Tired of so called "MMA" in UFC

[Chief Fox]

Ok, we've all seen it. It's a UFC bout. The fighters are introduced and we are all informed about how much they've trained in a certain style. Most times it's Juijitsu (sorry about the spelling). The fight starts and we see two guys who are wildly trading blows. Very few kicks, some ground work but most of the fight is the two guys just trying to knock each other out.

The other fight we see all the time is the one that immediately goes to the ground and the two fighters roll around on the mat for a while until they are pulled apart or one taps. In my opinion, a very boring fight.

So why is it that these ground fighting experts try to do stand up when it looks like all they can do is stand toe to toe and trade punches? What do they have to prove by doing stand up?

I watch these fights and the whole time I'm yelling "LEG KICK, LEG KICK, HIS LEG IS RIGHT OUT THERE, KICK IT." But they don't. They trade blows and "try" to box. And most do it very poorly.

Maybe I'm wrong but the most popular mix of training these days for MMA is, juijitsu, muy tai and boxing. From the looks of the fights though, there are plenty of guys who can fight on the ground but when it comes to stand up, they're pretty bad. There are exceptions of course but most times it's just a very sloppy slug fest with no kicks.

So the typical UFC MMA fighter is well versed in ground fighting but in my opinion is lacking in the boxing/muy tai area.

Just an observation. For all of you MMA guys out there LEG KICK!

[MasterKiller]

Pride has better striking.

[bodhitree]

There are some great kickers in the ufc though, St. Pierre and David Louasseau(sp?) are good at that.

[Chief Fox]

There are some great kickers in the ufc though, St. Pierre and David Louasseau(sp?) are good at that.
Yep, is it St. Pierre that landed a spining back kick on Matt Hughes? After I saw that I was like "YEA! way to represent!".

[Face2Fist]

ufc is a small spectrum of MMA, you have other organizations like PRIDE, SHOOTO and K-1 that have good strikers and complete fighters that can mix it up.

[SevenStar]

it's hard "trying to box" when you are also worried about being taken down. Also, a lot of those guys are grapplers who are new to striking.

Lousseau won his match in ufc 53 with a spinning back kick. Agreed that he is a good kicker.

[Becca]

If you are having a hard time "trying to box" because of take down threats, you ain't training right. There are oodles of fighters out there who have no problem swinging hard at a grappler, Chuck Liddell for one. And he's a great striker. He can roll just fine. But you don't see him going for the take-down and he never lloks like he's worried about being taken down... Tank Abbot was another who didn't let the fear of a takedown stoppin him from boxing.

[SevenStar]

If you are having a hard time "trying to box" because of take down threats, you ain't training right. There are oodles of fighters out there who have no problem swinging hard at a grappler, Chuck Liddell for one. And he's a great striker. He can roll just fine. But you don't see him going for the take-down and he never lloks like he's worried about being taken down... Tank Abbot was another who didn't let the fear of a takedown stoppin him from boxing.

Liddell has also been wrestling since he was knee high to a pop bottle (all his life). He's also been doing bjj for the past 7 years. he ain't a pure striker. It's his grappling background that makes him able to defend them so well. If takedowns were not a threat, there would be no need to cross train, would there? Tank fought in a period where the game was new. Notice how he started getting owned later in his career.

[David Jamieson]

look, the point of these things is not to showcase martial art, it's to sell violence for money. YOung guys train hard to get a piece of that action for doing something they like and figure they're good at.

ufc fighters are about conditioning and being able to take it as opposed to really being into martial arts.

a lot of them only have a few years of training, but they have great condition and a lot of competitive drive. THis is a prerequisite to this venue.

Yes, there are out of the hundreds of ufc fighters a good number of them that can really fight well in a couple of the ranges or even all the ranges, but the mojority are well conditioned guys with not enough training to be in pro boxing or a specialized event like pro muay thai. Give em time though and some of em will move further into the development of those skills and others will just move on.

[Chief Fox]

look, the point of these things is not to showcase martial art, it's to sell violence for money.
I agree, excellent point.

But for my dollar I would still like to see more skill and more well rounded fighters.

[Becca]

Liddell has also been wrestling since he was knee high to a pop bottle (all his life). He's also been doing bjj for the past 7 years. he ain't a pure striker. It's his grappling background that makes him able to defend them so well. If takedowns were not a threat, there would be no need to cross train, would there? Tank fought in a period where the game was new. Notice how he started getting owned later in his career.
My point exactly. Liddell trains the right way. All the wrestling background would be little more tha a data point if he didn't keep it up. And you have a point about Tank. He did start getting owned. But he's still one of my all-time favorites.:)

My point of no viewing the take down as a threat was actually a valid one, though. If you don't work the ground, you freak out when someone puts you there. The last 2 weeks in class we have been working some Hawaiian Kempo in class, all of which involves putting your opponant on the ground with sweeps and throws then applying an armbar. I have seen alot of people getting hurt from freaking out mid-throw.,getting hurt before the even touch the ground makes them even more aprehensive of it the next time. In a school that doesn't focus solely on grappling, it often takes years for the avaerage student to become cofy with being swept or thrown.

I don't grapple much amy more, but I have done alot of it in the past and I am not bothered in the least at being thrown. I doubt I could still sparr effectively from the ground, but I also know it won't hurt as bad as it looks if I land and tap right. It takes being thrown and joint locked thousands of times to become confident in your ability to land right and tap safely.

The avaerage UFC fighter only focuses on ground skills if they know they are going to be facing a grappler. Then they train hard for 2-3 moths. That just don't cut it. It takes years. It is no accident that all the current title holders have strong wrestling backgrounds. They spent years doing it.

[rogue]

ufc fighters are about conditioning and being able to take it as opposed to really being into martial arts.
How are ufc fighters not martial artists?

[David Jamieson]

How are ufc fighters not martial artists?

Now did I say that rogue? I don't think I did. What they do is still martial arts, just not the art part and more that sportive combativce martial part. It's still martial arts, but not the whole of it, just the fighting part. With most of them, not all of them. There's lots of UFC-ers, though not a heck of a lot that pursue teh artistic aspect of martial arts, the refinement process in a holistic sense etc etc that all in all defines martial arts beyond mere competitive fighting.

never said it didn't take moxy or a modicum of skill and practice.

But feel free to split hairs cause there's pee in your cornflakes this morning. :p

[greensage22]

If it bothers you, join ufc and use your martial arts. I think that ufc and cage
fighters do focus to much on ground fighting, I've fought dozens of fights
street and comp, I have been taken down and forced to use ground
tech maybe 4 times in my life. I would like to see more knees hitting noses, elbows hitting jaws, and
snap kicks. I use almost all kicks when I fight. I'll be doing some amatuer
cage fights over the next couple years. "I'll post the clips, win or lose."
I wanted to see good fighting with skill more than brawn, so my buddy
who is friends with sean sherk "shark" is going to get me started.

[Chief Fox]

more power to you gs22. Good point though. If I don't like it then why not get in there and do it instead of complaining about it.

Don't know, not exactly a young guy anymore (37) but you never know.

[SevenStar]

How are ufc fighters not martial artists?

According to a short article in the latest kf/qg, no, it is not (however, IMO, it is VERY MUCH an MA). According to them, there is a difference between being a martial artist and merely using martial arts.

[rogue]

Oh that's right I forgot. I read that article too, so guys who fight aren't martial artists but guys who pull trucks with their private parts or balance on their heads are. Glad we got that cleared up 7*;)

[IronFist]

Well, I would hope you'd see some striking in K-1 ;)

UFC fighters aren't "martial artists?" Fine, then. I'd rather be able to fight than be a "martial artist" any day.

['MegaPoint]

People like sensationalism, other's misery and gratutious idiocy. It's makes their miserable lives seem less drastic. Mankind has proven that ****t ever since forever.

People who fight for the sake of fighting are sadist and/or masochists, whether on a minimal level, moderate level or extreme one. It takes all kinds to move the world, I guess. Imagine if all you could do in life was fight for a living. That's pretty wack. Hurting and getting hurt for what amounts to peanuts compared to other pro sports; just pitiful. It goes beyond that though. These fools love to fight because they've conditioned their brains for it. They are just wired in a weird way. They also have a high threshold for excitement; they are often adrenaline junkies and thrill seekers just like fools who base jump and ****tt. It's not like most of those cats are rocket scientists anyway (Rich Franklin not included). Most of them are bully types and just like high school wrestlers (which most of them were) they have a problem with self-loathing or low self-esteem or controlling others through aggression. Many of them probably come from very abusive -OR- overly permissive backgrounds (i.e.: sociopathic). Without a fully developed conscience beating on someone who is not a real enemy is a lot easier.

Okay so the proper response to all this is if you can't fight but call yourself a martial artist then you need to rethink your classification. In that instance "Martial Wanna-be" or "Martial Novice" would be more appropriate. Conversely, a lot of the MMAs types are martial artists gone astray; Bushi Matsumura wrote about them in the 1800's. They nedd validation outside of themselves. It's called the "Bujutsu of Nominals". Look for Machimura's "Buccho Ikko" and peep a real martial artists assessment of the state of MAs as they always will be.

Happy Holidays to those who celebrate them!!!!

[Merryprankster]

Most of them are bully types and just like high school wrestlers (which most of them were) they have a problem with self-loathing or low self-esteem or controlling others through aggression. Many of them probably come from very abusive -OR- overly permissive backgrounds (i.e.: sociopathic). Without a fully developed conscience beating on someone who is not a real enemy is a lot easier.


Wow, this is so fantastically stupid it must be a joke.

Secondly, you might wish to brush up on sociopathy. Sociopathy is characterized by the inability to empathize with other people, inability to feel shame or guilt, the inability to love and be loved, in varying degrees. This result is that they use other people as tools to achieve their ends, in the same way that a smith might use a hammer and with no regard for the tool. In short, they have no restraints on their behavior, are usually unable to resist fleeting temptations, and impulsive in the extreme with little thought to planning.

Whatever shortcomings you may perceive in these highly competitive athletes, sociopathy would not likely be among them, given the necessity for self-discipline, determination, and planning required to succeed at the sport.

Of course, I'm betting that all of this is wasted on you, since your writings indicate fouled reasoning skills anyway. However, I respectfully request you spare us the pop psychobabble.

['MegaPoint]

Thank you for the definition, and no they are not sociopaths per se, but they do have sociopathic tendencies. If you think that sociopathy entails a lack of empathy or sympathy you are again correct (also called no conscience). Sociopaths like people other than themselves but they often don't respect others outside of their intimate circle. If you think that beating on folks for the thrill, perceived glory and money are not signs of a lack of "feeling" the pain you may inflict while doing this then you're a *******.

Look if you want to kick your own ass (and others) for some sick thrill or for some other B.S. reason (like money) then you aren't a TRUE MARTIAL ARTIST EITHER. In fact you could be an S&M loving, man butt-hugger. So watch how you talk to people who made no affront to you personally.

Neurosis is real. If you get a thrill out of getting hurt and hurting others for some illusory, contrived reason then you may be called out. This isn't pop psychology, this is logical reasoning. For example, boxing is a legit sport, but it plays upon the basest of human emotions. It is a gratuitous show of sadism and it's aim is to destroy what makes us unique in the animal kingdom; our brain. It is a destruction and loathing for humanity, as is rugby, American football and any other full contact sport. All of it is fake-machismo bull**** which feeds on testosterone fueled animalistic behavior.

So does this mean I refrain from peeping it? Hell no! I am fascinated at how many folks are followers versus leaders and how dumb ****s can get strong men to beat each other up so that some corporate **** can get rich. It's ****in' beautiful how peoples flaws can make even more flawed geeks lots of ducats.

So if you have your opinion about it all, obviously that you agree with it, then more power to you. I have my own opinion too, fool. I'll watch you geniuses destroy the West a little more each day with your neurosis. It's very entertaining.

BTW you've gotten a lot more confrontational since last I checked this site out. Increased aggression is always a sign of organic brain damage. Things that make you go "hmmmm"...

Opinionated I am- stupid I am not.... Mary!

[Merryprankster]

BTW you've gotten a lot more confrontational since last I checked this site out. Increased aggression is always a sign of organic brain damage. Things that make you go "hmmmm"...


No, I've always had a low tolerance for willful obtuseness and spectacular displays of fractured understanding. You are the latest to have exhibited those qualities which draw forth my ire.

And you are right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. That does not, however make them insightful, nor does it make them correct. For instance, your assertions about high school wrestlers are largely baseless. You can point to no systematic studies to back them up, certainly, while anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that there is certainly nothing wrong with them to any greater degree than the regular population at large. This is the default position, that one sub-group won't vary much in mental health, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Still, one, after all, may be entitled to their opinion that the world is shaped like a burrito.

re: sociopathy, I believe the term you may be looking for is anti-social disorder. And unless you can demonstrate that high school wrestlers - or any of the other people you choose to impugn - behave or exhibit symptoms of ASD or were abused in a statistically significant way, I'm afraid your point is a bit moot, pal. Your personal opinion that it takes somebody off their rocker to want to compete in a combat sport does not constitute evidence of that, since such activity falls well within the bounds of socially acceptable behavior and does not, by necessity constitute illegal or even immoral behavior. One might ride the slippery slope of competitive tendencies and conclude that Boggle competitors are socially dysfunctional, using your logic. After all, winning at Boggle is nothing more than an ego-fuelled power trip designed to demonstrate the superiority of the person's mental "muscles."


Opinionated I am- stupid I am not

"Smart" people say "stupid" things all the time. Noam Chomsky comes immediately to mind.

Don't worry. I'm not suggesting you are nearly as bright as he is. He certainly would have had his definitions and data in place.

[lkfmdc]

Sorry.... but I have to say, I die laughing when people post about how "real martial artists" don't fight, don't like fighting, play with flowers in the open field and sing songs to sooth the savage beast

Who the F#$%^^&&&# did you train with?

Before the strip mall kung fu school and the second coming of the David Carradine kung fu charade there was once a martial art called Kung FU and I can assure you, the masters back in China were NOT the pathetic, wishy washy, touchy feely, new age, pacifist, granold chomping pansies you want to make them out to be...

[Becca]

... I bet they'd have eaten Granola if they were hungry enough...;)

[SPJ]

The rules will really favor certain techniques.

Kicks are favored in TKD.

Once the rules are changed, different techniques are favored.

A while back, they changed to no head shot in Kuo Shu match. So no head gears were worn.

You may rule out KO by punching the head. It is not allowed.

All of sudden, Shuai Jiao dominated all matches.

So if there is a 10 second or 20 second on the ground rule?

---

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38489&highlight=shuai+Jiao

[Chief Fox]

Sorry.... but I have to say, I die laughing when people post about how "real martial artists" don't fight, don't like fighting, play with flowers in the open field and sing songs to sooth the savage beast

Who the F#$%^^&&&# did you train with?

Before the strip mall kung fu school and the second coming of the David Carradine kung fu charade there was once a martial art called Kung FU and I can assure you, the masters back in China were NOT the pathetic, wishy washy, touchy feely, new age, pacifist, granold chomping pansies you want to make them out to be...
Great post. I 100% agree. I would just like to see some more well rounded fighters.

[ShaolinTiger00]

1.) as mentioned it is very hard to stay striking in a situation that has removed the artificial rules (sport rules, rules of style) to keep them from clinching. for those of you who have not done san shou or mma and you think "these guys aren;t very technical throwers like judoka.. try an uchimata when a left hook is coming in. and just the opposite, try to throw a leg kick when someone is rushing in at you to clinch. the truth is that everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something.

2.) with the evolution of MMA has come an entertainment value and average joe is not impressed by ground strategy, he wants to see somebody ktfo. This means promoters are looking for entertaining fighters who will stand like rock 'em sock'em robots. if a bjj fighter wants to make it to the big shows he has to show at least some type of striking.

3.) rules are favoring strikers more and more. gloves to prohibit breaking hands, rounds, stopping fighters for periods of inactivity.. all favor the striker who can get a new start on his feet.

yet despite this grappling is still a more important aspect of fighting. I have to explain this to my students all the time. It's pretty much near impossible to keep kicking range on a guy who wants to grapple with you at any cost. (he's willing to risk a glancing shot coming in to clinch) so the best way to remain on your feet is to learn how to avoid the shoot, learn how to pummel and neck wrestle. - to be a better striker you have to be a better grappler.

[yenhoi]

There is very little "rolling around on the ground" in UFC cage fights, and the people who usualy end up on the bottom in most UFC matches have very poor ground games. The original poster sucks.

:confused:

[Chief Fox]

There is very little "rolling around on the ground" in UFC cage fights, and the people who usualy end up on the bottom in most UFC matches have very poor ground games. The original poster sucks.

:confused:
I'm the original poster. Maybe I over generalized with the "rolling around on the ground" comment but this thread has had two pages of well thought out discussion and your only comment is "The original poster sucks". Lame dude, lame.

[Chief Fox]

1.) as mentioned it is very hard to stay striking in a situation that has removed the artificial rules (sport rules, rules of style) to keep them from clinching. for those of you who have not done san shou or mma and you think "these guys aren;t very technical throwers like judoka.. try an uchimata when a left hook is coming in. and just the opposite, try to throw a leg kick when someone is rushing in at you to clinch. the truth is that everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something.

2.) with the evolution of MMA has come an entertainment value and average joe is not impressed by ground strategy, he wants to see somebody ktfo. This means promoters are looking for entertaining fighters who will stand like rock 'em sock'em robots. if a bjj fighter wants to make it to the big shows he has to show at least some type of striking.

3.) rules are favoring strikers more and more. gloves to prohibit breaking hands, rounds, stopping fighters for periods of inactivity.. all favor the striker who can get a new start on his feet.

yet despite this grappling is still a more important aspect of fighting. I have to explain this to my students all the time. It's pretty much near impossible to keep kicking range on a guy who wants to grapple with you at any cost. (he's willing to risk a glancing shot coming in to clinch) so the best way to remain on your feet is to learn how to avoid the shoot, learn how to pummel and neck wrestle. - to be a better striker you have to be a better grappler.
Nice post, I agree with all of your comments except for the one about it being too risky to throw a kick. I've seen some very successful kicks in the UFC. Including head kicks, knees, leg kicks and side kicks. The only problem is, they are few and far between. I would say that the typical UFC fighter relys too much on ground skills. Nothing wrong with this but I would also say that their stand up game is lacking leading to the no kicks, last man standing, slug fest.

[SevenStar]

he didn't say it was TOO risky. He said you put yourself at risk everytime you attempt one.

[Chief Fox]

Actually he said "try to throw a leg kick when someone is rushing in at you to clinch. the truth is that everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something."

Not exactly advocating kicking here is he? Almost making it sound "too risky", isn't he?

[yenhoi]

Eh. I only had enough time earlier to call you lame.

:)

Most of the UFC fighters have some sort of highly evolved top ground game, or a highly evolved submission game, or very little game at all. Many fall into the category of gassed out and holding on.

There are just as many fighters who fall into highly evolved striking games and people who are just waaay out of their league.

The guys with highly evolved any-kind of game are the guys at the top.

There are tons of great kicks in UFC.

You can get UFC fights from netflix nowadays.

[Chief Fox]

Eh. I only had enough time earlier to call you lame.

:)

Most of the UFC fighters have some sort of highly evolved top ground game, or a highly evolved submission game, or very little game at all. Many fall into the category of gassed out and holding on.

There are just as many fighters who fall into highly evolved striking games and people who are just waaay out of their league.

The guys with highly evolved any-kind of game are the guys at the top.

There are tons of great kicks in UFC.

You can get UFC fights from netflix nowadays.
I'll have to rent some more of the videos. I just want to see some more well rounded fights. Even if the guys are gonna slug it out at the end then I at least want to see some more skill. Not just two guys swinging for the fences trying to knock the other guy out.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Actually he said "try to throw a leg kick when someone is rushing in at you to clinch. the truth is that everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something."

Not exactly advocating kicking here is he? Almost making it sound "too risky", isn't he?


Chief, here's what I tell my students: If your foot leaves the ground (knee or kick) you'd better make it worth while and cause serious pain or improve your position in the fight because it's a risk and this ain't a poker game...

['MegaPoint]

No, I've always had a low tolerance for willful obtuseness and spectacular displays of fractured understanding. You are the latest to have exhibited those qualities which draw forth my ire.

And you are right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. That does not, however make them insightful, nor does it make them correct. For instance, your assertions about high school wrestlers are largely baseless. You can point to no systematic studies to back them up, certainly, while anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that there is certainly nothing wrong with them to any greater degree than the regular population at large. This is the default position, that one sub-group won't vary much in mental health, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Still, one, after all, may be entitled to their opinion that the world is shaped like a burrito.

re: sociopathy, I believe the term you may be looking for is anti-social disorder. And unless you can demonstrate that high school wrestlers - or any of the other people you choose to impugn - behave or exhibit symptoms of ASD or were abused in a statistically significant way, I'm afraid your point is a bit moot, pal. Your personal opinion that it takes somebody off their rocker to want to compete in a combat sport does not constitute evidence of that, since such activity falls well within the bounds of socially acceptable behavior and does not, by necessity constitute illegal or even immoral behavior. One might ride the slippery slope of competitive tendencies and conclude that Boggle competitors are socially dysfunctional, using your logic. After all, winning at Boggle is nothing more than an ego-fuelled power trip designed to demonstrate the superiority of the person's mental "muscles."



"Smart" people say "stupid" things all the time. Noam Chomsky comes immediately to mind.

Don't worry. I'm not suggesting you are nearly as bright as he is. He certainly would have had his definitions and data in place.

F-ck you and Noam. He's a broke Nietzsche and Nietzsche was a poor mans Kirkegaard. But to hel- with the existentialism. He holds nothing on true geniuses like Baruch de Spinoza or Frank Tipler. In fact I would go so far as to say his I.Q. isn't even in the "bright" range.

BTW YOU geniuses have no memory. I'm no newbie to this forum and I'm no dolt. I am a medical professional who has done everything from CJJ/GJJ to Shorin Ryu. I know the real. I don't need anyone to tell me what the difference between anti-social behavior and sociopathy is. The former is a behavioral trait of many sociopaths. Having sociopathic disorder is the same as antisocial personality trait. I know because my DSM says so, layman dumbfuc-!

Mary do you even have a B.S. in anything remotely related to science? I doubt it so shut your trap with the empirical methodology argument! You couldn't even explain to me what a null hypothesis or two-tailed "t" test is. I also have a valid opinion based on my observational capabilities. I was raised fighting, watching hoods and fighers, befriending them and knowing real Gracies personally as well as others who fought for a living or for the thrill. The Gracies were by no means sociopaths, but many of the suckers doing that sport then and nowadays are, just like my friends who went to prison were. Many of them like to hurt and get hurt for money too. That says a lot about a group of people.

I am not trying to assail you with flowery language. I am giving you my opinion based on my reality. A lot of H.S. wrestlers and athletets are bullies, moreso than the percentage of the student body who are not wrestlers and athletes. Is there a study out there to corraborate this? You cats all went to or are in HS what do you think? As for numbers and studies. Who gives a flyin' f-ck?! Anyone who knows about research, statistics/epidemiology, knows that numbers and studies can always be manipulated to prove a point. So stfu with the attempt to sound academic. As a true academician and medical professional, I can see through your attempt at perpetrating the intellectual. Stop while you're behind, please. Nawmean?

It's alright if you enjoy receivin' and dishin' an ass whuppin'. That's very teutonic of you. Lets all make neurosis into a big money venture. OOPs already been/being done.

As for the rest of you flowery kung fools who now think because you saw the "Ultimate Fighter" for two years in a row and that it automatically makes you a squabbler--- you're sorely mistaken. Most of the supposed chuan fa you're learning just won't give you the proper foundation to ever be able to fight. Get real. Nowadays no one does the traditional; everyone is a MMAs expert! Hahahahaha! You ass pirates couldn't fight off a cold let alone to save your scrawny asses. Anyway if you're really a kung fu guy/gal, then why the f-ck you jockin' MMAs? They ain't jockin' you *****es. Grow some overnight or something. Oh and quit posting on a TMA forum, go to Bittchsheedo or somein'.....

Bandwagoneer, following never leading, fleeced sheep!!!


Either you can and always could fight, you joined a solid fighting art and got better, or you just can't throw. That's how that **** works, kiddies. Always has been like that and always will be, oblivious f-cks.

Whas'sup 7*?! Merry X-mas!!!!

Omegapoint

[omarthefish]

Megapoint.....my hero....:D

[Chief Fox]

Chief, here's what I tell my students: If your foot leaves the ground (knee or kick) you'd better make it worth while and cause serious pain or improve your position in the fight because it's a risk and this ain't a poker game...
I see your point but along these same lines, every time you extend your arm you're taking a risk. For that matter, everytime you shift your weight you're taking a risk. Everytime you step in the ring you're taking a risk. What I'm saying is, why not develop all of your tools so they can be thrown in an effective manner?

I'm sure that you know your sh!t and I'm sure that you have fine students but even in your comment above, it sounds like you're making a case against kicking. I think you're selling yourself short. Why not develop a solid offense that includes kicks?

[SevenStar]

Actually he said "try to throw a leg kick when someone is rushing in at you to clinch. the truth is that everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something."

Not exactly advocating kicking here is he? Almost making it sound "too risky", isn't he?

right, he's implying risk, but never does he say it's TOO risky. Only that there's risk involved...

[SevenStar]

I see your point but along these same lines, every time you extend your arm you're taking a risk. For that matter, everytime you shift your weight you're taking a risk. Everytime you step in the ring you're taking a risk. What I'm saying is, why not develop all of your tools so they can be thrown in an effective manner?


be real, dude. The reason there is the assertion about kick risk is because your balance is compromised, whether the kick is high or low. That compromised balance is highly exploitable. To keep up with the game though, when you shift your weight, you are not necessarily taking a risk. take for example a right cross. When I rotate my body, my weight shifts. the key is to remain centered. Put too much weight on the front leg and it's open season to have that legged chopped like a woodsman to a tree. If for some odd reason I shift my weight backward, I am more susceptible to a takedown. However, both of those are wrong. So, yes, you are at risk if you are using bad technique.

The same can be said of extending the arm to punch. If I OVER EXTEND, then yeah, I am at risk. But that would be my own, improperly trained fault. If I under extend, I make it easier for him to follow my fist back in.

On a side note, what's goin on, 'megapoint?!

[rogue]

Megapoint., Happy Holidays.
How's the studying going? Still doing Shorin?

BTW, I finally get what you mean by "broke" styles. :D

[ShaolinTiger00]

I see your point but along these same lines, every time you extend your arm you're taking a risk. For that matter, everytime you shift your weight you're taking a risk. Everytime you step in the ring you're taking a risk. What I'm saying is, why not develop all of your tools so they can be thrown in an effective manner?

I'm sure that you know your sh!t and I'm sure that you have fine students but even in your comment above, it sounds like you're making a case against kicking. I think you're selling yourself short. Why not develop a solid offense that includes kicks?

regarding punching, I think it's a different risk and it certainly doesn't jeapordize balance and loss of position like being on one leg.

I agree about developing all of your tools. My guys kick! (I've got a 6'3, 290lb. farm boy that actually kicks so hard that he completely deformed a pair of thai pads one night) but they are more focused on good punching first because it's much more important in striking. Best counter to a rear roundhouse? a right cross down the pike...

[Chief Fox]

be real, dude....So, yes, you are at risk if you are using bad technique.

The same can be said of extending the arm to punch. If I OVER EXTEND, then yeah, I am at risk. But that would be my own, improperly trained fault. If I under extend, I make it easier for him to follow my fist back in.
I am being real and you make my point for me. Any bad or poorly trained technique puts you at risk. But a well placed kick can make all the difference. Statements like "...everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something." are ridiculous. Of course you're risking something. You're in a fight for crying out loud. Putting yourself in the ring with a better trained opponent is putting yourself at risk. So why not train all of your weapons and use them at the appropriate time? Guys standing flat footed in the middle of a slug fest are ripe for a leg kick/take down.

[ShaolinTiger00]

I am being real and you make my point for me. Any bad or poorly trained technique puts you at risk. But a well placed kick can make all the difference. Statements like "...everytime you take a foot off the ground you risk something." are ridiculous. Of course you're risking something. You're in a fight for crying out loud. Putting yourself in the ring with a better trained opponent is putting yourself at risk. So why not train all of your weapons and use them at the appropriate time? Guys standing flat footed in the middle of a slug fest are ripe for a leg kick/take down.

Chief Fox,

Do you train MMA or spar with well-trained grapplers regularly?

re: risks. There are calculated risks and then there are foolish risks. Excessive kicking is foolish. If you think differently, well you're entitled to that.

[Chief Fox]

Chief Fox,

Do you train MMA or spar with well-trained grapplers regularly?

re: risks. There are calculated risks and then there are foolish risks. Excessive kicking is foolish. If you think differently, well you're entitled to that.
Just so you know, I'm not trying to p!ss you off.

I spar reguarly. Yes, some of them are MMA and grapplers. Well-trained depends on your deffinition of well trained I guess.

When did I say that I thought excessive kicking was a good thing? I did say train all of your weapons and use them at the appropraite time. Where did excessive come from?

I'm not trying to come down on you for training the way you do. I don't even know you. What I am saying that there is a time and a place for kicking. I've been dropped by a well placed kick more than once. Why? Beacause they were throw at the right time and place. If you're looking for a fight about this, you won't find it with me.

Have a good day.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Just so you know, I'm not trying to p!ss you off.

It never appeared to me that you were trying. no harm, no foul.


train all of your weapons and use them at the appropraite time.

And that's what I'm trying to tell you. the "appropriate" time to kick come few and far between. maybe you're going to throw a kick at the beginning to "check" him but 9 out of 10 times a successful kick comes off of a punching combination that rocked him, then you put the kick on the end as an exclamation point to the action.

you know how quickly the free standing range is gapped. either the fighter on the offensive side is pressing to damage more or go into a dominant clinch of his own or the guy taking the worst end of the strikes closes quickly to stop the whupping..

kicks sure hurt, but they rarely KO unless your opponent is dazed or in a very poor place like on his hands and knees, or his guard has dropped etc..

[Merryprankster]

Oh no, I remember you. I had put you on my ignore list back then too, for precisely the same sort of reasons.

Glad your DSM says they are the same thing. My understanding is that ASD takes on many forms of expression, while a true sociopath is completely amoral (as opposed to immoral), and lacks empathy. Perhaps this is merely a matter of degrees, but considering that criminals with ASD can still love their mothers and feel guilt, while a sociopath, as I understand it, is incapable of those things, that's one hell of a difference in degrees.

As far as you being a medical professional, that's lovely. I've met plenty of medical professionals who aren't too bright or have reached faulty conclusions or done boneheaded things. What, after all is malpractice insurance for? This does not let you off the hook for saying something that, as of right now, doesn't seem to have any evidence for it other than your own observations.

I am fully aware that studies can be manipulated to show many different things. However, individual bias is typically less reliable than empirical studies. You appear to be chock full of bias.

For the record, a null hypothesis is put forth against data from a study, postulating that Parameter1-Parameter2=0, or Parameter1=Parameter2, whichever you prefer to think of it as. Basically, if the null hypothesis is correct, then there is no statistically significant difference between population1 and population2 for the parameter being measured.

A t-test measures the statistical difference between the means of data about two populations relative to the variance of those data. Basically, it tells you how much "overlap" there is between the two populations. It is possible, for instance to have a situation in which the difference between the means for pop1 and pop2, is the same as between pop3 and pop4. However, pop1 and 2 may have low variance from their respective mean values, while pop3 and pop4 have high variance from their respective mean values. So the difference between the means itself doesn't tell us much, which is why we use the t-test.

The t-test basically tells us whether or not parameter1 does/does not equal parameter 2, going back to the example above. A one tailed t-test would only test for significant difference in one direction ie H1: parameter1-parameter2<0 or parameter1-parameter2 >0. A two-tailed test looks for difference in either direction, ie, parameter1-parameter2 does not equal 0.

The purpose of the t-test is therefore to tell us whether or not the measured parameter is statistically different between the populations, and how statistically different it is if at all, and in what direction.

Can I have a cookie now?

Please?:rolleyes:

Now, even if I am wrong, which I'm 99% sure I'm not, your discussion of null hypotheses and t-tests doesn't actually speak to the issue at hand: You asserted that high school wrestlers are bullies/aggressive/abused as children/eat the dead, etc. You have done so based on your personal observation, which is nice, and certainly not INVALID as a piece of information. But, it is hardly complete information, nor is it necessarily accurate. A good way to show its accuracy would be by showing us a study somewhere that demonstrated your assertion is true. As it stands, you haven't done that.

You made a claim. You haven't laid out any evidence for us, other than your personal opinion. Rather than provide evidence to back your point up, you've embarked on several interesting, if irrelevant tangents. You'll understand if I object to your claim as lacking foundation.

For the record, Noam's approach to ethics has nothing to do with Nietzsche. Nietzsche's primary point was that values are a man-made thing, not derived from anything other than what we have agreed is morally correct. As such, they are subject to change and revision, just like any other man-made thing. Ultimately, Nietzsche's vision of the perfectly ethical person was really quite neurotic, eccentric and pretty much a jerk. Of course, that doesn't matter to Nietzsche, because that person is above being judged by the rest of society.

Chomsky, on the other hand, DEMANDS that behavior be held to up to scrutiny to see if it conforms to ethical standards. Judgment is part of his framework, and even the morally/ethically perfect are not above judgment in his world. They are continuously scrutinized and reviewed.

So really, the comparison doesn't work.

The comparison doesn't really even work between Kierkegaard and N, although they are frequently lumped in together, I suspect because some people classify both Kierkegaard and N as nihilists/existentialists. One might reasonably make the argument that Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist, since his leap of faith was a choice, but I think N rather defies classification. Further, their approaches are entirely different. N reasons his way out of despair to the idea of the superman, whereas Kierkegaard reasons his way INTO despair, then lets go in order to take the leap to meaning and value. One reasons his way out of despair, the other into it in order to let faith take over.

I think that's rather different.

But again, you are entitled to your opinions.

Hello ignore list. Great feature!

[Marcos-XB]

man... you guys still get into this discussions???

I'm gonna work my way and some years I'll score with some 3 chicks at the same time
come back here
And yall still gonna be discussin silly?

:(

peace/love and shyt guys :)

[Chief Fox]

It never appeared to me that you were trying. no harm, no foul.



And that's what I'm trying to tell you. the "appropriate" time to kick come few and far between. maybe you're going to throw a kick at the beginning to "check" him but 9 out of 10 times a successful kick comes off of a punching combination that rocked him, then you put the kick on the end as an exclamation point to the action.

you know how quickly the free standing range is gapped. either the fighter on the offensive side is pressing to damage more or go into a dominant clinch of his own or the guy taking the worst end of the strikes closes quickly to stop the whupping..

kicks sure hurt, but they rarely KO unless your opponent is dazed or in a very poor place like on his hands and knees, or his guard has dropped etc..
We probably agree here more than we disagree.

The specific situation I was talking about is towards the end of a match when both fighters are obviously waxed and they're standing there just exchanging blows. IMO leg kicks would be very effective in this situation.

[greensage22]

Do I get college credits for reading this?:D

[CoRWiN]

Cheif Fox your completly in the right. I felt exaclty the same way about their complete lack of aggressivness when it comes to throwing kicks to the legs, which after many rounds of sparrin works for me time and time again. I also notice many of them rarely commit to a manuever, as if their holding themselves back. Maybe shaolintigers style of fighting dosn't incorporate many kicks but to say 9 out of 10 appears to be REALLY arbitrary and what is that based on? Kicks that are actually being thrown in the fight or the ones i'm screaming at the TV for them to perform?

On the upside of UFC it's brought martial arts to mainstream TV which has been pretty absent since Kung-Fu the legend "Dis"Continued.

[ShaolinTiger00]

The fact that you do not understand why they are being conservative with their striking is an indication to me that you do not train with highly skilled grapplers/MMA fighters.

If I thought that my opponent was a better striker than me, I'd PRAY that he goes aggressive instead of waiting to counterstrike, because I'd have a much easier time getting to the clinch/taking him down and taking away his best skill set.

[CoRWiN]

But isn't the mere fear of striking already crippling the strikers best tool?

[SimonM]

Before the strip mall kung fu school and the second coming of the David Carradine kung fu charade there was once a martial art called Kung FU and I can assure you, the masters back in China were NOT the pathetic, wishy washy, touchy feely, new age, pacifist, granold chomping pansies you want to make them out to be...


... I bet they'd have eaten Granola if they were hungry enough...;)

ROTFLMFAO guys. Well played.

Granola is a tasty treat. You don't have to be a pacifist to eat it. Although I eschew unnecessary (and/or non-mutually-consenting-recreational) violence I'm hardly a pacifist. I've been in fights both inside the ring (lost some, won some) and outside the ring (won 'em; I don't generally fight fair) and I like Granola. I think that I should take to carrying around a granola bar and the next time I get in a fight I'll sit on my vanquished foe and snack down on some granola in order to redeem it's manliness. ;) :D

Prankster: Chomsky does say some stupid things - his whole "language acquisition device" thing comes to mind.

'Megapoint: Chill the hell down man! You went from 0 to frothing in no time flat.
And Nietzshce is not a poor man's Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was quite interested in Nietzsche, despite Nietszshe's atheism, but never got around to reading him. The two of them both were just logical extensions of Hegel and Kant through the lense of a Europe in a post-age-of-reason continental crisis of faith.

[SevenStar]

But isn't the mere fear of striking already crippling the strikers best tool?

It's about fear of striking, it's about peeping his game; If I overcommit, I am giving him the takedown. You can strike, but you have to know WHEN to strike.

[CoRWiN]

Right it IS about fear of striking, a fear that must be overcome. Peep his game?? And what do you mean be over commit. To me that sounds like a technique improperly executed, does that mean all those hours I train my kicks i'm actually over commiting myself on everyone? Or does it mean that all th trainning is worthless against a grappler? And in terms of when to strike I find that a kick to the legs is a great technique to open with, it's certaintly not a finisher. I do understand that a roundhouse to the head thrown out of the blue is not always the smartest idea but that's not really what im' talking about when criticising the UFC fighters.

[SevenStar]

No, the fear is justified and should NOT be overcome. committed strikes in certain instances BEG for someone to take you down. It's not a fear of the person; it's an avoidance of what would be pretty much inevitable. And yeah, peep his game. you gotta realize that he's a grappler and know how to deal with him. You have to know that excessively kicking will leave you off balance - Even if you do connect. You have to realize that a properly executed offensive strike can lead to you being taken down. Once you realize this, you will evade more - takedown defense and counterfighting.

A kick to the leg is NOT a good opener. A jab to his face, followed by the leg kick is a better opener. Leg kicks can be finishers. I've known of real fights to be ended by them.

[hskwarrior]

on this one i agree with sevenstar.....

you should never use a kick as an opener because the other person is still "Fresh" in his mind and can easily see that a kick is coming. but if you throw that jab first it may take his attention from his lower half and then you should throw that kick you are talking about.

the only other instance a kick could be used as an opener is when you throw "YOUR" first blow. For example, he throws a jab, hook or whatever and you evade and then throw a leg kick as "your" opening move to your arsenal.

but let's not say that an opening leg kick cannot be done effectively. theoretically it can be done if the guy is in reverse and you are advancing on him. if timed right you can launch a leg kick and get him on his retreat. but other than that i would never use a leg kick as an opener. you have to hold his attention with something else first.


peace

[David Jamieson]

It is also fair to say imo, that with the continued play of mma, it is coming into being a martial art in it's own right.

where it used to be guys who mixed styles and fought competitively, it has since refined and narrowed into similar skill sets and training methodologies across the board.

kinda like bruce's old 'take what's useful and leave the rest' saying.

I'm surprised about the article that was mentioned that said mma is not martial arts.

The picture of old masters being hippy or not is actually debatable for the simple and glaring fact that there were many of them who were also devout buddhists. And let's not forget the times they lived in where the skills weren't about sportiveness, they were survival tools. I suppose there were likely to be just as many brawlers, at least I would assume so with all the tales that get told.

[hskwarrior]

i kinda see MMA as becoming a martial art. I just don't see how long the UFC and such will last, and then what will the mma do from there? Just like when the gracie's came out, everyone jumped on their bandwagon and the gracie's blew up.

now its mma. mayber it may not become a "real" martial art, but i do see it having an effect on the future development of TCMA or even japanese arts.

in the end, it can only make us better, right?

but let's not lose out TCMA to something when compared to TCMA is an overnight thing.


peace.

[SevenStar]

i kinda see MMA as becoming a martial art. I just don't see how long the UFC and such will last, and then what will the mma do from there? Just like when the gracie's came out, everyone jumped on their bandwagon and the gracie's blew up.

now its mma. mayber it may not become a "real" martial art, but i do see it having an effect on the future development of TCMA or even japanese arts.

in the end, it can only make us better, right?

but let's not lose out TCMA to something when compared to TCMA is an overnight thing.


peace.


It's far from an overnight thing. you still here about grappling ALL the time. heck, just look around this forum. When you watch mma, what are they doing? striking and GRAPPLING. with association comes assimilation. It hasn't gone anywhere, it's just been assimilated into today's MMA. We step forward, not backward, consequently, ground grappling will always be a part of fight training, regardless of whether it's UFC or some other venue.

[hskwarrior]

the concept of cross-training has been around for a long time, but, MMA in relativity to tradtitional chinese martial arts IS an overnight thing. what i mean is that MMA training like it is today was not all that long ago. and no, we don't really hear about gracie jiu jitsu like we used to either. at least not in the bay area.


Traditional Chinese martial arts have been around for centuries and MMA like we know it today hasn't. plain and simple. thats what i mean an overnight thing.

[hskwarrior]

i guess what i would prefer to do is assimilate MMA concepts into TCMA and Keep my TCMA while advancing it further in its development.

but thats my take on it.


peace

[MasterKiller]

i guess what i would prefer to do is assimilate MMA concepts into TCMA and Keep my TCMA while advancing it further in its development.

Word.



.

[hskwarrior]

word?;) ....

[David Jamieson]

assimilating mma into tcma?

why? I mean, besides what you don't have, which is essentially the training methodology geard towards sport fighting and perhaps ground fighting drills and maybe even standard boxing stuff, i would think that pretty much anything is there already.

It's not teh bulk of the content, it's that content which is taken piece by piece and drilled to death and trainined like a mofoi to get to a point where you can step in a ring and go for 5 minutes x3 and still walk out provided you weren't knocked out.

Besides all that, sport venue fighting is fun for young guys, useless for old guys and anyone who isn't considering a career in it isn't going to go anywhere beyon where they are already at with it.

I don't know about some of you guys, but it is very dfficult to find competent fighters to train with on a regular basis.

Even decent mma gyms are hard to find. There's one good gym for every 50 so so gyms. There's better boxing gyms where I am and very few ufc class jj gyms or anything like that.

I like the training methodology of live fight training. But it is a sportive approach and there's a fair share of so called mma-ers out there copping stuff from trad arts and then calling it like they made it up or its an evolution or something. Good examples like the "shredder" dude. Who basically looks at tiger style, rips off the concept and then sells videos of his revolutionary concept.

Idiots like that are a dime a bakers dozen in the mma world.
Not that trad arts don't have their share of blowhhards, idiots and out and out frauds, just want to point out that it's not much different in the mma world either.

think about it, of the thousands of us that practice some martial arts regularly, there's only a few hundred or so on the professional circuit. is that because so many thousands can't do it? Or simply that ther are many who don't want to fight competitively?

In short, its all good. There's good and bad in all of it.

[Chief Fox]

Isn't assimilating new techniques and ideas into a style to expand it or improve it the way it has awlays been in TCMA? If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many different styles.

Look at Praying Mantis or Choy Lay Fut. Both of these systems are made up of elements from other styles.

Adding an MMA element, like ground fighting, to an existing style is actually keeping with the tradition of TCMA.

[SimonM]

i guess what i would prefer to do is assimilate MMA concepts into TCMA and Keep my TCMA while advancing it further in its development.

but thats my take on it.


peace

100% Agreement from me hsk.

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

I also concur with Cheif Fox though. It's just that you guys really are not saying different things to my mind. True TCMA includes a tradition of dialectical progression. Currently the antithesis of TCMA is called MMA. Previously it may have been something else. In the future it will also be something different.

What makes something Traditional is that it is the end result of thousands of previous syntheses {sp} one more won't negate all those previous evolutions. It will just continue the process.

[hskwarrior]

see, i am very very confident in my stand up skills both offensively and defensively.
but choy lee fut does not work ground fighting.

what i mean assimilate mma into TCMA is mostly the grappling aspect. i know i know we have chin na and such, but specificly to choy lee fut this is one aspect in which we lack.

As i've said many times before, i prefer street combat, and i know how to strike. i don't want to learn grappling but i want to learn how to counter grappling. with this i may learn some grappling myself and then turn around and teach its concepts to my students from a gung fu point of view.

most people are talking about ring fighting, i don't ring fight, i street fight if i have to. I practice martial arts the old fashioned way, for self preservation.


hsk

[FatherDog]

Traditional Chinese martial arts have been around for centuries and MMA like we know it today hasn't. plain and simple. thats what i mean an overnight thing.

Horses have been around for centuries, cars haven't.

[greendragon]

Chief, when you said praying mantis you must mean northern style, I think southern style is unique aka Kwong Sai Jook Lum.
Anyway, I wanted to chime in and say after watching a lot of K-1 on ESPN, I think it is LAME ! A lot of leg kicks but so weak they are like feints and obviously just meant to annoy by repitition. None of these guys ever do anything, just cover with thier gloves like boxers on qualudes. The ones I saw had to go extra rounds for a decision cause nobody made any points. WTF ?

[unkokusai]

Chief, when you said praying mantis you must mean northern style, I think southern style is unique aka Kwong Sai Jook Lum.
Anyway, I wanted to chime in and say after watching a lot of K-1 on ESPN, I think it is LAME ! A lot of leg kicks but so weak they are like feints and obviously just meant to annoy by repitition. None of these guys ever do anything, just cover with thier gloves like boxers on qualudes. The ones I saw had to go extra rounds for a decision cause nobody made any points. WTF ?

Well, hop in there and beat them, big mouth! Make yourself a nice chunk of change.

[SevenStar]

Isn't assimilating new techniques and ideas into a style to expand it or improve it the way it has awlays been in TCMA? If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many different styles.

Look at Praying Mantis or Choy Lay Fut. Both of these systems are made up of elements from other styles.

Adding an MMA element, like ground fighting, to an existing style is actually keeping with the tradition of TCMA.


you would think so, but this being the case, why wasn't ground fighting widely adopted long ago? IME, most people thought they couldn't be taken down... Since the bjj outbreak in the early 90's, traditional styles have still resisted adding groundwork to their training.


most people are talking about ring fighting, i don't ring fight, i street fight if i have to. I practice martial arts the old fashioned way, for self preservation.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean... I have bar fights pretty much every night - and all I ever really use is bjj and judo...

[hskwarrior]

very good, that's your choice.

now what?

[Knifefighter]

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean...

I think that means he practices his "too deadly for the ring" techniques in the confines of his training area against others who are doing the same without actually working against resisting opponents and likes to imagine that he is training in a deadly street-fighting system, although he doesn't actaully do this either.

[Chief Fox]

Chief, when you said praying mantis you must mean northern style, I think southern style is unique aka Kwong Sai Jook Lum.
Anyway, I wanted to chime in and say after watching a lot of K-1 on ESPN, I think it is LAME ! A lot of leg kicks but so weak they are like feints and obviously just meant to annoy by repitition. None of these guys ever do anything, just cover with thier gloves like boxers on qualudes. The ones I saw had to go extra rounds for a decision cause nobody made any points. WTF ?
I'm not a historian but the way I understand Praying Mantis aka Tang Lang Chuan, is Hand work of a mantis, foot work of a monkey. Then the most effective parts of 18 different styles were put together to complete the system. It then moved to different parts of China and evolved into the different praying mantis styles. To be honest, I don't really care. The only relevance is the assimilation of different techniques into the evolution of a style.

As far as K-1 goes. I've seen some pretty good fights on there. The leg kicks are very effective. I've seen guys get chopped down round after round until they can barely stand and can't continue. Remember K-1 is tournament style. Even if you win a fight it's possible that you may not be able to go on because of injury. I've also seen some pretty good knock outs by high kicks in K-1. However, many of the fighters are really just brawlers with no skill. This is were the lameness comes in.

[SimonM]

Sorry, completely random thought, I watched the ******* movie about a year ago. During two sequences members of the ******* crew "fought" people. One was Butterbee if I remember correctly. The other was a womens K-1 champ. I was watching it with a few buddies of mine. Only one other martial artist in the group and he was too tanked to stand much less engage in discourse about such a ludicrous fight. I remember she cut down one guy with pretty much nothing but low kicks. Now I LOVE low roundhouses. I also could tell that this lady wasn't even trying. :D :D :D :D

Like I said. Completely random thought.

[SevenStar]

very good, that's your choice.

now what?


What I'm getting at is it's all the same. you train for "street fighting", yet I use my "ring fighting" in real fights. People kill me with the "sport" and "too deadly" delinneations. Good fighting based on sound principles will always be such. period.

[lkfmdc]

Ever been in a rush and simply can't find something that you knew exactly where it was? When you stopped and slowed down, you found it didn't you?

Ever been under stress and had trouble doing a simple mechanical function like sticking a key in a lock?

In the street, if you are attacked, the first second goes

BOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM

The very first thing I do in a self defense seminar is walk up to a random person and without warning scream in their face... they always jump...

Whether you want to call it stress, adrenaline, whatever.... it is all the same... the crucial factor in a fight is coming to your senses and overcoming this response

There are no "MMA techniques"... just like there are no "deadly techniques"...

There are simply those who can use technique for real, and those who can not

Personally, I will take a kid raised in a bad neighborhood who has had many street altercations over a kid taking Kali classes in a knife fight.

I'd also more likey pick the competitive Judoka over the "deadly" class room martial artist

It is a matter of who is more used to working in conditions of "stress"

The fact people haven't gotten past this by now is sort of sad :eek:

[greendragon]

So, I'll watch some more K-1... maybe I just watched on a bad day.