magikchiongson Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 LoL, funny especially since a lot of assailants carry two knives. Whatever dude, keep studying your Jiu Jitsu get the crap beat outta you when you get jumped two to one or with a guy carrying a weapon. I own you.
Venezolano Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 i suppose you will beat those opponents with your kata's forms, and saying "KIAI" (to scare them) Valencia - Venezuela.
jiu-jitsu fighter Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 what are u talking about, ur generalising, study your katas and forms and cry when your in the hospital because you have no full contact training venozolano very funny comment, KIAI , RUN IN FEAR "When we go to the ground,you are in my world, the ground is the ocean, I am the shark,and most people don't even know how to swim"
magikchiongson Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 LoL I guess I take Karate now, very funny. Karate is about as useless as "Ground Fighting" someone with a knife. What are you gonna do, take your clothes off prance around in speedos and Kneebar a guy with a knife? LoL this is a fairly easy concept to grasp. Ask yourselves what's not allowed in a No holds barred fight? Can I elbow you on the head? Can I strike your pressure points, can I take your groin out? Take your eyes out? and you dare claim its full contact? Get a clue. Jiu Jitsu has proven itself in combat, so has Sambo but lol claiming dominance based on a sport and not in a real life confrontation is ridiculous. If you think its wise to grapple multiple opponents please go right ahead. If you think its wise to grapple a knife fighter please do. The point here isn't even grappling or karate chopping an assailant, its to stay on your feet, I thought that would be fairly obvious. Or perhaps you disagree? and that yes it would be good to go the ground? Face it, Grappling is a Sport. Comes closer to anything else out there in proving what's more affective ect.. but its a sport. Untill very recently, it wasn't rare to hear of people getting maimed and killed proving who was the better practioner, where I'm from anyways. But anyways, be safe, stay on your feet. I own you.
monkeygirl Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Magik, would you personally like to go to class 2-3 times a week and participate in your definition of a "No-holds Barred" match every time? Would you like to be constantly elbowed in the head? Better yet, why don't you go without gear or any kind of protection? That would definitely be realistic, but the instructors would be sued after oh, say, the second death/maiming/fatal injury of a student. A lot of times, when people say they are "full-contact", they mean they are as full as you can get. Believe it or not, there are schools who make absolutely no contact, period. Ever. "Full-contact" is often meant in comparison to those schools, which are abundant in my area (the no-contact kind, that is). Also, most martial artists (I should hope) would have a definite advantage over a robber/guy in a bar, because most assailants are not going to have experience in MA, they'd just be brawlers. I'm hoping this is true, because I hope that the instructor would be wise enough to teach discipline to his/her students so they don't go running around attacking people on the street. You say that "claiming dominance based on a sport and not in a real life confrontation is ridiculous". You should, therefore, appreciate that to put down a style in general, simply because it is a "sport" is also ridiculous. Sport has its benefits too. Say a woman on the second-story of a burning building is going to drop her baby out a window and into the arms of a person below. Is she going to choose: a. Joe Blow off the street b. The wide receiver Obviously, the wide receiver has more experience in catching football-sized things, such as babies. He would be the optimal choice. Sports allow us to practice skills like catching, running and grappling. Joe Blow can probably catch too, but the wide receiver is more trustworthy. So, you can see that there is a big difference between a basic skill, and one that is practiced well. To everyone: Most styles vary from school-to-school, and vary even greater from practitioner to practitioner. This causes such a wide range of individuality that to put down a whole style, without ever having met the practitioner you assume will lose, would be foolish. If a person is skilled and experienced in their style, they're going to be a formidable opponent, no matter what the style. I understand that many of you are simply trying to defend your art/style/opinion, and emotions can rise and conversation will get a little heated. Believe me, I've been in the middle of it before. But once the flame wars and name-calling begin, thoughtful discussion--the whole point of the thread in the first place--dies away. So please, keep an open mind...try to see the other person's side, too. Most importantly: If you can't play nicely, you can't play at all. Fighting leads to threads being locked! Happy posting 1st dan & Asst. Instructor TKD 2000-2003No matter the tune...if you can rock it, rock it hard.
SBN Doug Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 ALL OF YOU THINK BJJ IS A SPORT, ITS NOT!! Please don't assume everyone has the same opinion of BJJ.If you think its wise to grapple multiple opponents please go right ahead. If you think its wise to grapple a knife fighter please do. The point here isn't even grappling or karate chopping an assailant, its to stay on your feet, I thought that would be fairly obvious. Or perhaps you disagree? and that yes it would be good to go the ground? Perhapse you're more familiar with JJ than I, but I was pretty sure that it does have a number of standing attacks and defenses. I don't believe they automatically fall to the ground every time they fight. As monkeygirl said, keep this a calm discussion. Everyone is entitled to a non-insulting opinion. Kuk Sool Won - 4th danEvil triumphs when good men do nothing.
kenpo4life Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 A lot of you guys are saying that the stance matters most. I disagree. I believe that there is to much emphasis on stance in MA. It is better to use footwork and angle. Stances were developed to train the legs. Also, since most karateka had to practice in secret on boats or up in the mountains, stance was a bigger deal. Wanna learn to defend a takedown. Let the grappler make the aggressive move, not you. Dont commit your body with punches and kicks. Use forearms elbows and knees. Use the matador type approach. If my survival means your total destruction, then so be it.
kenpo4life Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 My bad, wrong thread If my survival means your total destruction, then so be it.
magikchiongson Posted January 8, 2003 Posted January 8, 2003 Here's my point to its simplest form. In a competition, a striker will probably always lose to a grappler, in real life I think the odds even out a hell of a lot better. Jiu Jitsu, has so much more to offer than this 90% of all fights end up on the ground mentality. I don't really want to come off as disrespecting Jiu Jitsu because I'm too impressed with some of its actions, but this whole notion of Grappling for the sake of Grappling is silly. I don't want to turn this into a style v style thread, more like Standing up Vs. Being on the Ground. The Principle here, is do everything in your power not to be taken down. Its entirely up to you as to what you use to accomplish that. I own you.
Freestyler Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Well I don't really see the logic in taking someone down to the ground. At least not the BJJ way, BJJ is tailor made for those so called "No holds Barred" fights, but if you were in a real fight on the ground and every weapon was at your disposal those grappling techniques wouldn't be so affective. its a no holds barred fight, but some strikes aren't allowed. That's why Helio Gracie had over 400 street fights with 'no holds barred' refining his techniques? Of course, 'no holds barred' as we know it isn't completely no holds barred, but that's in the interests of competitors. How many people do you think would willingly step into a full on street fight, whether they knew karate or BJJ?In short, if two fighters were allowed to fight with absolutely nothing held back, the "striker" would have a much better chance of winning. Now in fights like the UFC its for grapplers. You gotta be nuts to use these grappling techniques out in the real world. Especially since the attackers don't attack you unless they have an advantage, such as a weapon, more people, surprise, size, ect.. Frankly, I don't like my chances against multiple opponents or weapons regardless of what style/techniques I know. If you put two figters against each other, what good are strikes going to be if the grappler gets the striker on the ground and he can't strike? The grappler can do everything the striker can do, plus more from a superior position. Really, grapplers are looking so good because they are coming up against these inferior styles in a format that's tailor made for them. Im not saying grappling sux, I'm just saying, with all things being equal they wouldn't enjoy such a high rate of sucess. I'd hate to see what a grappler could do to someone while in a superior position. I've seen what they can do in no holds barred matches, imagine what they could do on the street with no limits at all. Btw, most techniques that are applied on the ground can be applied standing up. They especially go well with strikes, IMO.
Recommended Posts