Marc MacYoung on Cyberkwoon again...

[PHILBERT]

http://www.cyberkwoon.com/html/article.php?sid=284

Covers grappling this time. I havent read it yet, will later.

[Liokault]

I cant say i agree 100% but I agree with most of it.

[taijiquan_student]

What are the things you disagree with?

[Liokault]

OK Ok so i agree 100%!!



I just didnt want to look like a BJJ basher.:D

[Chang Style Novice]

"That kind of pugilism was designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other vicious in-close tricks associated with their version of grappling. "

Purring? Definition, please!

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice

Purring? Definition, please!

Purring was a form of wrestling engaged in predominantly in Wales. It involved taking a collar-and-elbow tieup with your opponent (or something similar. Some accounts have the two fighters grasping each other by the ears) and kicking savagely at each others shins and legs. The first person to release their grip on the other is the loser.

This was often used as a method of dispute settling by Welsh coal miners. As they often wore copper-shod boots, it was a particularly brutal contest in said instances.

While it sounds about as sophisticated as rocheambeau, there was actually (among well-practiced participants) a suprisingly subtle and fast bit of leg-parrying and stop-kicking involved before the blood started flowing.

Purring as a specific style was generally only known within the borders of Wales. When used in the context of other sports, the word usually referred to the practice of scraping the shin with the sole of the foot (a common tactic in savate, or so I'm told.)

[joedoe]

That post was taken straight off his website. Interesting point of view.

[LEGEND]

Some contradiction are in that article...first he states that GRAPPING is for subduing but not combat...well...lol...isn't one method of killing someone STRANGULATION??? He also states that if u're a standup fighter and end up fighting a grappler's game then u'll get your ass kick...well then wouldn't that imply grappling is a COMBAT effective???

[Ryu]

Well I've read this long ago, and while I do like a lot of his philo, I think too many generalizations are made about grappling as a sport .......

First though I'd like to say this

"While it is important to know how to keep your head when you go to the ground, let's start by saying that if groundfighting was all that effective, armies would lie down when they fought. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use submission holds and mounting positions to defeat the other army's soldiers."

This is ridiculous because you can say the exact same thing about stand up fighting. Watch........
"While it is important to know how to keep your head when you are being attacked by strikes, let's start by saying that if striking was all that effective, armies would slug it out when they fought. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't carry weapons, instead they'd use punches and kicks to defeat the other army's soldiers."

................ war has always been fought with weapons.... case closed. Hand to hand combat in war situations is very rare, and when it does happen it will usually be by surprise, or with a knife in hand. True hand to hand in war situations... I bet goes to the ground sometimes too. ;)
War analogies to civilian hand to hand combat is very weak in my opinion.

But most of the other stuff he says is very true.
However, I want to keep re-enforcing that "street grappling" is not "sport grappling."
Fancy armlocks and things is not the only thing 'grappling" is about.

This is "street grappling."

Punch, kick your way into the clinch,
slam the person down onto the ground while keeping top position always. Pound him from various angles, claw his eyes, bite him, rip off his ears, gouge your thumbs in his eyes, crush his groin, headbutt him, elbow his face, break his fingers, etc. etc.

That is true "street grappling." It's ugly, it's brutal, it's extremely violent and sickening...... it's possibly the most violent aspect of reality fighting.

This whole article is talking about that aspect...... that some people don't know the difference between sport and street grappling........

But that doesn't mean grapplers are all sports oriented, and don't know how to fight. Imagine just for a minute that you face someone like that, and you don't know how to escape the ground.... all of a sudden, being armlocked isn't what you're worried about...... you're worried about being maimed and killed..... and there is a lot of very experienced wrestlers and grapplers who fight like this.... don't ever forget that.

"dirty" fighting, "shredding" etc. is much more possible in the grappling ranges then any other range in my opinion.....

You can very quickly end a real fight if you're a much better grappler then your opponent...... but you've got to be smart about it too.

Grappling is (for the last time) an important and common aspect of real defense. You've got to be good down there.... you have to.

If not to end it quickly, to get on your feet quickly.........

I'll agree with one thing. You don't want to spend a long time on the ground.... if you're there, have the skills to end it quick of get back up quick.

Ryu

[LEGEND]

I think peeps watching the first UFC saw certain aspects of the GRAPPLING effectiveness...HOWEVER...there are OTHER tapes from BRAZIL itself where there are NO GLOVEs...and only rule is no EYE GOUGING. Man those fights were NASTYYYYYYYYYYYY. Head butts, forearms, one dood was stupid enuf to wear an earing and got it ripped off his ear...also u only saw basic submission used after the loser got exhausted! Grappling is a nasty business...as is standup fighting...

[TaoBoy]

I always like to read what MacYoung has to say - this time was no exception. He made a number of good points and as always is sure to have ruffled some feathers.

[Liokault]

I always like to read what MacYoung has to say - this time was no exception. He made a number of good points and as always is sure to have ruffled some feathers.



Im glad he ruffled a few feathers. He is basicaly saying what I have tried to say in a few threads over the last few weeks.

I still think that BJJ is a one trick pony and that UFC is a HUGE martial arts red herring.

[Merryprankster]

Liokault,

Actually, I agree with both you and Marc on this issue. I don't want to be on the ground. BUT, you and he seem to fall into the trap of "Well they advocate going to the ground and beating people up there." That's not what I want at all. I want to have the ability to control what's going on. If I can control what's going on on the ground, I have a better chance of dictating the outcome of me getting up--namely, that I'll be on top, and you'll be in a bad position when I get there. I also believe the inanimate object hazards are far overblown. There is a finite, definite risk of broken bottles, rusty nails and concrete. But you can get mugged in a park on the grass by a thug with a club as easily as in a dark alleyway full of garbage cans and glass.

The UFC is NOT a huge red herring--as long as you understand what you are looking at. Originally, it identified what really was and remains for some people, a large hole in their training. Now, it's a demonstration of one on one basic fighting ability. No more, no less. I've never used the UFC as justification for anything other than KISS. Cool stuff is hard to pull off, IMO, and I prefer to keep it basic and reliant on gross motor skills.

BJJ is only as much of a one trick pony as you want it to be--just like everything else.

Heck, I've probably learned everything I'll ever need to know for 99% of street confrontations, with respect to groundfighting. I keep doing it because I enjoy the sport. Nobody really NEEDS a black belt in BJJ. I just want one.

And Ryu is right. He uses some god-awful analogies.

[shaolinboxer]

His opinions feel very valid to a lot of consumers.

I think voices like his are good to hear, sometimes.

[Arioch7]

Nice post, Ryu.

As for me, I use what works in the situation, period. Imagine that...

[MightyB]

Pure crap, and I'm not even a grappler.

I like Mark most of the time, but this is BS with an agenda.

He talks about getting taken to the dirt as if the person wants that to happen to them. Sh!t, an experienced ju jitsu guy doesn't want to be slammed to the ground, it's what you do to the other guy.

Peeps will get hurt if they believe this, like Ryu stated, a grappler will slam you down sit on your chest and skull f*ck you until you stop moving, they aren't going to waste time trying to joint lock you or choke you out, they're going to hurt you pure, simple, and quick. And from that position, if Joe Bob wants to join in, the grappler simply stands back up and proceeds to skull f*ck 'im too.

A trained grappler is like a cat, they have a habit of always landing up right and in the dominent position. I was watching the Shidokan, there was a black guy with a fire design painted on his pants who was an experienced no-holds-barred guy. Every time someone went to do a takedown, and even if they had him lifted on to one leg, he always, always, always landed in the dominent position (the mount). He maneuvered in the air like a cat. You don't learn this by keeping your head in the sand about the grappling issue.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Liokault




Im glad he ruffled a few feathers. He is basicaly saying what I have tried to say in a few threads over the last few weeks.

I still think that BJJ is a one trick pony and that UFC is a HUGE martial arts red herring.

Be sure to ready both Ryu and Merry's posts.

[TheGhostDog]

Regarding the example of the army:
A friend of mine is in the army and has used his BJJ in training exercises for both stand-up and ground grappling. He likes the fact that he can fight someone on the ground and beat them, without having to stand-up and possible get shot. It has never made sense to me that people say the ground is the last place to be in a fire-fight !

[TheGhostDog]

I've read the article and while I like his ideas on some things, this article didn't make sense.
E.g Grappling is only good for controlling an opponent if you don't want to hurt them ? What about armlocks, leglocks and chokes ? These things, taken to their natural conclusion (i.e. not caring about a tap), result in broken limbs or unconsciousness. Seriously, if I wanted to F**k somebody up, then I'd choke them out and stomp on their legs and arms and break them, and there's nothing the unconscious guy can do about it.
Really, that was a ridiculous statement by MacYoung.

[rogue]

I believe that MacYoung was addressing a certain subset of true believers.


I have taken extreme flak from people about my views on grappling. Usually these people are grappling proponents and believe that my answers are too simplistic. Well, as long as we are talking about simple, I have three basic standards:

1) If you end up on the ground against someone trying to seriously hurt you, you ****ed up
2) Get up immediately
3) Submission fighting is to be used only on people who you want to control, *not* hurt (e.g. a drunk friend)

Does this mean I am "against" grappling? Does it mean I don't think it's worth learning? Does this mean I am inexperienced on the ground?

No.

What it does mean, however, is that I have experience with issues that grappling's "true believers" don't like to look at. That experience -- including watching a guy get "stomped" by upwards of twenty people while on the ground (he spent six months in the hospital) -- makes me a little leery about the universal applicability of "groundfighting." That and other factors is what we are going to discuss.

and furthur on


Should you learn floorfighting?
Absolutely

In fact, not learning how to function on a basic level when on the ground is foolish. While I honestly disagree with the contention that "90 percent of all fights end up on the ground," that doesn't mean that they don't go there. (The reason I feel the Gracies can accurately make that claim is because they "take" their fights there. It is a true statement with them. It is not however universally true). But enough fights *do* go to the ground that it is important to know how to function there - at least long enough to safely get up.

Just don't get caught up in the fantasy of thinking it is the ultimate fighting system.

[Ford Prefect]

I agree with most of the article, but a couple of the things he says are a little rediculous and make him look biased.

[MightyB]

Should have read the whole article because I actually do agree with this:


Should you learn floorfighting?
Absolutely

In fact, not learning how to function on a basic level when on the ground is foolish. While I honestly disagree with the contention that "90 percent of all fights end up on the ground," that doesn't mean that they don't go there. (The reason I feel the Gracies can accurately make that claim is because they "take" their fights there. It is a true statement with them. It is not however universally true). But enough fights *do* go to the ground that it is important to know how to function there - at least long enough to safely get up.

Just don't get caught up in the fantasy of thinking it is the ultimate fighting system.


But, I think it's stupid to think that groundfighters for some reason are studk in sportfighting and can't improvise a little to actually fight.



Heck, I personally believe that any martial art has little relevance in a real street fight, but that's another thread.

The B