How come it's the complex arts that lose in NHB?

[IronFist]

Alright, you've got boxing, which only has 4 strikes (5 if you count overhand right). Now I know boxing isn't "simple," but it's simple compared to KF or Karate or something that has way more than 4 strikes, a bunch of blocks, kicks, stances, katas, etc. So how come the simple art usually wins?

That kind of sounds like Porsche or Ferrari making a car that always loses 1/4 mile races to something simple with a lot less engineering and effort put into the design like a Focus.

Are all the extra moves extraneous? Did Asians even fight, ever? You would think that warrior cultures would have had all the crap removed from their arts, right? It seems like we've made more progress with the development of fighting arts in the last 10 years in NHB/UFC than in the past 2000 years of TMA development.

[puts on flame retardant suit]

[Pork Chop]

If you list all the variations on the punches, you'll have a lot more than 5; probably closer to 10 or 20, the deal is that all the variations are based on the framework of the 4.

I also wouldn't say that boxing was that much more simple than the asian stuff. There used to be a lot more aspects to the sport, like throwing for example, so the cirriculum was probably of comparitive size back in the bareknuckle days.

Thai kickboxing talks about it's 8 limbs or attacks (ask Khun Kao for the details on this one); but the number of variations on those attacks is pretty high.

I also wouldn't say that it's the complex arts that lose. BJJ and Judo have at least as many techs, methods, strategies, and principles as some kung fu styles I've seen, probably more than a good number of them.

I think the real issue here is the progression.

All the "sports" that fighters have given credit to aiding in their performance in MMA seem to have a different progression than the majority of the TMAs I've seen. Every one of them has their "players" starting to "compete" or enter a "live" environment at a relatively early stage.

In otherwords, a gracie may have as many (or more) strategies, methods, techniques, and principles as your average kung fu master; but your average BJJ guy is going to be going into a non-cooperative grappling (or even MMA) "situation" pretty early on, with only a handful of techniques.

Kinda goes back to what lkfmdc was talking about, when he was mentioning giving his fighters a basic set of tools to go in there for fighting (in a ring), then having the repertoire grow over time, with either "safetied" versions of the more "vicious" techniques, or techniques that are just straight up illegal for anything outside of sparring in the gym.

The mindset of a lot of kung fu styles seems to be "master the whole syllabus, THEN fight"; or "master everything and then transcend fighting (becoming some untouchable master".

Don't get me wrong though, there are some schools out there that have a progression more similar to the ring sports and, as a result, produce more competent fighters.

[Christopher M]

It's not about simple versus complex, it's about having a format for strategy versus having a loose collection of techniques.

[jungle-mania]

I am mainly a sanda fighter, but I have a keen interest in TMA. Frankly speaking, I know that K.I.S.S. works (keep it simple, stupid). The basics always works. In TMA, it isn't any different, just that most masters would rather have their students go through the full syllabus to experience all the different aspects that can occur in a fight, meaning they will have to know the more complicated stuff. From there, they can see how the simple methods work well against the complicated stuff, hence the full circle.

In modern MA, most instructors teach the basic stuff and get you out there, given that one's own experience is the best teacher. in TMA, past experience counts more in ensuring that future students do not have to go through the same things that pervious practitioners went through and be able to progress into other areas that has not been explored. Sounds really logical on the TMA part, but martial arts is school of hard knocks, you don't learn it well, till you get hit. Afterall, humans are by nature stubborn, they will never learn till they get burned.

Both aspect of modern and traditional have their benefits, it is up to you to figure which aspect is better for you. Hence, again the full circle. I have answered your question with another question you have to ask yourself again, hahaha.:D

[David Jamieson]

sportive combative arts are generally ruled on points or knock outs or technical knockouts.

In boxing in particular, the emphasis is points because it is difficult to knock someone clean out. Not impossible but difficult.

the training in boxing is based upon getting points in a sportive format. Many other sportive combative arts are also based in this.

Many traditional martial arts are not designed for this and so the training path is different. It is not about getting better or more points, it's about the art. It ain't about some nascar like show either.

But, some people enjoy the sportive aspects and pursue martial arts to that end.

Good for them and may they find much enjoyment in their pursuit.

regards

[Shaolinlueb]

you also forget soldiers adn stuff trianed alot, they were always going against a similar art. kung fu is battlefield tested. i dont like to play blame game but you can think lack of real training and good training. that was lost in china i think. im sure you can find real kung fu (traditional combat) trianing somewhere in asia. but if you notice, simple works, why get all fancy and get hurt?

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by IronFist It seems like we've made more progress with the development of fighting arts in the last 10 years in NHB/UFC than in the past 2000 years of TMA development.

[puts on flame retardant suit] [/B]

I suppose it does SEEM that way.

Here's my view on the "amazing" progress of the past ten years.

Stances have returned to their lower broader original form.

Jabbing is has been abandoned in favor of the more traditional preference for quicker fight enders.

More people take their conditioning as seriously as they did in "the old days".

Stand up grappling has returned to the foreground.

Chambering punches has come back into style. (Check out Chuck vs. Tito.)

Defeating a skilled wrestler is once again a prerequisite to being famous as a real fighter.

I have really enjoyed watching fighting styles return to their roots since the intoduction of NHB in America and Europe. Things have come full circle. Most of the changes of the early 20th century have been abandoned in favor of more traditional style fighting. I love watching old stuff come back into style. :)

[David Jamieson]

funny thing what terminology does to one's understanding of things.

omar, you mention "chambering".

Just last weekend working with some friends, just some drills with the gloves on etc etc, but there was one guy who referred to chambering as "loading up", or powering up, the punch.

He was an mma-ist guy, but with a good attitude about the value of all martial training in many respects.

I find that there is a lot of terminology that has been changed from tma to modern stuff. I personally think it would be a good idea for tma to catch that boat. It is a cultural relativity thing as far as teh "martial" part is concerned that you would want a student to understand a concept quicker, so they may practice better, so why not feed the intellectual portion of that concept to your student in a language they at least understand.

The language barrier still impedes the progress of teh tma students and practitioners because it is difficult to physically manifest grasping that which they cannot dualistically quite fully comprehend.

anyway, just a thought

cheers

[Asia]

It's not about simple versus complex, it's about having a format for strategy versus having a loose collection of techniques.

No I think it more of being able to perform you techniques on a fully resisting opponent. That leading back to training methodology. It not that Kung Fu doesn't work in MMA (i use it myself) is that the majority of KF guys don't really train worth a ****. Those that do train well tend to be just one sided, striking, and we all know you have to be well rounded.


the training in boxing is based upon getting points in a sportive format. Many other sportive combative arts are also based in this.

KL this is wrong. The goal of boxing is to KSTFO (Knock Someone The **** Out) All your training is gear to just that. You may score points, which in boxing is not easy it takes about 3 clean hits to score 1 point for amatuers. but your goal is to have him kissing canvas. Sport combat has more in common with older views of MA than what pple are doing today. NHB is a return to what MA is all about.



Many traditional martial arts are not designed for this and so the training path is different. It is not about getting better or more points, it's about the art.

I greatly beg to differ. TMA arts was all about defeating the other guy who is trying to do on to you. The may pple trained to do that back then was to ACTUALLY GO OUT AND FIGHT. Warriors would learn the basics then go out and apply them. They didn't hide behind alot of mumbo jumbo that you see spewed today. If their art failed them they didn't sit and make excuses they got up, if they were still alive, and sought to insure it didn't happen again even if it meant learning another style.




I have really enjoyed watching fighting styles return to their roots since the intoduction of NHB in America and Europe. Things have come full circle. Most of the changes of the early 20th century have been abandoned in favor of more traditional style fighting. I love watching old stuff come back into style.

You have gained wisdom Omar. Your Emporer is pleased.:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Asia
No I think it more of being able to perform you techniques on a fully resisting opponent.

I don't disagree; I just thought that went without saying.

On the other hand, I really think there's something to arts that provide a methadology for strategy. If one guy understands BJJ submissions as isolated techniques and another guy understands them in terms of positional dominance, I'd feel confident wagering on the latter even when both train against equal resistance.

[Asia]

You are right. You definitely need to have a strategic framework to perform in. But for sake of arguement I teach someone isolated techniques, keylock, armbar, kimura, and RNC with no transitions. If I have them try and perform them on a resisting opponent they will develop their own methods of applying them. Now this will obviously take longer because they would have to go throw trial and error. But even that is much better than never having done it 'live' before. That is why I think that point is above all else. Being able to perform what you learned.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb
you also forget soldiers adn stuff trianed alot, they were always going against a similar art. kung fu is battlefield tested. i dont like to play blame game but you can think lack of real training and good training. that was lost in china i think. im sure you can find real kung fu (traditional combat) trianing somewhere in asia. but if you notice, simple works, why get all fancy and get hurt?

not all kung fu is battlefield tested. Actually, isn't much of it village styles and stuff? used in fights yes, but not necessarily wars...

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by IronFist
Alright, you've got boxing, which only has 4 strikes (5 if you count overhand right). Now I know boxing isn't "simple," but it's simple compared to KF or Karate or something that has way more than 4 strikes, a bunch of blocks, kicks, stances, katas, etc. So how come the simple art usually wins?


Concentration and training method.

[David Jamieson]

Asia- you said:


KL this is wrong. The goal of boxing is to KSTFO (Knock Someone The **** Out) All your training is gear to just that. You may score points, which in boxing is not easy it takes about 3 clean hits to score 1 point for amatuers. but your goal is to have him kissing canvas. Sport combat has more in common with older views of MA than what pple are doing today. NHB is a return to what MA is all about.


You and I will have to disagree.

I do not think sportive combative practices in anyway touch upon true reality of combat. All your training in boxing is not geared towards the power knockout. At least not in any club i've been in. Sure it's good to get the guy down and you learn to hit hard from optimal structure, but humans are amazingly resilient aren't they? :) Sport combat has only itself to stand against, older views are older views and frankly, none of us know what it was really like 100 or 200 years ago and I fail to see why people bother to attempt to make this deliniation. None of us were there and it could have been as much politics and bull shi.it then as it is now (in fact, i would guess that it was the same, times change, people remain the same).

The goal of boxing is to win, period. Most times this is not done by knockout, it is done by decision, so i disagree with your views regarding boxing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy boxing and have done it for some time. I do not think it is all about the knockout and my experience tells me different.

then you said : :D


I greatly beg to differ. TMA arts was all about defeating the other guy who is trying to do on to you. The may pple trained to do that back then was to ACTUALLY GO OUT AND FIGHT. Warriors would learn the basics then go out and apply them. They didn't hide behind alot of mumbo jumbo that you see spewed today. If their art failed them they didn't sit and make excuses they got up, if they were still alive, and sought to insure it didn't happen again even if it meant learning another style.

First, soldiers are trained to soldier. If they wanted to expand their martial knowledge and repetoire, then like soldiers of today, they would have to look for a teacher outside of their reg training. Basic soldier training is just that "basic", very basic.

In regards to the training path of tma, I beg to differ with you in regards to "mumbo jumbo". There are a great many techniques that are unusual in and of themselves and this problem is further compounded by a great deal of students who have little or no grasp of what these techniques translate too. The same could be said of some of the slick pajama wearing set out there:)

TMA is a bit "rusty" in this respect and completely shot in many schools. but then, there are a lot of wannabe ufc schools out there that offer very questionabl materials or co-opt a lot from tma and just push that out in a watered down sort of way.

It's hard to find good teachings in any area is what I am getting at. But if you can get a foundation laid with a good teacher and you have good focus and good intent, then that is what is gonna shine through. I.E you. :D

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb
kung fu is battlefield tested.

Even if this were true, it doesn't seem particularly relevant - the martial needs of a soldier and those of a civilian are extremely different.

[Shaolinlueb]

very true chris and 7*. i have seen the error in my post.
yes a lot of styles come from villages, but they had to originate for 1 reason, for defense. so they had to be used at one point in time for fighting/defense.

[David Jamieson]

kungfu is a misnomer.

martial arts are battlefield tested. Someone with kungfu in martial arts on a battlefield where h2h was the state of modernity would do well likely.

But, Kungfu is a lot of things. Besides antiquated classical martial arts with still a lot of valuable self defense information through diligent practice over time, Kungfu is about conditioning the body, conditioning the mind and tempering the spirit of an individual with the ultimate goal of being someone who is mericiful, gentlemanly, insightful, aware, helpful, strong, righteous, wise and knowledgeable.

That's the goal of kungfu in a nutshell. Anyone can go learn to fight without ever having kungfu or seeking to attain it.

To go further into the intellectualization of it only serves to move further away from the truth of what Kungfu is. But you can bet your bottom dollar it is one hella a lot more than the mechanics of fighting.

cheers

[Royal Dragon]

Even if this were true, it doesn't seem particularly relevant - the martial needs of a soldier and those of a civilian are extremely different.

Reply]
Fighting, is fighting. There are universal truths, that are present whether you are fighting hand to hand on a battle field, or in the villiage pub. All that differes is the strategy in which it is applied.

[Christopher M]

Unfortunately, when someone is trying to break your face, you can't hit him back with universal truths.

[Asia]

The goal of boxing is to win, period. Most times this is not done by knockout, it is done by decision, so i disagree with your views regarding boxing. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy boxing and have done it for some time. I do not think it is all about the knockout and my experience tells me different.

I've been boxing since I was a wee lad. No coach ever told me to just try to score points you train to put the other guy on his ass. Sure it doesn't always happen but guys don't train to win a decision the train for a KO. I still actively box, went to the Armed Forces Europe Boxing tournament two weeks ago. Took silver lost a 3-2 decision. :( I've trained in boxing gyms around the world and they all train pretty much the same that is why I say boxer to don't train for points, because my experience reflects this.


First, soldiers are trained to soldier. If they wanted to expand their martial knowledge and repetoire, then like soldiers of today, they would have to look for a teacher outside of their reg training. Basic soldier training is just that "basic", very basic.

True but a soldier doesn't STAY basic. You get more training as you go along (either by NCOES or elcected schools) and depending on your unit you are going to get alot of hands on training. Right now I am currently stationed with 7th Army Training Command. (Thank God I am out of 1st Armor Division!) I am OPFOR our mission is to make sure the guys coming through are ready to go into actual combat. Sure nothing beats the real thing but we make it pretty **** close. Without this training....well I don't want to think of that. Anyways I have the same veiw when it comes to being effective in MA. Sport fighting isnt the same as the real thing but like the UFC slogan goes, "Its as real as it gets." With that training a MAist is much better equiped to deal with a violent situtaion than those won only THEORIZE they can. Despite a common misquided belief a sport fighter CAN easily adapt his skills to a real situation. (ie I am alot better at eye gouging, throat strikes, and alot more nastier tricks than someone who never put simple skills to the test.)



TMA is a bit "rusty" in this respect and completely shot in many schools. but then, there are a lot of wannabe ufc schools out there that offer very questionabl materials or co-opt a lot from tma and just push that out in a watered down sort of way.

TMA are not rusty its the TRAINING that is. I will give it to you there are wannabe MMA schools out now. It was bound to happen but the good thing is we have a great Checks and Balance in place. You call yourself a MMA school then you have to prove it in the ring, mat, etc.


It's hard to find good teachings in any area is what I am getting at. But if you can get a foundation laid with a good teacher and you have good focus and good intent, then that is what is gonna shine through. I.E you.

Your makeing me blush!:o Yes it hard to find a good teachers nowadays but it doesn't have to stay that way. The more pple push themselves and actually TEST their skills it will do alot to cut the BS from the good stuff. I totaly agree a good foundation is need.



But, Kungfu is a lot of things. Besides antiquated classical martial arts with still a lot of valuable self defense information through diligent practice over time, Kungfu is about conditioning the body, conditioning the mind and tempering the spirit of an individual with the ultimate goal of being someone who is mericiful, gentlemanly, insightful, aware, helpful, strong, righteous, wise and knowledgeable.

You know I've always differed on this veiw point. Kung Fu (yes I know blanket term:p) is a MARTIAL ART. You break it down MARTIAL (PRETAINING TO COMBAT) and ART (SKILL). So the focus of training is combat. Everything else should be geared towards that. What other benefits you gain is a good byproduct. I don't want someone to learn or teach MA if they can't get what MA was created for and that is defeating the other guy. I don't need a Sifu to teach me to be gentlemanly, thats why I have parents. If I become a better human being through this endevour then that is fine but what good is that going to do me when some guy is trying to bash my head in? Ofcourse i don't want anyone I teach ways of hurting pple to be an ******* but I do want him to be able to fight.

[mortal]

Asia

That was a **** good post! Keep them coming.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb
very true chris and 7*. i have seen the error in my post.
yes a lot of styles come from villages, but they had to originate for 1 reason, for defense. so they had to be used at one point in time for fighting/defense.

boxing and muay thai originated for defense.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Even if this were true, it doesn't seem particularly relevant - the martial needs of a soldier and those of a civilian are extremely different.

Reply]
Fighting, is fighting. There are universal truths, that are present whether you are fighting hand to hand on a battle field, or in the villiage pub. All that differes is the strategy in which it is applied.

nah, the mindset is different also. Warriors fought out of necessity and trained accordingly. That necessity is no longer there, and is reflected in the training seen today.

[Shaolinlueb]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Unfortunately, when someone is trying to break your face, you can't hit him back with universal truths.

thats sig material.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Asia

You know I've always differed on this veiw point. Kung Fu (yes I know blanket term:p) is a MARTIAL ART. You break it down MARTIAL (PRETAINING TO COMBAT) and ART (SKILL). So the focus of training is combat. Everything else should be geared towards that. What other benefits you gain is a good byproduct. I don't want someone to learn or teach MA if they can't get what MA was created for and that is defeating the other guy. I don't need a Sifu to teach me to be gentlemanly, thats why I have parents. If I become a better human being through this endevour then that is fine but what good is that going to do me when some guy is trying to bash my head in? Ofcourse i don't want anyone I teach ways of hurting pple to be an ******* but I do want him to be able to fight.

Best post of the thread from the Emperor of Baji. :D

[David Jamieson]

asia-

good observations.

I still say boxing is trained for "boxing" and not for life or death situation. It's not reality based training in that sense but I'll take nothing from the training and conditioning methods of teh western boxer for that end. It is all good. :D To be frank, if it was about destruction and maiming, it wouldn't be in a ring, you wouldn't be wearing gloves, cups and mouth guards and it wouldn't only restrict you to specific target areas and a rule set.

As for the Kungfu training being rusty, I'm not sure I agree. There are a pretty good amount of Chinese martial arts prcatitioners in and around where I live. Their skills can't be discounted. What's rusty is mostly in too many people wanting to advance to quickly and the teachers acquiescing to this want of the impatient students for the sake of maintaining the school. And so, for the want of continued business, the core art suffers quite often.

On the other hand, there are teachers who will not grant you this whim and you will either stick it out and do it their way, or drop out and gain little if anything from their well, which if they are old and recognized is generally quite deep. Many students simply refuse to take the path of old style training for real. It's too hard and well, let's say those latest obesity facts and figures says a lot about the western paradigm towards physical activity of any form :p

About "proving". Every school does this in some way shape or form through tourneys or events. Many times these events are closed to the style and open styles tournaments do not included much freestyle fighting. But there is continuous sparring and some full contact with gear sparring or competitive sparring that happens.

I haven't seen a pro or even amateur ranked fighting level very often at these events.

For mma (another misnomer imo, but that's another story) there are bouts between and against other schools. These fights are often worth going and checking out as a spectator and the top card guys are generally pretty good fighters, probably some even really really good. It is safe to say that a lot of these guys have made the transistion out of traditional kwoon style or dojo style of teaching into the mma way of doing things which is often times more modernistic in it's approach to training, nutrition etc. But, physics are physics, kinetics are kinetics, etc etc.

In short, some of the biggest barriers to people learning chinese martial arts is the cultural barrier, the language barrier and the abuse of the mystical associations with a martial art that supercedes the core of the art.

Becoming a "gentleman" etc etc, is something that any teacher decent social mores should attempt to instill in youth who otherwise do not have the same said mores. be it a math teacher or a kungfu teacher.

Granted as an adult, you will likely already have this skill set and to place the burden of learning anew on you is pretentious of teh teacher and can lead to an intellectual barrier and emotional barrier to learning with them or you.

anyway, good stuff. I think that we may be reading into each others comments a little, maybe what I reply with is not what you think I mean. :D And vice versa.

Cheers

[Merryprankster]

I suppose it does SEEM that way.

Here's my view on the "amazing" progress of the past ten years.

Stances have returned to their lower broader original form.

Jabbing is has been abandoned in favor of the more traditional preference for quicker fight enders.

More people take their conditioning as seriously as they did in "the old days".

Stand up grappling has returned to the foreground.

Chambering punches has come back into style. (Check out Chuck vs. Tito.)

Defeating a skilled wrestler is once again a prerequisite to being famous as a real fighter.

I have really enjoyed watching fighting styles return to their roots since the intoduction of NHB in America and Europe. Things have come full circle. Most of the changes of the early 20th century have been abandoned in favor of more traditional style fighting. I love watching old stuff come back into style.

I disagree with half of what you are writing.

Stances only returned to their "original" form amongst people who didn't fight full contact.

Jabbing has not been abandoned at all. Now, it's not a jabbing war like you see in boxing, I'll grant you that, but plenty of fighters use the jab to stop forward momentum, create angles, enter, etc.

Chambering punches is certainly not back in style. Like always, some guys throw tighter punches and some guys wing it. If you want to call Chuck dropping his hands "chambering," be my guest....and remember that Randy Couture's straight, hands up punches was a large part of the equation that beat Chuck...

[Gangsterfist]

Originally posted by SevenStar


not all kung fu is battlefield tested. Actually, isn't much of it village styles and stuff? used in fights yes, but not necessarily wars...

A lot of the southern systems were battlefeild tested because of all the rebellions and such. A lot of what you said is also true.

I know my sigung, Ho Kam Ming, has personally trained the military wing chun. I bet this is common with several arts.


As for the whole warrior thing. It is IMHO, that in todays world there is really no place for a warrior. Sure you may be a soldier in the army, but more than likely you won't ever use any of your martial arts training. You will use guns, projectiles, explosives, and other technologies and fight from a distance. Not to mention all the bombing and barraging that goes on from ordenence weapons and air craft. Only a very few amount of soldiers ever see hand to hand combat. Most of the time those are the elites (recon marines, seals, green berrets, etc). There really is no place in this world for the martial arts warrior, they are pretty much obsolete.

I think you should train hard to be a fighter, not a soldier. That is what martial arts is about today, becoming a good fighter (plus the other good byproducts you get as well, as asia mentioned earlier). Its no longer about being a soldier and killing someone in war. We have other technologies for that nowadays. However, keep that in mind what all martial arts were originally designed for, killing the other guy before he can kill you.

just some thoughts...

[ShaolinTiger00]

A lot of the southern systems were battlefeild tested because of all the rebellions and such

The Boxer Rebellion: A classic lesson in how to die like an idiot.

Bullet rd.1, 02sec.

[Phrost]

Horse Calvary is battle tested too.

That doesn't mean it's worth a d@mn on the modern battlefield.

The truth is, most Chinese martial arts were developed for fighting battles hundreds of years ago. A lot of the movements are derrived from things that would help you fight in the middle of melee combat, usually with weapons.

Not all of this is relevant to fighting people today, and it's definitely not relevant to today's battlefield.

As much as I dislike referencing films, go watch Troy, and look for the movements that those battlefield scenes have in common with many Shaolin forms, especially spear.

It all comes down to relevancy. A NHB fighter trains in only what works against another person. A 'traditional' MAist, trains in a lot of things, including some that might be really cool looking, but aren't really practical in as many situations.

I'm not bagging on "TMA's" though. I've always wanted to learn the rope dart. But for now, I'll spend my training time learning how to put some other guy on his arse with my bare hands, because I'm more likely to run into a situation where I need that training than I am to encounter a Jet Li scene.

I don't think anyone here is an Interpol Kung Fu Ninja, you know.

[rogue]

When did people find the time to develope all of these fighting arts while on the battlefield? Did they figure something didn't work only after they were shot full of arrows? :rolleyes:

[Phrost]

Usually how militaries work is that those who survive battles end up training the future troops how to fight them.

[NeedsPractice]

The main issue between complex and simple is not so much complex vs simple but

A) Spend alot of time working on various small details, etc, and less time practicing the applications in sparring/fighting situations consistently. or


B) Skip alot of A and devote almost all your energy and time for the sparring /fighting end. ALways working on your stamina, always hitting things, always sparring and practicing new techs for sparring or fighting.


If you have to have a fight(in general) who do you want by your side the guy who has plenty of fights and has been hit knows how to hit but little or no formal training or the guy who has spent alot of time training differnent thingsa but not much experience applying it.

[strangecaptain]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


...and remember that Randy Couture's straight, hands up punches was a large part of the equation that beat Chuck...




I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the wrestler used strikes to beat the striker. It was very exciting.

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


I disagree with half of what you are writing.

Stances only returned to their "original" form amongst people who didn't fight full contact.

Jabbing has not been abandoned at all. Now, it's not a jabbing war like you see in boxing, I'll grant you that, but plenty of fighters use the jab to stop forward momentum, create angles, enter, etc.

Chambering punches is certainly not back in style. Like always, some guys throw tighter punches and some guys wing it. If you want to call Chuck dropping his hands "chambering," be my guest....and remember that Randy Couture's straight, hands up punches was a large part of the equation that beat Chuck...

"original" is the question.

People who right full contact are exactly the people who have old style stances. Watching the various UFC and Pride clips floating around is what I'm basing my observation on. I'm not talking about 20-30 years ago as "original". I'm talking about the real traditional studd as I have been taught here in China. Thighs paralell to the floor? My Shifu laughs at that. He says, "What are you doing? Going to the bathroom?" High narrow stances that allow for mobiility? Let's see how much mobility you have when some wrestlers double legging you?

Strikers jab vs. other strikers. The pro MMA fighters who's posts I've been reading tell me that jabbing wont stop a shoot and with no rounds people like to go all out for the KO or the sub right off the bat.

Originally, grapplers were ALWAYS part of the equation. The Gracies had it right to a certain extent. That IS what untrained people tend to revert to. Charge in and takle the guy. Not to mention that wrestling IS the oldest MA. So ORIGINALLY any style worth it's salt had to be really specifically designed to deal with the attempted take down or knock down. Nearly every single move in the Baji set's I'm learning are meant to knock someone down. . . . and not just by hitting them in the head.

I keep reading about how your not supposed to chamber. But I think Kung Lekj has it right. It's the language. I keep seeing everyone chamber . . .er...loading up. A jab shoots out and the right hand pulls back a bit to get ready for the cross. Add to that that most of the so called "chambering" happens in the contexxt of combos. I'm not talking about winding up, pulling your hand back for the big hit. You punch from where youy are. But when one hand goes out the other goes back to add power. Then it's "pre-chambered".

When I was training MT, I loved how we basically did 95% of all upper body defense with the lead arm only. You cold hold it out there like a shield and keep that right hand '****ed' and ready to unload whenever you saw the opening.

I'm rambling and ranting....later dude.

[Merryprankster]

"original" is the question.

My point is that it's only a question for people who weren't developing in a live environment. So saying returning to the "original" stances only applies to a certain segment of the population.



Strikers jab vs. other strikers. The pro MMA fighters who's posts I've been reading tell me that jabbing wont stop a shoot and with no rounds people like to go all out for the KO or the sub right off the bat.

Ummm... There are rounds now. Jabbing doesn't stop a shot. But Jabbing is certainly used, and quite often. I've got PRIDE on now and just watched a fellow use his jab quite well to interrupt movement and create angles.



Originally, grapplers were ALWAYS part of the equation. The Gracies had it right to a certain extent. That IS what untrained people tend to revert to. Charge in and takle the guy. Not to mention that wrestling IS the oldest MA. So ORIGINALLY any style worth it's salt had to be really specifically designed to deal with the attempted take down or knock down. Nearly every single move in the Baji set's I'm learning are meant to knock someone down. . . . and not just by hitting them in the head.

I didn't argue with this.


I keep reading about how your not supposed to chamber. But I think Kung Lekj has it right. It's the language. I keep seeing everyone chamber . . .er...loading up. A jab shoots out and the right hand pulls back a bit to get ready for the cross. Add to that that most of the so called "chambering" happens in the contexxt of combos. I'm not talking about winding up, pulling your hand back for the big hit. You punch from where youy are. But when one hand goes out the other goes back to add power. Then it's "pre-chambered".

I think you're reading too much in to individual fighters styles trying to make a blanket statement that simply isn't accurate.

[omarthefish]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

I think you're reading too much in to individual fighters styles trying to make a blanket statement that simply isn't accurate. [/B]

I'm only quoting this part because it's the only part where I feel misrepresented. I'mn not making a blanket staement. A AM looking at individual fighters. It doesn't have to be everyone to be a new trend. In the full contact fights of my "youth" NOBODY did that. It was considered wrong. The very fact that it's seen at all at the very top levels of the sport is "new". I'm well aware it's nothing approaching anything like a new standard. But it IS a suprising new trend.

The rest of your post...small disagreements really. I suppose your right people do jab still. But WAY less than before. And yes, breaking the fights up into rounds and although you didn't mention it, adding judges decisions to fights does encourage jabbing.

I'll end with my first thought though:
. . .So saying returning to the "original" stances only applies to a certain segment of the population.


What if I happen to be a member of the segment it applies to?;)

[Merryprankster]

What if I happen to be a member of the segment it applies to?

Then congratulations! :D