Quote:
Complete BS.
Those standing techniques are not seen often, not because they are so brutal, but because they are very low percentage.
What determines the "percentage" is the competitors ability to execute the technique on a consistent basis. Just because MMA competitors haven't figured out a way to do this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Harder to pull off, yes, but if falling on the ground in battle=death then you find a way. ;)
don't most MMA organizations prohibit excessive small-joint manipulation? That would effectively take a LOT of Chin Na out of the picture. Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea to take that out. I've been on the recieving end of quite a few of those locks, and even after putting ALL my resistance against them they're pretty vicious. I can only imagine what would happen if the person applying them decided to forego slow, even pressure and just *SNAP!*
Ouch.:eek:
When somebody with a solid, mostly TCMA background, who doesn't have a bunch of wrestling/boxing/muay thai titles prior to their TCMA experience manages to succeed in the ring, they will.Quote:
That's a good statement but it's backwards. I think a smart MMa should take Kung Fu to improve his game.
The MMA way is to train hard, drill hard and occasionally go full contact with appropriate safety gear.Quote:
The dumb MMA with an abtuse mind set will continue to think that the MMA way is the only way to fight.
How is that a bad way to train to fight?
Now, since I happen to think these distinctions are meaningless, except as a convenient shorthand, the conversation seems a bit moot to me...but these sorts of things are always fun.
Almost all MMA guys will take whatever works effectively from whatever source and use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Cloud
"Works effectively" being the operant words.
Well, Fu-Pow, since you seem to be an expert on these things, you must know how to do them, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu-Pow
How about entering a few MMA competitions to pull off some of these "brutal" standing techniques against other fighters for the world to see? It wouldn't take you too long of "brutally" beating other fighters with these "brutal" standing Chi Na techniques to make quite a rep for yourself. I guarantee you would have MMA fighters lining up at your door to pay you some pretty big bucks for seminars.
Funny how all the people who know these "brutal" techniques never venture out into a venue where the rest of the world can see them performed live against other skilled, resisting opponents. The truth of the matter is, more than likely, the people espousing these "brutal" standing grappling and locking techniques have never actually performed them against other skilled, resisting opponents.
KnifeFighter does have a very good point. We have to learn how to apply such techniques in actual "stress testing." (To clarify, the resistance I spoke of earlier was more muscular resistance than "combat resistance" i.e. the necessary contact to APPLY the lock was already made, and I would resist the lock, rather than "resisting" via free-sparring.)
The book "Chin Na in Groundfighting" by Al Arsenault and Joe Faulise looks like a pretty good attempt at breaching the subject. I only flipped through it when I saw it at Barnes and Noble, but it looked like a HUGE book, and I don't really have the time or money to spend on MA books as a rule. However, I'm thinking of showing it to one of the senior students at the My Jhong class I'm taking. He used to train at the Serra Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu academy (I can't remember what belt he said he had) when he lived in New York, so I'm sure he'd have an enlightening perspective on it.
You are lame. Goodbye. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Knifefighter
I'm lame because I've been grappling for 20 years and I get irritated when people who have next to no grappling experience pontificate about these "brutal" standing grappling and locking techniques that no one seems to be able to demonstrate publicly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu-Pow
I'm lame because when someone says they can do something that I have never seen done consistently that is in an endeavor that I have two decades of experience in, I want them to back it up with some kind of verifiable and repeatable demonstration?
I'm lame because I want some kind of proof when someone states that the professionals in the field are somehow missing the boat on how to apply these special techniques?
I'm lame because a person claims there are special techniques, techniques that could revolutionalize the practice of MMA, and I want to see some kind of demonstrable verification of this?
Hmmm...
OK...
Your lame because your on Fu-pows ignore list.
lamer
techniques are more deadly when performed in secret
:eek:
How has mma impacted kung fu? Haha, well, it's revealed a lot of baloney. It's going to keep getting harder and harder to find students willing to believe how deadly and dangerous thier non-fighting teacher's kung fu is.Quote:
Originally Posted by jstreet
Seriously, now that UFC is on Spike TV, like it or not, mma is going to be brought to a much wider audience. The next few generations of martial arts wannabes is going to look to mma, and unless kung fu gets in the mix on a much larger scale than a few individuals, it's going to continue to die its slow death.
Mma certainly does have staying power as well. Boxing is rapidly losing its audience. Kickboxing has a small following in the US, and there seems to be more crossover of fighters from sports such as muay thai and wrestling into mma...because they know that's where the future is.
I'm saying all this as a "traditional CMA guy". The kung fu community in general just doesn't have the relevant experience to prepare a fighter for professional level mma. There may be a few exceptions of course, but these are few and far between.
On a positive note, I've heard more rumblings as of late, and noticed more interest in competitive CMA based fighting such as lei tai, sanshou, sanda, etc...Hopefully, this will snowball into bigger and better things. Otherwise, the naysayers who staunchly declare that kung fu can't be used in a ring will drive the final nails into the kung fu coffin.
I don't really see kung fu dying a "slow death", I'd venture to guess there are more kung fu practitioners worldwide than "mixed martial artists."Quote:
Originally Posted by SiuHung
As a venue or as an art?Quote:
Mma certainly does have staying power as well. Boxing is rapidly losing its audience. Kickboxing has a small following in the US, and there seems to be more crossover of fighters from sports such as muay thai and wrestling into mma...because they know that's where the future is.
I think that you have a point there as far as experience in that venue. I think we need to carefully make the distinction between MMA as a venue and MMA as a style. I don't see any reason that kung fu practitioners can't compete in a MMA venue if they are good enough. Is the MMA "style" the best (ie boxing, muy thai and bjj)....I don't think so...I think it depends as much on the practitioner as the "style." Kung fu is going to be at a big disadvantage in the MMA venue because most don't train to fight on the ground.Quote:
I'm saying all this as a "traditional CMA guy". The kung fu community in general just doesn't have the relevant experience to prepare a fighter for professional level mma. There may be a few exceptions of course, but these are few and far between.
If kung fu players are able to use their full arsenal of joint manipulation then it might not need to go there. Alternatively, a kung fu guy could cross-train in ground fighting.
I think that the preferred combat sport of kung fu will be san da/san shou where ground fighting is not allowed and joint manipulation is not allowed. This allows the fullest range of techniques from kung fu to be utilized and insures that the practioners will be able to actually function in real life after fighting.Quote:
On a positive note, I've heard more rumblings as of late, and noticed more interest in competitive CMA based fighting such as lei tai, sanshou, sanda, etc...Hopefully, this will snowball into bigger and better things. Otherwise, the naysayers who staunchly declare that kung fu can't be used in a ring will drive the final nails into the kung fu coffin.
IMO, some of the most effective self-defense techniques in kung fu involve joint manipulation. Some styles are built almost entirely around it. However, because of the permanent damage that this type of fighting can cause it cannot and should not be part of a combat sport.
Why is groundfighting not part of kung fu? I think that there is a historical basis for this. Many traditional styles of kung fu were "battlefield" types of art, if you went down on the ground you were pretty much done for. If you tried to fight your opponent on the ground you would get a spear in your back or a horse trampling on your head.
However, I don't see any reason that somebody couldn't cross train there stand up kung fu game and groundfighting and do well in a MMA event.
They are effective because they don't require you to be strong. However, they do require more skill to execute correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTravesty
And before everybody jumps down my throat....yes, if you can't execute more simple techniques in real time then you probably can't execute complicated joint locking...so learning how to execute under pressure is still important....you just can't practice chin na under pressure without somebody getting hurt.
I just saw it yesterday when my Taiji teacher demonstrated a joint lock and added a little too much force to it and just about damaged the tendon in my classmates hand.
Good point! Let's not forget the assumption of "buddies." I.E. the guy you're fighting has a couple friends looking out for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu-Pow
Now, before everyone pulls out their flamethrowers, bear with me. I'm not suggesting that Kung Fu practitioners have superhuman abilities allowing them to beat a whole group of equally skilled assailants at the same time. However, as (I hope) all MA students are taught, you may need to hit someone to create an opening enough for you to break off and a) get away or b) at least get to a more advantageous position (i.e. finding improvised weaponry, finding an area where they are less able to surround you.) all with the end result of getting out alive and well, even if you don't "win the fight." If you are on the ground, entangled with someone, you stand a chance of having your head kicked in, even if you are under the main assailant, choking him from behind.
Again, cool your flamethrowers. I believe groundfighting is a great tool for one-on-one confrontations, i.e. if some jackanape tackles you to the ground, it is good to know how to escape and resume fighting in stand up (or reverse and reciprocate on the ground if that's your preference and no one else jumps in.) I fully wish to learn some form of groundfighting someday for that reason.
Another possibility for the omission of BJJ/Pancrase/Sambo style groundfighting in CMA is that it simply didn't come up. Some people have discussed cultural reasons that pertain to this as well. I don't know, I'm not proficient on matters of culture.
All I know is that in the handful of schoolyard fights I was in, I was punched, got put into a full-nelson, and even got suplexed :eek: but was never tackled and taken to the ground.
Thus it was when I first saw people discussing "groundfighting" I had no idea what it entailed until I did some research. i would never have thought of taking an opponent down and then gettting on top of them. But then, before I took Karate (quite a long time ago) I would have never thought of using a head butt (that's how I got out of the full nelson.) and before I took up My Jhong I would have never thought of using a sidekick or heel-thrusting kick at close range (ouch.)
Long story short, I always imagined that if I got someone on the ground I would A) give them a chance to like, leave me alone or B) if I felt I was in real danger, I would stomp their head, while still standing up. Needless to say I was surprised by the effectiveness of BJJ/MMA groundfighting when I first was exposed to it., as it's something I would probably never have thought of beforehand.
Not really. There will always be students who don't want to train full out against resisting opponents. These students are easily impressed by their instructors "root" and "power" when he demonstrates techniques on them while they are compliant in the the perfect position for him to perform his "brutal" techniques. They will probably never know that said instructor can't actually pull those techniques off against someone who has a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiuHung
And there's the key as to why it doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu-Pow
That is the sign of a crappy teacher. A teacher with good technique will never come close to injuring a compliant student who is letting him perform the technique in a compromised position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fu-Pow
Too many students are impressed by these kind of techiques. They don't understand that the whole reason it feels so powerful is that they are being compliant. It is a trick, plain and simple. But it is such a good trick, that often the instructors are just as clueless as thier students as to how ineffective these techniques really are.