JerryLove Posted April 10, 2003 Posted April 10, 2003 So you are saying that if Rickson Gracie had studied TKD all his life he would have won some UFCs with that? It's the fighter... and the art... and the school... and luck. Further, I would say pearing down to 2-3 techniques is overspecializing... to use your boxer example, they are generally impotent fighters when it comes to kick and takedowns, and their upright grappling skills are sub-par at best. So who's been sucesful in limited-rules fighting? People who cross-train... while the underlying principle (less techniques you can perform better) does apply somewhat, your example is overly simplistic. https://www.clearsilat.com
TheSod_88 Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 I would have to say that combo would be just about the worst possible. instead u should add BJJ to the boxing. Then u would be set.
SevenStar Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 So you are saying that if Rickson Gracie had studied TKD all his life he would have won some UFCs with that? It's the fighter... and the art... and the school... and luck. Further, I would say pearing down to 2-3 techniques is overspecializing... to use your boxer example, they are generally impotent fighters when it comes to kick and takedowns, and their upright grappling skills are sub-par at best. So who's been sucesful in limited-rules fighting? People who cross-train... while the underlying principle (less techniques you can perform better) does apply somewhat, your example is overly simplistic. It's overly simplictic as applied to MMA, but obviously gets the point across. However, that is very true of Judo, which is the art that I mentioned. A judoka only masters two or three and sets them up relentlessly. Any other throw is just icing on the cake. As for Rickson, I guess we'll never know. As talented as he is, with some cross training, I think he'd do fine.
TJS Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 As for Rickson, I guess we'll never know. As talented as he is, with some cross training, I think he'd do fine. no the question was if he had never trained in BJJ and instead trained in TKD would he be as good as he is/was? The answer is no, I know it, You know it and everyone else knows it.. Stlye is not everything it eventually comes down the the person it can only give you the tools..but to belive all stlyes are equal is a bit unrealistic.
SevenStar Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 As for Rickson, I guess we'll never know. As talented as he is, with some cross training, I think he'd do fine. no the question was if he had never trained in BJJ and instead trained in TKD would he be as good as he is/was? The answer is no, I know it, You know it and everyone else knows it.. Stlye is not everything it eventually comes down the the person it can only give you the tools..but to belive all stlyes are equal is a bit unrealistic. he would still be good - he'd probably be in a different venue. I stated cross training because that's a necessity in mma now. If he trained pure TKD, he likely would not have entered mma to begin with. the style is as realistic as the training for it. I know TKD guys who love to throw. That's how they train. there is no superior style. I'm primarily a grappler these days, but I've had the wind knocked out of me by TKD guys, I've been in the ring and been hit hard by kickboxers, Some of my hardest training was training in karate... All styles have there good points, and are extremely effective when you know how to use them properly. That said though, IMO, you can't train properly if you can't deal in all ranges, which is why I'm an advocate of cross training.
TJS Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 yes i realize cross training is always the best route, but the point still stands pure BJJ vs pure TKD bjj is going to come out on top 98% of the time.
JerryLove Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 All styles have there good points, and are extremely effective when you know how to use them properly. That said though, IMO, you can't train properly if you can't deal in all ranges, which is why I'm an advocate of cross training.They are all extremely effective but they cannot deal in all ranges and you need to deal in all ranges to be extremely effective. Do you hear yourself? Do I really need to point out the contradiction? https://www.clearsilat.com
SevenStar Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 I know very well what I said. with proper timing, distances can be controlled. How did lewis beat tyson? kept him from getting inside. he controlled the range. watch chuck liddel - he's awesome at defending takedowns, but he is primarily a kickboxer. he remains on his feet by controlling range.
monkeygirl Posted April 11, 2003 Posted April 11, 2003 Keep the conversation respectful, everyone. Besides, isn't this thread supposed to be about boxing? How did it turn into a TKD vs. BJJ thread? 1st dan & Asst. Instructor TKD 2000-2003No matter the tune...if you can rock it, rock it hard.
JerryLove Posted April 12, 2003 Posted April 12, 2003 I know very well what I said. with proper timing, distances can be controlled. If we can agre that boxing does teach proper timing.. how come there were zero pure boxers who managed to not get taken down in fights which allowed it? Boxing teaches nothing which solves the problem of the takedown. A pure boxer has no real defence against a takedown. Not all arts are equally capable of winning a fight. https://www.clearsilat.com
Recommended Posts