, of the modern advent of mma. This is an exciting thing to me. Martial arts should grow and adapt. It will be interesting to see the kinds of things we're talking about 10 years from now due to the evolutions taking place now.

[tallgeese]

All I can say, is that I blame the Gracies for this art is better than that art mentality. That is how they sold their style. I have seen the clips on Youtube of the supposed "karate" practitioners fighting a Gracie. They don't do anything I recognize from karate. That said, I would not want to fight a top level practitioner of any martial art whether it is capoeira, kalaripayattu, BJJ or whatever.

I really enjoy BJJ, but it is a lot of physical work to wrestle someone to the ground and then pin them. Perhaps this gets a lot easier when your skill level goes up, but if I were fighting for my life I would much rather whack the guy in the neck or solar plexus and be done with it. The thought of having to wrestle or throw someone down to the ground and then role on concrete or whatever, all the time worrying about my fingers being twisted or being bitten at anytime and knowing what it takes to submit a guy does make me pretty happy to have a solid karate background too.

BJJ should get easier the better you get, as I guess any art should, but if one's BJJ is relying on strength or attributes it's not really BJJ. I'm glad I have a striking background as well, but on the flip side of your observation, it's pretty darn hard to get a committed attacker to stop by striking them in the solar plex during active movement. The same can be said of about any target. Granted, there is the side that likes to have striking if I can't out wrestle a bad guy. It does go both ways.

As to the Graice marketing, well, it is what it is. You can't argue with results however they elected to sell it. They beat a lot of people in Vale Tudo and the early UFC's that were single art individuals. I suppose the argument that they weren't stars of their arenas might be valid, but keep in mind- just in the early UFC era alone- you had guys like Pat Smith (well credentialed kickboxer), Keith Hackney (high ranked in Kenpo), and Ron Van Cleef (Go Ju) that were highly thought of in their INDIVIDUAL arts lose to grapplers. It doesn't really prove grappling is superior, but that grappling had long been overlooked by the elite in several fields. One does not see that happen much these days, it's a self correcting problem for professional fighters who want a well rounded game.

At the end of the day, what's working for each individual fighter is great. They should keep doing that. But the reality that mma in it's current form reminded us of is that we can't take any range for granted. Cross training is a must. Further, it's showed us that we HAVE to find a way to pressure test these tactics against live attackers. Otherwise we have a purely theoretical basis for our belief that our skills will bring us thru a combative situation.

[Ueshirokarate]

I remember a Jens Pulver fight that was a real showcase of the weakness of not having a strong striking background. It was a 15 minute sprawl-n-brawl clinic.

Personally, I think it best to have at least a basic understanding of all ranges, then have a specialty later on. In early MMA, we did not see many high level TKD-type kickers doing well. Now we are starting to see it, difference is that now no one is completely ignorant of grappling and clinch ranges, so they are better able to dictate the range at which they fight.

Don't forget, the UFC is entertainment. Audiences tire of seeing guys just grappling on the ground. Don't for a minute think that the UFC or other MMA events are purely just fighter to fighter contests.

[MasterPain]

I remember a Jens Pulver fight that was a real showcase of the weakness of not having a strong striking background. It was a 15 minute sprawl-n-brawl clinic.

Personally, I think it best to have at least a basic understanding of all ranges, then have a specialty later on. In early MMA, we did not see many high level TKD-type kickers doing well. Now we are starting to see it, difference is that now no one is completely ignorant of grappling and clinch ranges, so they are better able to dictate the range at which they fight.

Don't forget, the UFC is entertainment. Audiences tire of seeing guys just grappling on the ground. Don't for a minute think that the UFC or other MMA events are purely just fighter to fighter contests.

That may be, but for the most part, fighters want to win. And Pulver was a good boxer fighting someone who was a better grappler. He didn't want to grapple the guy.