Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject:
snapcap wrote:
I don't see the difference you see in MMA fighters that use rules and those that don't. I'm pretty sure an MMA fighter wouldn't have any kind of disadvantage to an MMA fighter that didn't have rules. MMA with rules is what is sought after by the best fighters, fighters that don't have rules won't make it. MMA fighters can use dirty maneuvers, and I'm willing to bet they are faster and stronger at them.
Okay, I'm relieved to see that. Go back to my first post. I layed out specific definitions of what I meant - using rules vs. not using rules in the ring is kind of a jokie analogy; there's no one in the ring who literally doesn't use rules.
When I mentioned another MMA I meant someone taking...say....Judo and Wing Chun and Silat and Chin Na or whatever the case may be. Being multi-disciplinary (which is the proper term - mixed martial arts - in that people who train interdisciplinary don't stop mid fight to do one specific art, then to switch that off to do a different one, and then switch that one off for yet another) simply means that you'll pull in different tools from different art forms.
Also, with most of the world's martial arts systems they weren't built for tournament - that's a more recent revision. In that sense I'm saying unrevised martial arts (which were built for self defense) vs. sport martial arts which function best in sport environments. Initially I thought you were making the assertion that unrevised martial arts don't exist in any actual effectiveness over revised martial arts so I'm glad we cleared that up
Common sense dictates that they're also not out to kill each other - its a tournament, not a stickup. I hate to say it but the 'no holds barred' tournament thing in all just sounds gimmicky and in any real sense impossible. As far as the closest thing I can think of to a controlled level of the stuff I'm talking about, Filipino Panantukan, that was outlawed.
'not out to kill each other'? Have you ever met a broke, poor, low level Brazilian MMA fighter? I have. Some of them would gladly kill their opponent for the reputation and marketability it brings them. Almost all of them would kill their opponent for a decent purse. You're talking about testosterone fueled savages who grew up in violent neighbourhoods in one of the most violent countries in the world, and the only obstacle between them and escaping poverty are people who are in the exact same situation. And the tournaments are very real - look up 'Brazilian Vale Tudo'. There's tons of these type of tournaments organized throughout Brazil. Stylists from all disciplines participate, and the fights end up looking like (sloppy) MMA fights.
My point is, Brazil is like a testing ground for martial arts. If there would be some insta-win technique that could kill an opponent, it would have been discovered long since, and outlawed.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Clearly its not a wise entry; there's nothing dictating that its either done on entry or not at all.
If not done on entry or while in the guard, or some other disadvantageous position, what's the added value of such a move? I can't think of a single scenario where such a risky move might be preferable over keeping a solid base (when you're fighting on the ground) or attacking the head when standing. I also don't see how it would work in a clinch, a solid grappler would immediately slip to your back if you give up one arm for holding him off (again, superior positioning) or he'd guillotine you if you bend over too far.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Agreed. However, when you have a more limited set of positioning, more limited set of tools (ie. in how you can use knees, elbows, etc.), the whole way you will approach a physical conflict will be inherently different.
Dirty tricks aren't fight enders. The 'legal' moves are. I've seen a fighter who was blinded by an eye gouge continue on to win the fight with a submission hold, a heel hook to be specific. A move legal in all MMA competitions that's far more devastating than the effect of any dirty trick. This is the Nakai (BJJ) vs Gordeau (Kyokushin) fight, the story is well known. I've seen a grappler break the fingers of his opponent who got angry and choked him unconscious. These aren't the only examples by any means.
The limited set of tools is all you need, and almost always the better choice. If I eye gouge someone he might be shocked enough to quit the fight. Or he might become enraged and beat me to death. If I heel hook him, he'll be on the ground with a blown out knee unable to stand up, no matter how tough or enraged he is.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
For starters harness tackles are frowned upon because they're potentially pulling the person down in a vulnerable position and to risk slamming the back of your head or damaging your neck is a big problem. That said there's a reason why in contact sports like that there are rules. I get the overwhelming impression that if a football player grabbed another football players helmet with both hands, turned it sideways, and yanked down and backward that they'd be going to jail.
But you CAN do that in the UFC. And nobody's been killed by it yet.
Icyclan wrote:
I've heard of livers taking damage, but never of internal organs being ruptured, that sounds like pure science fiction. Has there ever been a documented case of this?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Damage would be more likely but ruptures could happen, all depending on whether people are meaning to do damage. Ruptures wouldn't be the most likely thing to have happen but the right things from the right angles from someone who knows how to send hard enough - it could.
I've never heard of any internal organs other than the liver take damage in fights, let alone ruptures. Who would be able to do this? You'd think in all the thousands of MMA fights between roided up 200 lbs. + muscleheads who beat each other senseless, it would've happened by accident at least a couple of times.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
If you have to think at all you're toast. That's why anyone, traditional martial artists or 'MMA' train. Also, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm talking fatal nerve or vein strikes in the bottom of the foot or some kind of Kill Bill type of thing - I'm not suggesting anything in strange spots, just the standards. If you can land some nasty blows on someone, destabilize them, and keep them with no idea where they are or what'll be hitting them next - they're at your mercy in the fullest sense (and I by that I mean after entry when you've fogged them up with a few good hits already).
But it's the initial part, the landing of the blows to destabilize them, that MMA fighters excel at. Again, what added value does the 'illegal' strike have against a good fighter if you have to trade blows first to soften them up? If a guy is wobbly, I know about 1000 ways to end the fight, all 'legal'.
Icyclan wrote:
They beat each other silly not caring where the punches land and no one has ever died in sanctioned competition.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
And its wise for tournaments to keep to punches - things stay safer that way.
What would be the unsafe moves?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'd figure if someone did break another person's knee their career would be over.
No, they'd get paid extra for knock out/submission of the night. If you meant the career of the one getting the knee broken, knees heal too. People have overcome horrific injuries in MMA to step up again.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Its not that its particularly difficult, just that its hard to call it an accident.
It's pretty difficult against someone who knows what they're doing.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm really trying to walk a fine line between clearing things up and explaining things I probably shouldn't (thats not to say that I think I'm some kind of badass deadly artist - I don't, but I would contest that I'm learning some arts that have signficant merits in this area).
The problem with the UFC example: These were still fought on canvas, not cement.
Which would benefit dirty tricks how? Hard surfaces benefit the better grapplers; the other guy is the one who will end up with his back on the cement.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I also really can't imagine being able to do *anything* with someone. For instance I can't figure a fighter going into the ring, getting past another guy's guard, punching him square in the throat, and just getting a slap on the wrist for killing him?
Thinking you could kill someone with a punch in the throat is a HUGE assumption. I've seen people punched in the throat hard without any harm, let alone death. Just One Example.That clip is also a nice example of how most rules aren't even enforced in the UFC, except glaring eye gouges, bites, stomping on the head of a downed opponent etc.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The argument I'm trying to make is that there are certain things you do to a human being who you just tapped fists with who's on TV with you for competition and money, there are certain things you do to someone who's trying to rob you or who you know means to take your life if you don't take theirs. One group as I mentioned, 'MMA', trains for the first, another, multiple martial arts, is training for the other. If a person wants to do things for sport where injury is kept to about the level of boxing and where they can test and show that skill - cage fighting is perfect. For a person who wants a strong edge up IRL in situations where defending themselves or loved ones is needed and where they may not necessarily have a gun available (even on time or at a safe distance for that matter) - multi-disciplinary martial arts is probably a better idea.
My point is that a combo of MMA and BJJ is everything you need for real life self-defence. BJJ started out as self-defence, and while many schools may be geared towards (grappling) competition, the self-defence aspect is still very much alive, especially in the Gracie affiliated schools. Every Gracie BJJ black belt examinee is required to know (and show) 100 fixed self-defence moves he has been taught. These range from knife attacks to bear hugs from the back and hair grabs, just to name a couple. The traditional martial arts are too convoluted with useless stuff that would be filtered out with alive sparring. Case in point, I just looked up Felix Valencia on Youtube, and one of the first things I saw was this: he deflected a knife lunge with his forearm, spun around and took out his attacker (who was frozen in place after the initial lunge) with a backwards foot sweep a la Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:26 am Post subject:
Icyclan wrote:
My point is that a combo of MMA and BJJ is everything you need for real life self-defence. BJJ started out as self-defence, and while many schools may be geared towards (grappling) competition, the self-defence aspect is still very much alive, especially in the Gracie affiliated schools. Every Gracie BJJ black belt examinee is required to know (and show) 100 fixed self-defence moves he has been taught. These range from knife attacks to bear hugs from the back and hair grabs, just to name a couple. The traditional martial arts are too convoluted with useless stuff that would be filtered out with alive sparring. Case in point, I just looked up Felix Valencia on Youtube, and one of the first things I saw was this: he deflected a knife lunge with his forearm, spun around and took out his attacker (who was frozen in place after the initial lunge) with a backwards foot sweep a la Jean-Claude Van Damme.
Sadly I think you just told me everything I need to know here. If I knew that my inital remarks were going to start a lengthy 'purists' debate (which usually tends to be a thing not far off from a religious debate), I wouldn't have written anything to begin with. Regarding Valencia he's had great seminars, the thing you described we'd never do in our lives; but, congratulations - you win!
Sadly I think you just told me everything I need to know here. If I knew that my inital remarks were going to start a lengthy 'purists' debate (which usually tends to be a thing not far off from a religious debate), I wouldn't have written anything to begin with.
If you say that MMA is inferior to traditional martial arts for real life self-defense scenarios, of course someone might call you on it. The term 'MMA' is somewhat of a misnomer anyway, as the integration of different martial arts has created a new art in itself with moves you won't learn in any other martial art. For example, learning how to pass the guard without getting punched or elbowed in the face isn't even taught in most BJJ schools, and most definitely not in wing chun or silat or whatever.
You're right in that it is somewhat like a religious debate; one side argues with the same mantras over and over again which have been debunked a long time ago by the other side.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Regarding Valencia he's had great seminars, the thing you described we'd never do in our lives; but, congratulations - you win!
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:02 am Post subject:
Icyclan wrote:
If you say that MMA is inferior to traditional martial arts for real life self-defense scenarios, of course someone might call you on it. The term 'MMA' is somewhat of a misnomer anyway, as the integration of different martial arts has created a new art in itself with moves you won't learn in any other martial art. For example, learning how to pass the guard without getting punched or elbowed in the face isn't even taught in most BJJ schools, and most definitely not in wing chun or silat or whatever.
Are you familiar with Wing Chun, Kuntao, or Kali at all? Albeit - I know that for every style out there, all of them, you'll find loads of McDojo instructors who are teaching stuff that would make you cringe, I'm getting more at what can be boiled from them.
I'll run through a specific scenario. Someone throws a right jab or cross; the other person passes the elbow and spits the other hand around, palm upward to the chin, leads that to a bilsao forearm through the side of the neck (hope I'm explaining that right) in the backward direction, hooks the hand on the neck on the return, circles the head, knees the inside of the knee of their foreward leg, you can do another bill sao across the back of their head after its passed across and they're bent over in 90 degree (again, you hooked the back of their head while they were stunned and circled by manipulating the head and neck). You won't see forearms into the neck in tournament for a good reason - its a direct shot to the neck and spine, damage to the caratids can cause embolisms later as well. That brings the question: in standup, in the 'ring' game, are you really allowed to get behind them and do much? With the whole back of the head and neck manipulation likely ruled out, what are you really left with aside from rear-naked choke or stranglehold? By the time you're able to shift someone's center line, pass the elbow, and get behind them they're as alive as you let them be. Clearly no one 'lets' you get behind them, they'd be insane, so its a matter of what kind of thought-stoppers you give them on your way around.
I also get the argument that the first thing I described has a 1 in 40 or less chance of working - as in it only works if you took their energy where they were trying to go and took advantage of it; try to force that kind of thing and it just won't work. The solution; learn a reaction for every reaction to where there's nothing they can do that you can't either give some extra to in order to further destabilize them or if they're trying to pull you in that you don't gladly give them what they wanted and more with a good elbow stab or something along those lines.
Also a completely different approach to being in ground guard - why try to just muscle it when you can elbow the heck out the iside of the femorals, or sink a punch two inches below the belly-button. I won't pretend that you guys don't train in or don't even think about ground n' pound but that's how we're getting taught. Even before your down - if you're far away enough from the person not to follow them with the takedown and finish it with striking, why not drop knees right into their leg and go on with breaking? I know that delivering elbows is one thing, or knees standup, but not too many people are really trained perhaps in dropping knees into opponents while their down or specifically making a walk of it. Again, I know for that last part very few if any people will just 'sit still' while you're doing that kind of walk - its knowing how to do it, knowing how to land it, and knowing how to get a few of those in before they have any idea what's happening (best way to assure that, make sure they've got a lot of pain already preoccupying their thoughts).
I guess that's why I'm a bit surprised with what you're saying about there being no such thing as techniques or weapons that are illegal in the ring that would have any added practicality. If you do have a good instructor who's really trying to round out your game I can't imagine him not teaching you one set of things to do in the ring and then another set of what to do if you're accosted late at night at the ATM.
Icyclan wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Regarding Valencia he's had great seminars, the thing you described we'd never do in our lives; but, congratulations - you win!
At 0:10.
Two things on this. I remember going to an Inosanto seminar recently; he's one of the foremost experts on Kali, pretty knowledgable on Silat, and of course he's Bruce Lee's best friend who's taken the torch for JKD. He actually had us doing long extended padwork in the JKD section, something like nine to eleven combinations, and included crescent kicks. We couldn't get our heads around why the high crescent kicks were in there or why we'd want to do a combination of any longer than three or four things. The best we could come up with; there are politics in these things and if you're supposed to be carrying someone else's system and it has distinctive metrics, you're kind of stuck with them. As it is, in my class, we simply don't kick above the waste and if we were going to use any type of crescent it would be something like hooking the inside of a lead leg when your foot's just a few inches off the ground. Additionally; Dan's versitile in something like twenty forms of Kali/Escrima/Arnis just from growing up in Stockton, CA and being from a well respected family in the community. To say that I'd ignore anything he says on FMA because he threw a few crescent kicks or did one or two things in a seminar on pads that didn't seem practicle would be absurd.
With Valencia, when I watch the video, there is the hit and miss possibility like I mentioned above (seems like almost no one out there making videos doesn't have that), there's also the possibility that its a technique you'd use only if the person overpowered you or you fell (hence that great Van Dam ground sweep). If the videos themselves have that hokey Hollywood stalemate stuff in em its there for a reason - a) body mechanics, b) If in the odd event that you end up there or even end up in anything anywhere close its good to have a theory of how to defend. Its like looking at sensitivity drills from Wing Chun or siniwalis from Kali or Arnis and realizing that its not a fighting technique so much as a training tool for reflexes or getting your head around certain aspects of positioning as well as engraining certain habits. There was also a Valencia seminar here a couple years ago and people I knew and who's martial arts common sense I could trust love it. If he did something weird on a video - it confuses me but then again, like most NT behavior anywhere I look whether in martial arts or in politics, I don't get it but whatever - if there's great stuff to be taken and then a few big mistakes to be ignored you ignore the big mistakes and take what you can use.
Are you familiar with Wing Chun, Kuntao, or Kali at all? Albeit - I know that for every style out there, all of them, you'll find loads of McDojo instructors who are teaching stuff that would make you cringe, I'm getting more at what can be boiled from them.
I'm very familiar with Wing Chun and Silat (not Kuntao Silat). I don't know much about Kali, which is mostly knife fighting if I remember correctly.
Regarding Wing Chun, I'm not going to mince any words here: it's one of the most laughable striking arts I've ever come across, right up there with Taekwondo. The whole philosophy of the style is wrong; an opponent isn't going to stand at arms length and play patty-cake. I've seen several low level MMA fights where Wing Chun practitioners are beaten in stand up exchanges against wrestlers and other grapplers who had no formal stand up training at all, they just beat them because they were tougher. No Pak Sao, Lop Sao, trapping, or anything else from the Wing Chun curriculum was seen. An unco-operative opponent blasts straight through it, it just doesn't work.
To their credit, I've seen some Wing Chun guys incorporate full-contact sparring into their training regime. Too bad that as soon as you start training Wing Chun with a modicum of realism, it looks like sloppy kickboxing.
I saw a documentary on Malaysian Silat once, and it was pretty much what I expected. Lots of drills with the impossible grabbing-fists-out-of-the-air manoeuvres followed by strikes and locks while the opponent is frozen in place. Then they broke out the deadly techniques. I don't remember much of it, but one of the 'secret' techniques was a strike that was supposed to send the opponent into convulsions, possibly killing him. It was nothing more than a solar plexus punch with the front two knuckles. I have had the wind knocked out of me by a solar plexus strike before, but I never went into convulsions, and I haven't died yet either. These were the top Silat guys in Malaysia, by the way, no McDojo artists.
That's not the only exposure I've had to Silat, but the stuff above is a reoccuring trend.
The program ended with a Silat tournament that was so emasculated it would make even Taekwondo guys cringe. They were wearing full body protectors and gloves, and you STILL couldn't follow through with any strikes. Punches and kicks to the head were forbidden altogether. It was embarassing.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
You won't see forearms into the neck in tournament for a good reason - its a direct shot to the neck and spine, damage to the caratids can cause embolisms later as well. That brings the question: in standup, in the 'ring' game, are you really allowed to get behind them and do much? With the whole back of the head and neck manipulation likely ruled out, what are you really left with aside from rear-naked choke or stranglehold? By the time you're able to shift someone's center line, pass the elbow, and get behind them they're as alive as you let them be. Clearly no one 'lets' you get behind them, they'd be insane, so its a matter of what kind of thought-stoppers you give them on your way around.
When you're behind someone, why would you go for a low percentage strike that you only assume works? Have you ever hit somebody with a forearm to the neck? If so, were they immediately incapacitated? If not, why are you sure they would be? The RNC is tried and tested, it works every time when it's sunk in. Seems like the better option to me.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Also a completely different approach to being in ground guard - why try to just muscle it when you can elbow the heck out the iside of the femorals, or sink a punch two inches below the belly-button. I won't pretend that you guys don't train in or don't even think about ground n' pound but that's how we're getting taught.
This gives me the impression you've never been in the guard of a capable BJJ/MMA practitioner. The guard is very much an alive position. It is not just about wrapping your legs around your opponent and looking for a submission or a reversal. Being in a good guard is like being entangled in a spider's web, the person applying the guard is constantly shifting his legs, moving his hips and grasping with his arms to unbalance you and break your posture. If you start elbowing, you only have one hand left to support your posture inside the guard. Your opponent now has two hands to grab the arm you're leaning on to break your posture and pull you forward for an arm bar or slipping on to your back, among many other options. Also, a person with a good guard will keep it tight enough so you can't elbow a target that low. If you're leaning on him, he'll raise his legs to bring your weight over him; if you regain posture and sit up, he'll follow you up. Same thing goes for the punch below the belly button.
The two things you mentioned are legal in every MMA competition I can think of, except those that don't allow strikes on the ground. It would probably work against clueless people, I don't know. But if it worked in any kind of serious competition, people competing for thousands of dollars would use it.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Even before your down - if you're far away enough from the person not to follow them with the takedown and finish it with striking, why not drop knees right into their leg and go on with breaking? I know that delivering elbows is one thing, or knees standup, but not too many people are really trained perhaps in dropping knees into opponents while their down or specifically making a walk of it. Again, I know for that last part very few if any people will just 'sit still' while you're doing that kind of walk - its knowing how to do it, knowing how to land it, and knowing how to get a few of those in before they have any idea what's happening (best way to assure that, make sure they've got a lot of pain already preoccupying their thoughts).
I guess that's why I'm a bit surprised with what you're saying about there being no such thing as techniques or weapons that are illegal in the ring that would have any added practicality. If you do have a good instructor who's really trying to round out your game I can't imagine him not teaching you one set of things to do in the ring and then another set of what to do if you're accosted late at night at the ATM.
There may be some added value to techniques that you can't practice full force, but how can you trust them in a life threatening situation if you never get to practice them full speed?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Two things on this. I remember going to an Inosanto seminar recently; he's one of the foremost experts on Kali, pretty knowledgable on Silat, and of course he's Bruce Lee's best friend who's taken the torch for JKD. He actually had us doing long extended padwork in the JKD section, something like nine to eleven combinations, and included crescent kicks. We couldn't get our heads around why the high crescent kicks were in there or why we'd want to do a combination of any longer than three or four things. The best we could come up with; there are politics in these things and if you're supposed to be carrying someone else's system and it has distinctive metrics, you're kind of stuck with them. As it is, in my class, we simply don't kick above the waste and if we were going to use any type of crescent it would be something like hooking the inside of a lead leg when your foot's just a few inches off the ground. Additionally; Dan's versitile in something like twenty forms of Kali/Escrima/Arnis just from growing up in Stockton, CA and being from a well respected family in the community. To say that I'd ignore anything he says on FMA because he threw a few crescent kicks or did one or two things in a seminar on pads that didn't seem practicle would be absurd.
If I paid more than $100 for a seminar, the least I would expect is not to be fed any worthless techniques. You may be able to seperate the chaff from the wheat, but what about the guy who's only been training for a year?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
With Valencia, when I watch the video, there is the hit and miss possibility like I mentioned above (seems like almost no one out there making videos doesn't have that), there's also the possibility that its a technique you'd use only if the person overpowered you or you fell (hence that great Van Dam ground sweep). If the videos themselves have that hokey Hollywood stalemate stuff in em its there for a reason - a) body mechanics, b) If in the odd event that you end up there or even end up in anything anywhere close its good to have a theory of how to defend. Its like looking at sensitivity drills from Wing Chun or siniwalis from Kali or Arnis and realizing that its not a fighting technique so much as a training tool for reflexes or getting your head around certain aspects of positioning as well as engraining certain habits. There was also a Valencia seminar here a couple years ago and people I knew and who's martial arts common sense I could trust love it. If he did something weird on a video - it confuses me but then again, like most NT behavior anywhere I look whether in martial arts or in politics, I don't get it but whatever - if there's great stuff to be taken and then a few big mistakes to be ignored you ignore the big mistakes and take what you can use.
Again, how is the beginning practitioner supposed to distinguish between the good techniques and the stuff that would never work in real-life? At best, the instructor is just showboating. At worst, he's putting someone's life in danger because he markets it as legit self-defence against a knife attack.
Let's break down the move: he drops a level AND turns his back, completely immobilizing himself AND losing sight of his ARMED opponent! That is an extremely risky thing to do against any attacker, let alone a knife wielding one who's obviously trying to kill you if he lunges in like that.
If this is what I find 10 seconds after looking the guy up, God knows what else I'll find.
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject:
Icyclan wrote:
I'm very familiar with Wing Chun and Silat (not Kuntao Silat). I don't know much about Kali, which is mostly knife fighting if I remember correctly.
When people say 'Kali' here think of it as Kali/Arnis/Eskrima/Panantukan - ie. whole FMA. That's really how the American terminology has come to classify.
Icyclan wrote:
Regarding Wing Chun, I'm not going to mince any words here: it's one of the most laughable striking arts I've ever come across, right up there with Taekwondo. The whole philosophy of the style is wrong; an opponent isn't going to stand at arms length and play patty-cake. I've seen several low level MMA fights where Wing Chun practitioners are beaten in stand up exchanges against wrestlers and other grapplers who had no formal stand up training at all, they just beat them because they were tougher. No Pak Sao, Lop Sao, trapping, or anything else from the Wing Chun curriculum was seen. An unco-operative opponent blasts straight through it, it just doesn't work.
Ok, point noted: I'm seeing that you look at anything done as a fighting technique and, if I understand you right, don't believe there's really such a 'valid' thing as reflex drills. When people do sensitivity/hobat, that's what it is. When people do siniwali or sumbrata drills in FMA with the sticks, stick and knife, espada y daga, etc., that's what it is. A separate note on Kuntao - it exists and always has as separate from Silat. Think of Silat as Indonesian Kung Fu, Kuntao as being something of it as old southern Chinese Gung Fu that was chased out by the communists, is somewhat taught in Hong Kong but you'll mostly find it in Borneo. The Kuntao-Silat thing is more specifically a De Thouars concotion.
I will gladly give you one thing - in a real fight, anyone who has any sense of how to fight, enough to be an aggressor, doesn't stem a jab to your chin. That we can agree on. The rest of what you're training to do is to have the know how, once you get past a decent boxer or street fighter's guard, how to implement something good if they give you even the semblence of an opportunity. You train, it becomes available, and as I mentioned earlier - the whole point is not to think.
On your note earlier about BJJ being the rawest realest thing because its tested on the hard streets of Sao Paulo and other places - I don't doubt it but I had to laugh for a minute in the sense that, nothing else really got brewed up in America or by a bunch of cushy arm-chair sports buffs as well (unless you want to consider the AD&D fantasy foam swords in the park thing a martial art). With Kuntao the Hakka people were originally from the northern region of China, they were a military group, fought their way south both into Southern China and Malaysia, and as they got into closer quarters their fighting style became less punches and more in the way of knees, elbows, forearms, etc.. It is tested on the killing fields as that's essentially where it came from.
Kali/Eskrima/Arnis/Panantukan - the Filipinos for thousands of years were essentially brought up killing each other for their islands. If you were a boy of the right age you were given a weapon, shown a few basic things, thrown out there to defend your island, and if you came back they'd teach you a little bit more. You also had other influence - the Morrow, of the Southern Phillipines, were Muslims who'd invaded around the 10th and 11th century who brought Islamic sword and machette technique. The Spanish had a heck of a time taking the Phillipines and there were islands where, against the Morrow, they literally couldn't. Albeit they fought a bit like a cross between the Moguls and Japanese Kamakazi's so there's a bit more to it than strictly their fighting arts. However you notice as well that with FMA there are is also Spanish sword and knife technique; some are adaptions, some are Spanish/Filipino amalgamations of technique. The point is, like evolution, things got thrown against the wall constantly to see if they stuck - when they did stuck those administering them were burying those who didn't have the same luck.
That and when you mention Karate or Tae Kwon Do - you have to look at it this way; I've met a lot of Tae Kwon Do people and learned one thing about it; it works great for tall/skinny/lanky people because they have the speed and can surprise the heck out of people. At the same time anyone else; without the atributes your better off avoiding it. The problems with things like Karate and Aikido is that they're accentric based on the conditions that they were created in. With Karate they had to divise ways of defeating amoured samurai with no weapons of their own; so, everything was focused on penetration and, understandably, the samurai were slowed down by their armor. Fighting an unarmoured opponent - it's not the most practical tool, however if you see yourself dealing with psycho-hilbillies in homemade welded armour like in the beginning of Devils Rejects, karate might be a great thing to take. Kendo similarly - the very restricted vertical overhead with the sword and the way the jumps are done: it makes sense if you're fighting in 10 foot tall grass where you're sword will get caught from anything other than vertical motion. In open space - its almost worse than nothing if that's all you've been taught or know.
Icyclan wrote:
To their credit, I've seen some Wing Chun guys incorporate full-contact sparring into their training regime. Too bad that as soon as you start training Wing Chun with a modicum of realism, it looks like sloppy kickboxing.
My instructor showed me Chi Sao a few times (the inflatable tube man thing where you wave your hands around trying to get inside/outside positioning; we've done that all of three or four times that I've been there in the last three years. The reason why we don't spar, per my instructor, it builds bad spacing habits, you punch to the surface rather than throuth, and he'd rather essentially have us do it slowly, get the technique and spacing, and
Icyclan wrote:
I saw a documentary on Malaysian Silat once, and it was pretty much what I expected. Lots of drills with the impossible grabbing-fists-out-of-the-air manoeuvres followed by strikes and locks while the opponent is frozen in place. Then they broke out the deadly techniques. I don't remember much of it, but one of the 'secret' techniques was a strike that was supposed to send the opponent into convulsions, possibly killing him. It was nothing more than a solar plexus punch with the front two knuckles. I have had the wind knocked out of me by a solar plexus strike before, but I never went into convulsions, and I haven't died yet either. These were the top Silat guys in Malaysia, by the way, no McDojo artists.
Apparently there are guys out there who are doing horrible disservice to tradition by making it quite effective. Hope the two never meet I suppose. :/
Icyclan wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
You won't see forearms into the neck in tournament for a good reason - its a direct shot to the neck and spine, damage to the caratids can cause embolisms later as well. That brings the question: in standup, in the 'ring' game, are you really allowed to get behind them and do much? With the whole back of the head and neck manipulation likely ruled out, what are you really left with aside from rear-naked choke or stranglehold? By the time you're able to shift someone's center line, pass the elbow, and get behind them they're as alive as you let them be. Clearly no one 'lets' you get behind them, they'd be insane, so its a matter of what kind of thought-stoppers you give them on your way around.
When you're behind someone, why would you go for a low percentage strike that you only assume works?
It sounds like in this hypothetical you're giving me some odd body posture where I can't follow through without falling flat on my face.
Icyclan wrote:
Have you ever hit somebody with a forearm to the neck?
My instructor has illustrated it, like a lot of things, light contact. Even light contact - it *sucks* (again, I'm not sure what you're envisioning, I'm inside their line, like if they trough some wide hooks and I was sort of stuck there, my meaning is to drive an arm upward and through on a sixty-degree angle back - the way a guillotine contacts a person's neck is the way this is driving through; trust me, you *do* feel it).
Icyclan wrote:
If so, were they immediately incapacitated? If not, why are you sure they would be? The RNC is tried and tested, it works every time when it's sunk in. Seems like the better option to me.
It's telling that you ascribe anything not RNC as being invented in some California laboratory in the mid 90's or 2000's.
Icyclan wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Also a completely different approach to being in ground guard - why try to just muscle it when you can elbow the heck out the iside of the femorals, or sink a punch two inches below the belly-button. I won't pretend that you guys don't train in or don't even think about ground n' pound but that's how we're getting taught.
This gives me the impression you've never been in the guard of a capable BJJ/MMA practitioner. The guard is very much an alive position. It is not just about wrapping your legs around your opponent and looking for a submission or a reversal. Being in a good guard is like being entangled in a spider's web, the person applying the guard is constantly shifting his legs, moving his hips and grasping with his arms to unbalance you and break your posture. If you start elbowing, you only have one hand left to support your posture inside the guard. Your opponent now has two hands to grab the arm you're leaning on to break your posture and pull you forward for an arm bar or slipping on to your back, among many other options. Also, a person with a good guard will keep it tight enough so you can't elbow a target that low. If you're leaning on him, he'll raise his legs to bring your weight over him; if you regain posture and sit up, he'll follow you up. Same thing goes for the punch below the belly button.
With this and everything above I'm just getting the impression that you're every bit the dogmatic blowhard that you're claiming me to be. Maybe we both are but, I can't remember making the case that BJJ is garbage, on the other hand I'm still confused that you're so adamant that anything non-UFC is crap. This is a bit like arguing economics with Orwell. :S
Icyclan wrote:
The two things you mentioned are legal in every MMA competition I can think of, except those that don't allow strikes on the ground. It would probably work against clueless people, I don't know. But if it worked in any kind of serious competition, people competing for thousands of dollars would use it.
I've taken care to highlight several things that, if you were being accosted in a serious, not sporting manner, would be *objectives*, not fouls:
UFC SS 15A - Fouls wrote:
A.The following acts constitute fouls in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts and may result in penalties, at the discretion of thereferee, if committed:
i.Butting with the head
ii.Eye gouging of any kind
iii.Biting
iv.Spitting at an opponent
v.Hair pulling
vi.Fish hooking
vii.Groin attacks of any kind (which would include femoral region)
viii.Putting a finger into any orifice or any cut or laceration of an opponent
ix.Small joint manipulation
x.Striking downward using the point of the elbow
xi.Striking to the spine or the back of the head xii.Kicking to the kidney with a heel
xiii.Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
xiv.Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh xv.Grabbing the clavicle
xvi.Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
xvii.Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
xviii.Stomping a grounded opponent
xix.Holding the fence
xx.Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
xxi.Using abusive language in fenced ring/fighting area
xxii.Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent
xxiii.Attacking an opponent on or during the break
xxiv.Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee
xxv.Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the round
xxvi.Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury
xxvii.Throwing opponent out of ring/fighting area
xxviii.Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee
xxix.Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neckxxx.Interference by the corner
xxxi.Applying any foreign substance to the hair or body to gain an advantage
Can you see why I'm confused on your stubborness with this? You can say all day long till your blue in the face that BJJ is superior, that's not my problem with your argument and - for the way things typically are - I wouldn't get into a 'Muhammad vs. Jesus' debate with you either. However, I do get confused when you give me absolute certitude that what's exempted from the ring means nothing on the street to how technique is followed through or how fighting styles prioritize. Karate's a shining example of what a style adapted to accentric circumstances essentially programs in to a person who doesn't at least have a 'with and without' version. Similarly, while I can easily imagine - and have known BJJ people who have instructors who teach this - an in ring and out of ring difference in coaching; I still can't get my head around someone continuing to state that ring rules support the most efficient and effective fighting possible. Just like I supposedly owe you an illustration of non-hand blows to the neck working maybe you at least owe me this: ponder how many street fights or bar brawls that last longer than 10 or 15 seconds, let alone one where they tap gloves and approach each other with their fists up and then start shooting for legs. I'm not trying to claim that BJJ has zero coverage for that, I'm making the point that its *different*.
Icyclan wrote:
There may be some added value to techniques that you can't practice full force, but how can you trust them in a life threatening situation if you never get to practice them full speed?
You do, you just don't practice them with force on a person. We follow through takedowns with people, we do striking on free-standing bags.
Icyclan wrote:
If I paid more than $100 for a seminar, the least I would expect is not to be fed any worthless techniques. You may be able to seperate the chaff from the wheat, but what about the guy who's only been training for a year?
I'm really a bit surprised when I mention Dan Inosanto that there isn't any recognition. Trust me, he's definitely not some schill that my instructor and a few other people are propping up.
Icyclan wrote:
Again, how is the beginning practitioner supposed to distinguish between the good techniques and the stuff that would never work in real-life? At best, the instructor is just showboating. At worst, he's putting someone's life in danger because he markets it as legit self-defence against a knife attack.
The best I can really offer - I'm not NT so I don't get it either. I've kinda learned the hard way that I can't really expect things to make 'full' sense, but I can tell the difference between who knows their stuff, who doesn't, it saddens and irks me when those who do know their stuff mix and match but - thankfully - I still haven't, to date, learned something hokey or trashy from my current instructor and I can't think of anyone who has.
Icyclan wrote:
Let's break down the move: he drops a level AND turns his back, completely immobilizing himself AND losing sight of his ARMED opponent! That is an extremely risky thing to do against any attacker, let alone a knife wielding one who's obviously trying to kill you if he lunges in like that.
I wouldn't do it. I know that I'm suppose to drop right now, twist my own arm and say "Mercy - you win", that any valid art would have absolutely none of that. I can't do that with any degree of honesty - it pisses me off that its more complicated than you're indicating but, I can't lie to you and tell you that it isn't.
Icyclan wrote:
If this is what I find 10 seconds after looking the guy up, God knows what else I'll find.
Are you indirectly asking me to give BJJ the same examination and rip up anyting I find hokey, odd, or dangerous?
That and when you mention Karate or Tae Kwon Do - you have to look at it this way; I've met a lot of Tae Kwon Do people and learned one thing about it; it works great for tall/skinny/lanky people because they have the speed and can surprise the heck out of people.
And once they kick anything but air they fall down, completely unprepared for solid contact. High kicks are generally a bad idea in a fight. Taekwondo is all about high kicks.
A top Korean Taekwondo guy against an MMA fighter known for his submissions, and who has only sub-par striking:
A Taekwondo guy losing to a Muay Thai guy in what essentially is a kicking match(!) Count how many times the Taekwondo guy falls down, even without clinching and takedowns being allowed. In all fairness, the Muay Thai guy (can't remember his name) is a world class guy while I don't know how good the Taekwondo guy is (supposed to be). But still, it's telling.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The problems with things like Karate and Aikido is that they're accentric based on the conditions that they were created in. With Karate they had to divise ways of defeating amoured samurai with no weapons of their own; so, everything was focused on penetration and, understandably, the samurai were slowed down by their armor. Fighting an unarmoured opponent - it's not the most practical tool, however if you see yourself dealing with psycho-hilbillies in homemade welded armour like in the beginning of Devils Rejects, karate might be a great thing to take. Kendo similarly - the very restricted vertical overhead with the sword and the way the jumps are done: it makes sense if you're fighting in 10 foot tall grass where you're sword will get caught from anything other than vertical motion. In open space - its almost worse than nothing if that's all you've been taught or know.
I've read literally a hundred different stories on what the origins of Karate, Taekwondo, Aikido etc. are. From being celebratory war dances (Karate) to being rip-offs from existing styles to fuel national pride (Taekwondo). I don't know what to believe, really. I don't concern myself with the history of an art. I judge them primarily on how effective they are in a fight with as few rules as possible (so not the UFC) and if I find they are lacking, I discard them.
Icyclan wrote:
To their credit, I've seen some Wing Chun guys incorporate full-contact sparring into their training regime. Too bad that as soon as you start training Wing Chun with a modicum of realism, it looks like sloppy kickboxing.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
My instructor showed me Chi Sao a few times (the inflatable tube man thing where you wave your hands around trying to get inside/outside positioning; we've done that all of three or four times that I've been there in the last three years. The reason why we don't spar, per my instructor, it builds bad spacing habits, you punch to the surface rather than throuth, and he'd rather essentially have us do it slowly, get the technique and spacing, and
Just get extra padded MMA gloves and go about 60-70%. That's how MMA gyms do it, no bad spacing habits developing whatsoever.
Icyclan wrote:
I saw a documentary on Malaysian Silat once, and it was pretty much what I expected. Lots of drills with the impossible grabbing-fists-out-of-the-air manoeuvres followed by strikes and locks while the opponent is frozen in place. Then they broke out the deadly techniques. I don't remember much of it, but one of the 'secret' techniques was a strike that was supposed to send the opponent into convulsions, possibly killing him. It was nothing more than a solar plexus punch with the front two knuckles. I have had the wind knocked out of me by a solar plexus strike before, but I never went into convulsions, and I haven't died yet either. These were the top Silat guys in Malaysia, by the way, no McDojo artists.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Apparently there are guys out there who are doing horrible disservice to tradition by making it quite effective. Hope the two never meet I suppose. :/
So if the top Malaysian grandmasters can't be trusted with the inheritence of an art, who can?
[quote="Icyclan"]
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
You won't see forearms into the neck in tournament for a good reason - its a direct shot to the neck and spine, damage to the caratids can cause embolisms later as well. That brings the question: in standup, in the 'ring' game, are you really allowed to get behind them and do much? With the whole back of the head and neck manipulation likely ruled out, what are you really left with aside from rear-naked choke or stranglehold? By the time you're able to shift someone's center line, pass the elbow, and get behind them they're as alive as you let them be. Clearly no one 'lets' you get behind them, they'd be insane, so its a matter of what kind of thought-stoppers you give them on your way around.
Icyclan wrote:
Have you ever hit somebody with a forearm to the neck?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
My instructor has illustrated it, like a lot of things, light contact. Even light contact - it *sucks* (again, I'm not sure what you're envisioning, I'm inside their line, like if they trough some wide hooks and I was sort of stuck there, my meaning is to drive an arm upward and through on a sixty-degree angle back - the way a guillotine contacts a person's neck is the way this is driving through; trust me, you *do* feel it).
I think we're working at cross-purposes here, I must be envisioning something else than you are.
Icyclan wrote:
If so, were they immediately incapacitated? If not, why are you sure they would be? The RNC is tried and tested, it works every time when it's sunk in. Seems like the better option to me.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
It's telling that you ascribe anything not RNC as being invented in some California laboratory in the mid 90's or 2000's.
No, it's just that most martial arts are either completely convoluted by modern times (Aikido) or they were useless to begin with (Taekwondo). If the traditional martial arts were really so rooted in reality as I always hear, they would've come to the same conclusion that Jigoro Kano and Helio Gracie have: that groundfighting is the biggest part of fighting.
Icyclan wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Also a completely different approach to being in ground guard - why try to just muscle it when you can elbow the heck out the iside of the femorals, or sink a punch two inches below the belly-button. I won't pretend that you guys don't train in or don't even think about ground n' pound but that's how we're getting taught.
This gives me the impression you've never been in the guard of a capable BJJ/MMA practitioner. The guard is very much an alive position. It is not just about wrapping your legs around your opponent and looking for a submission or a reversal. Being in a good guard is like being entangled in a spider's web, the person applying the guard is constantly shifting his legs, moving his hips and grasping with his arms to unbalance you and break your posture. If you start elbowing, you only have one hand left to support your posture inside the guard. Your opponent now has two hands to grab the arm you're leaning on to break your posture and pull you forward for an arm bar or slipping on to your back, among many other options. Also, a person with a good guard will keep it tight enough so you can't elbow a target that low. If you're leaning on him, he'll raise his legs to bring your weight over him; if you regain posture and sit up, he'll follow you up. Same thing goes for the punch below the belly button.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
With this and everything above I'm just getting the impression that you're every bit the dogmatic blowhard that you're claiming me to be. Maybe we both are but, I can't remember making the case that BJJ is garbage,
Because you can't. Before MMA, the Gracies took on all challengers, and won. Of all individual styles, BJJ is king. I have no vested interest in defending BJJ. At first I hated the fact that smothering someone and tripping them would completely negate their striking abilities, as I used to be a striker before I watched the UFC. But hey, if you can't beat them, join them.
Icyclan wrote:
The two things you mentioned are legal in every MMA competition I can think of, except those that don't allow strikes on the ground. It would probably work against clueless people, I don't know. But if it worked in any kind of serious competition, people competing for thousands of dollars would use it.
I've taken care to highlight several things that, if you were being accosted in a serious, not sporting manner, would be *objectives*, not fouls:
UFC SS 15A - Fouls wrote:
A.The following acts constitute fouls in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts and may result in penalties, at the discretion of thereferee, if committed:
i.Butting with the head
ii.Eye gouging of any kind
iii.Biting
iv.Spitting at an opponent
v.Hair pulling
vi.Fish hooking
vii.Groin attacks of any kind (which would include femoral region)
viii.Putting a finger into any orifice or any cut or laceration of an opponent
ix.Small joint manipulation
x.Striking downward using the point of the elbow
xi.Striking to the spine or the back of the head xii.Kicking to the kidney with a heel
xiii.Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
xiv.Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh xv.Grabbing the clavicle
xvi.Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
xvii.Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
xviii.Stomping a grounded opponent
xix.Holding the fence
xx.Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent
xxi.Using abusive language in fenced ring/fighting area
xxii.Engaging in any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury to an opponent
xxiii.Attacking an opponent on or during the break
xxiv.Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee
xxv.Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the round
xxvi.Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury
xxvii.Throwing opponent out of ring/fighting area
xxviii.Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee
xxix.Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neckxxx.Interference by the corner
xxxi.Applying any foreign substance to the hair or body to gain an advantage
Can you see why I'm confused on your stubborness with this? You can say all day long till your blue in the face that BJJ is superior, that's not my problem with your argument and - for the way things typically are - I wouldn't get into a 'Muhammad vs. Jesus' debate with you either. However, I do get confused when you give me absolute certitude that what's exempted from the ring means nothing on the street to how technique is followed through or how fighting styles prioritize. Karate's a shining example of what a style adapted to accentric circumstances essentially programs in to a person who doesn't at least have a 'with and without' version. Similarly, while I can easily imagine - and have known BJJ people who have instructors who teach this - an in ring and out of ring difference in coaching; I still can't get my head around someone continuing to state that ring rules support the most efficient and effective fighting possible. Just like I supposedly owe you an illustration of non-hand blows to the neck working maybe you at least owe me this: ponder how many street fights or bar brawls that last longer than 10 or 15 seconds, let alone one where they tap gloves and approach each other with their fists up and then start shooting for legs. I'm not trying to claim that BJJ has zero coverage for that, I'm making the point that its *different*.
I'm not saying that anything not in the MMA/BJJ curriculum is worthless, I'm just saying that you don't need it when you're MMA trained, and that it won't work against a good MMA fighter who is better at fist fighting, grappling, submissions and positioning. Those are the factors that decide a fight. Headbutting, gouging, punches to the neck etc. only benefit you if you're a better fighter than your opponent. They are not something that can turn the tide of a fight when you're being overwhelmed.
Icyclan wrote:
There may be some added value to techniques that you can't practice full force, but how can you trust them in a life threatening situation if you never get to practice them full speed?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
You do, you just don't practice them with force on a person. We follow through takedowns with people, we do striking on free-standing bags.
Fair enough, but personally I wouldn't trust any technique that isn't tested on a resisting human.
Icyclan wrote:
If I paid more than $100 for a seminar, the least I would expect is not to be fed any worthless techniques. You may be able to seperate the chaff from the wheat, but what about the guy who's only been training for a year?
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm really a bit surprised when I mention Dan Inosanto that there isn't any recognition. Trust me, he's definitely not some schill that my instructor and a few other people are propping up.
Why do you assume I don't know how Inosanto is? I was merely questioning why he would teach useless techniques in a seminar that people pay good money for. I have absolutely no idea how that made you come to the conclusion that I don't know who Inosanto is.
Icyclan wrote:
If this is what I find 10 seconds after looking the guy up, God knows what else I'll find.
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Are you indirectly asking me to give BJJ the same examination and rip up anyting I find hokey, odd, or dangerous?
I didn't, but by all means, go ahead. Sadly, the commercialization is watering down BJJ. I once met a blue belt whose training was so geared towards competition that he couldn't even escape a simple headlock. I don't doubt that you could find something useless for street fighting. However, I will say this: you will not find any qualified MMA teacher teaching something that would be completely useless in an actual fight. There's the exotic stuff like flying triangles, etc. that most MMA practitioners wouldn't try on the street (but most likely would get anyway) but you won't find anything near as downright useless and dangerous like that back sweep. You will not find a technique without merit. Not one.
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:33 am Post subject:
I'd really say were at an impass. I get that you can't believe in anything you haven't seen, however I'm stuck trying to prove a negative with means (on the internet) that I literally don't have. Working with my instructor I can verify that our trapping, our limb destruction, takedowns, and destabilizations are violent and overbearing enough in the mechanics of delivery that they're feasible. I've taken other arts before and I've never learned how to mow down someone's standing guard and render their hands useless but then trying to show this with videos that reflect what we're doing in maybe one out of three moves, have something kind of flowery in another third, and have something that doesn't work at all in another third - is pretty much damnation to my case.
I think where I may be lucky: my instructor didn't grow up in the US, he grew up somewhere (not in the far east however) that you had to fight, particularly if you were a religious minority. Some people are just naturally very aggressive and are natural fighters; he was that but he decided that he wanted to learn a proper art or several proper arts and make the most of them. I think that's why I can attest a lot more to what I'm doing than I can to these videos. You can say "Yeah right - prove it"; I can't, if that's your metric you win - I sincerely can't. If we were in the same area of the world and decided to get together for lunch, bullshit a bit and spar afterward what I'm saying might translate off paper but; it clearly doesn't and can't here.
I can also verify, as I talk around, that it seems like every major city as well has people who will only teach out of their garage because they want right of refusal but because of what they're teaching (ie. they're serious entusiasts), my instructor could have been in that category and indeed learned from some people who were but does prefer to have a school. I've also come to understand that there are still plenty of practicitioners, even in this day and age, who will literally not teach white people or anyone generally outside their race, they're also similarly private. I won't get into the implications that I see that having on available and Americanized martial arts in general - I think if people want to only teach the real stuff to an elect few and student who they choose rather than who choose them; that works in their favor. Commercialization and dumbing down just keeps people's opinion of things low and, if people don't believe any validity exists they stop looking. Mind you - there's absolutely no magic, no hoodoo in it, I'm an atheist and that kind of thing doesn't phase me anyway but I do believe what I can see.
Would BJJ work on the street? If your good at it sure. However we're also accounting for the awareness that the odds of you having reason to get into a fight with a serious, self-respecting martial artists, hopefully as a serious self-respecting BJJ person, are pretty low. Odds are if there was a fight you'd find yourselves on the pretty close to the same side. That however is a different topic. Swimming through transient/passing arm bars for breaks, very deliberate attacks to the neck and jaw either by palm manipulation or forearm - these are things you don't and can't do in tournamant. If your teacher will not touch on anything that's outside of the sphere of ring legality - to each their own - my whole point though is I still have every reason to believe that you're making a mistake in assuming you have the whole picture at this point.
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:05 am Post subject:
Something else I noticed, I don't know that I ever clarified. We do have jiu jitsu rolled into our system, we do have 'MMA' format rolled in as well. It would probably be unfair for the sake of argument to mention that. I'm not talking about BJJ and MMA vs. some guy getting in a really weird low stance and the weird fighter winning; nothing of the like. Our Wing Chun really looks like boxing with more focus on trapping and we'll do palms to the face and jaw along with it. We do panantukan to cripple a person's stand up guard. If faced with someone diving for our legs we do respond in a jiu jitsu-like manner, just that its a jiu-jitsu with Gung Fu striking where the block and the strike are nearly indifferentiable. If I gave the impression that we refuse to use any Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, Judo, or boxing I may have perhaps have gotten ahead of the topic and assumed that more was being communicated about what I do at least than what actually came through.
I love it. It's exciting, highly technical, and the fighters are eccentric. Few things I watch can make me leap from my seat and shout at the TV like a maniac.
A lot of the fans are boors, though. I don't think I've ever met anyone with an Affliction t-shirt with class.
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 Posts: 3647 Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject:
Daaamn holy you guys are writing paragraphs big enough to fill half the page. It's getting hard to follow lol. I've been watching hockey and basketball lately so what's new with the UFC?
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14839 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Daaamn holy you guys are writing paragraphs big enough to fill half the page. It's getting hard to follow lol. I've been watching hockey and basketball lately so what's new with the UFC?
Don't worry, it was a pretty lame conversation. You didn't miss much.
Joined: Apr 06, 2007 Age: 31 Posts: 7989 Location: London
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:39 am Post subject:
Icyclan your assessment of wing chun is not accurate. I don't know where you trained or to what so I can't comment on you. It is a difficult style to learn to a decent standard, but it provides useful skills that can be used in MMA. Even Calson Gracie said as much when held a joint lecture with Sam Kwok.
I have helped out at my club for some time we have trained boxers/muay thai/ other seasoned martial artist. Nearly everyone, with few exceptions has trouble coordinating the simultaneous control and attack, we have a strong emphasis on coordination training. The few that are natural it has nothing to do with their martial art experience. Everyone we have train their coordination has improved, and they are able to use their limbs at the same time rather than one after another. Also we promote training on both side, and training he weaker side, just as much. So it definitely has benefits to these people.
Simple fact if you just stand there you are going to get hit. it doesn't matter what style. The best way to not get hit is to move. Interception isn't usually enough in isolation.
Wing Chun deals with elbows pretty well, it is just as much about elbows an Muay Thai if not more so, and pretty similar. You were talking about breaking down the opponent guard. Not always necessary you can jam it into their body, the elbow is covered. If you are going to take down their guard, you can draw downwards, crossing and pinning. Elbow striking from that doesn't work although you can shoulder barge. The point is everything has a counter, you can go on like this ad infinity.
Main thing is you position yourself appropriately. Just like muay thai if you want to stop an elbow, you have to get something in the way, you can stop it before it is come out, but a good fighter is compact, and doesn't load short range strikes which make it obvious.
The only things you can do to fully stop an elbow strike at close range is get something the way immediately whilst getting out of range (if you can), OR to get under the elbow to lift clear. The is because getting something the way isn't enough, as the strike can still come round and hit you.
However the getting something in the way is still the most important part. it is the reaction that facilitates other reactions. The speed at which you can do this, will be the determining factor. You should practice getting your hand up accurately, from any position. Hands, by you side, in your pockets, out wide. Doesn't matter, you can't predict where your hands/arms are going to be. It need to the directs/shortest distance to get in front of the elbow.
I don't really want to get too much into all kinds of terminology, because it means little to most people. However I tend to use a fook and rising/rolling lan combination (you can't really generalize though). Fook can take a lot of punishment, is strong, it doesn't take hardly any space to get up, it doesn't hurt you. You still need to be fairly accurate, but you do get better at it with time. It is also very difficult for them to take your hand without them being elbowed.
Rising lan (if you are unable to get clear), can done instantly with practice. The important thing is you hold on their wrist while their elbow is being lifted, which stops that unraveling and hitting you. It is close to locking without locking a joint due how the arms a wrapped. Pinning is a whole other subject which is vast to go on about here. You should be stepping in a striking at the same time. this will lift their elbow higher, which is poor structure for them.
It will take practice for to be able to step in and rise fully, but that I not the point you are defending yourself against the strike. You are not going capitalize fully every time (I think that is where a lot WCers go wrong). The point is with practice you become a lot better at converting, or making new opportunities.
I think you are right about the lack of sparring experience some people have. Also faux traditionalists who stand there, with a low guard trying to look the part, that is really not a lot to with wing chun.
The fact of the matter anyone who says their style is for everyone either lying or delusional. Humans aren't actually built to fight. Would you like to take on a tiger? Their reactions are better than yours, their spacial awareness is beyond amazing, they are more powerful, and they have built in weapons. This is why we use tools, and train in martial arts. Because were are otherwise limited. but this comes at some cost, and is not perfect. With a lot metrologies it does rely on a high level of fitness, kind of beyond your average person. Injuries an nigles extremely common. _________________ Nobody's mom
