"Mcdojo.com"

[Merryprankster]

I found the USAWKF rules on their website. PLEASE tell me you weren't referring to these rules.

Using prohibited techniques, including:

Strikes to the back of the head, neck, throat, or crotch
Elbow or knee strikes
Striking opponent's head continuously to deliberately injure opponent
Use of excessive force to cause opponents to fall head over heels off the platform
Attacking a fallen opponent (except when an opponent falls deliberately as combat technique).

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

Oh yeah--no elbows. Oh well.

That is the one rule I hate. I feel if they allowed elbows you would see less time in the clinch and more interresting throws. Right now you have good striking and good ground but the transition(takedowns, throws) is kinda weak. once in a while you will see a good Greco takedown but not too much judo. I love throws especially quick throws (non hip). Maybe someday.

[Royal Dragon]

Stalling or failure to initiate any offensive or defensive attack.

Reply]
So waiting until my opponent falls into emptyness is not allowed? What's the deal with that nonsense?

I have won many a fight by doing this continuolsy untill my opponent falls into emptyness, and then I go for the kill.

This is just another rule to force someone into abandoning good common sense strategy.

[Shaolindynasty]

This arguement is ridiculous. It seems to be about nothing really. What's being argued, is it supposed to be about which SPORT imitates real fighting? These are both sport venues which can be good for testing skills and seeing what's effective but they aren't real fights that have hundreds of varibles etc.

Both of thses methods hold value for street defense and both are great in their respective arena's.

This "us vs. them" mentaity prevents anyone from learning (that's why bruce was against style according to his notes).

Although I don't like the way some traditional arts rest on hersay I also think the "fight records" can also be misleading. The professional(or amateur for that matter) fight game of any kind (boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, MMA) can be an extremely crooked business with fixed fights, crooked judges(roy jones losing in the olympics to a korean he soundly beat becasue the judges were korean for example).

The best judge of a style or methods effectiveness is your own common sense and experience period.

[Phrost]

Unfortunately, many people in the MA community have very little common sense, and much less experience with real combat when life and limb were on the line.

So honestly, with all the myths, misinformation, and flat out lies and deception in the Martial Arts community, what solution would you create to the problem of a lack of verifiable information and hard facts?

Wouldn't it be an open style competition with very limited rules that would not affect the way an individual fighter would engage his opponent?

That's exactly what MMA is supposed to be.

And this isn't an "Us vs. Them" thing. The MMA community has been trying to explain this to TMA's for the past 10 years now.

If you're a martial artist, and you consider yourself good at fighting, then step in the ring/octagon/whatever, and prove your skill.

Hell, MMA rules nowadays with multiple rounds actually FAVOR strikers because it may take more than a few minutes for a groundfighter to sink a sub.

So why do so few TMA's compete in MMA? What are their excuses?

*It's not "Real" fighting. You're right, instead of getting choked to death by someone or having your limbs broken, you get to tap instead.

*The rules favor BJJ/Wrestling: WRONG, as stated above. Since the implementation of rounds, fighters have been focussing much more on striking.

*I can't use my most deadly attacks in MMA: I hate to break it to you, but years of training do not make you that much better at biting or poking people in the eyes.

The problem that many see with TMA's is that their "Masters" refuse to prove the effectiveness of their styles in front of the public, instead chosing to prove their styles on internet forums and magazine articles.

That's why they tend to get little respect. I'm not being mean here, or even antagonistic; just honest.

So in the light of a slew of lies, myths, and misinformation spread by McDojos, what else can you exect to go on but your own two eyes and videotaped (or live) MMA fights?

If you're an unbiased person and hear how the Grandmaster of one style defeated 10 armed guys at the same time with just his hands, and you watch Jason Delucia tapping like a typewriter to Royce Gracie, which are you going to believe?

By the way Shaolindynasty, you study Choy Lay Fut? You might know my old Sifu then

[Braden]

Emotional content used as a tool to more quickly describe the position. Please don't take it as anything more.

"If you're a martial artist, and you consider yourself good at fighting, then step in the ring/octagon/whatever, and prove your skill."

Prove my skill to who, you? I don't give a **** what you think. Do you care what I think? Where's the proof of your skill?

"So why do so few TMA's compete in MMA? What are their excuses?"

Excuse for what, not competing in a sporting event? Do you hang around gyms and if you see someone lifting weights go up to them and say, 'You're a ****ing bum. If you were any good, you'd be in the strongman competition'?

"The problem that many see with TMA's is that their 'Masters' refuse to prove the effectiveness of their styles in front of the public, instead chosing to prove their styles on internet forums and magazine articles."

You're confused. My teacher doesn't give a **** what you think. Why should he? He'll never meet you, you're just one in six billion. He doesn't prove himself on internet forums, he proves himself in person to people who want to learn from him. What about your teacher? Is he worried what I think? If we apply this logic to him, where's the proof he's any good?

[Stone Monkey]

Grappling (from Marc 'Animal' MacYoung's excellent site: www.nononsenseselfdefense.com )

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

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

Does this mean I am "against" grappling? Does it mean I don't think it's worth learning? Does this mean I am inexperienced on the ground? No.

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

Why is grappling effective?
In his book The High Crusade Poul Anderson speculated on what would happen if an advanced alien species attempted to conquer earth immediately after the Crusades. The premise of the book was that these aliens had become extremely adept at long-range, artillery-type warfare. They were shocked and confused when the knights, instead of hanging back and attempting to do battle at a distance, charged them and overwhelmed their positions. This simple, savage strategy worked only because the aliens had lost the ability to effectively fight at close quarters.

The success of grappling is due, in a large part, to the failure of sports-based martial arts in the West. Ever since the introduction of gloved boxing, sport fighting has moved away from the old "bare knuckle/London rules" form. That kind of pugilism was designed to prevent clinches, headbutts, purring and a whole host of other vicious in-close tricks associated with their version of grappling. The addition of padded gloves prevented many of these moves. And in time, sport fighting became a "sniping" game. Opponents do not rush each other, but hang back and exchanged blows and kicks from a distance.

And in doing so, they forgot that an opponent could charge in.

Wrestling and grappling are very popular sporting events in South America, however. Brazilian Jujitsu matches are packed events. These fighters hadn't forgotten about charging in -- but it was still a sport. And that means it had events, rules, weight division, safety equipment and organizations to give ranks, belts and titles.

In the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, Northern Hemisphere fighters were just run over. Like the aliens in Anderson's book, they had forgotten that this kind of fighting even existed, much less had the vaguest idea how to counter it.

People flocked to the Gracie Jujitsu Academy(s) and other Brazilian Jujitsu schools to fill this hole in their training. You will notice, however, their reputation made, the Gracies withdrew from the later UFC events. We can safely assume that by that time, Northern Hemisphere fighters had begun to watch tapes, study their moves to discover ways to counter.

In short, both the shock -- and the new -- had worn off and people once again remembered that grappling was an issue to be dealt with.

This is not to disparage the Gracies, they are fine athletes and, in their time, they ruled the ring. But, as they introduced a new and evolutionary change to sports fighting, other people have continued to do evolve and introduce new developments -- including ways to counter their changes. Thus is the cycle of the martial arts, they is always changing and evolving to meet "new" influences.

It is never static, it is always changing. And sometimes what is "new" is something that is actually old, but left behind because people had founda counter. Often until the counter is rediscovered this will create the latest fad in martial arts training.


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

Since that is not the case, we must assume that grappling is not as universally effective as its proponents would claim.*

To truly understand where submission fighting doesn't work, we must understand where it does work. (And I will admit works spectacularly).

1) In a one-on-one confrontation
2) In an open, but limited, space
3) On padded, clear surfaces
4) Without weapons
5) With rules
6) When people aren't trying to kill each other

In otherwords, in a sporting event.

We can also say that it works under *very* limited conditions in a 'real' fight. But it has to be a very specific kind of confrontation._ In fact, it could be termed "a friendly" fight._ But you can't rely on an altercation being of this kind.

So let's look at the elements, or more specifically the issues that *will* undermine grappling's effectiveness.

Multiple opponents - Trouble most often runs in packs. If you don't plan to face multiple opponents, you are not really training for self defense. Seldom will a friend watch another friend be defeated without making at least a token effort to join help. That is human nature, and ignoring it is a dangerous mistake -- especially since a friend's help can often be in the form of a bottle or a rock. Since you are involved on the ground in a one-on-one contest with all your limbs engaged and limited mobility you are vulnerable to a second attack from above. There is also the issue -- in less reputable locations -- of spectators joining in and kicking you both ... just for the fun of it.

Furniture, curbs and other people - While the floor work itself may not take a lot of room, going down usually does. Objects such as tables, chairs and bystanders pose chances of serious injury if you fall onto them -- especially if you have someone else's body weight driving you there.

Asphalt, rocks, bottles, etc. - Many "going to the ground" techniques are designed to work on pads, mats and smooth floors. Seldom do these conditions exist outside the dojo. A slap fall on asphalt will not only tear up your hand, but it can result in a shattered bones. Hitting concrete with another person landing on top of you is a painful -- often fight stopping -- experience. Now you may think "that is the idea," but that is assuming that you are controlling the fall. A cagey fighter might not let you land on top of him, and that makes it as much your problem as his. Then there is the issue of bottles and glasses that you might land on. While you might at first think, "there aren't glasses/bottles/etc laying on the floor of the bar," that's under normal conditions, but if someone tackles you and you run into another person or tip over a table, those items can and will be knocked to the ground at the same speed as you.

Without weapons - This is even more dangerous than assuming that you will only be fighting one person at a time. Once weapons come into play, it is no longer fighting, it's combat. The ground is the absolute *last* place you want to be with an armed opponent.

-end of part one

[Stone Monkey]

Rules - Although the UFC was touted as "no rules," or more specifically "no holds barred," many of the more nasty and brutal moves were banned. Until you have endured these moves, it is easy to assume that you can "tough them out." Experience proves differently. Many of these techniques are so savage that people don't believe others would stoop so low -- and are therefore unprepared to handle them. This utterly undermines the assertion of many grapplers that "Well, we can do them too!"_

It isn't a matter of "too" it is a matter of who does it first, as many of these moves are fight stoppers.

Not trying to kill each other - Grappling is probably best understood as dominating your opponent. It is used to subdue and force him to submit. That is a social function, it is not, however, combat. In combat, you are not trying to prove anything, you are not trying to force compliance. You are trying to kill him before he kills you. There are severe psychological differences in intent. And you fight totally differently. A fight with a drunken friend that you are trying to control (or prove he is out of line) is not the same as some evil ******* coming at you with intent to kill you.

If you know where groundfighting is effective, you can then deduce where it isn't safe -- and why.


Don't fight his fight
Staying in a groundfight with a grappler is guaranteed to get your ass kicked.

It is where his fighting style is designed to work best. He has the home field advantage, and all the moves that will trap you. The longer you stay on the ground with a grappler, the more chances you give him to use his tactical advantage against you.

This is where my first two rules regarding grappling come into effect.

If you couldn't stop or avoid the rush, you weren't in control of your long-range weapons. Lack of control can be directly traced to a lack of understanding about those very tools. You didn't control the range, nor did you understand those things that could have saved you from being taken down: structure and mobility. These elements while critical in a real fight, are not needed or understood in sport fighting. But that is a massive can of worms and is beyond the scope of this Web site. What I can say is, most often, the error wasn't in what you did per se, but rather in your training. If your instructor doesn't know it, there is no way he could teach you.

What I can tell you, is that the second rule applies in spades. You need to get out of the grappler's preferred range. Even if the person you are fighting is not a grappler, the get-up rule still applies due to danger from his friends and vicious on-lookers.

To this end, I heartily recommend you inflict some kind of intense and savage pain. While he is reeling from it, you use the opportunity to scramble back up to your feet. That is going to be your only window of opportunity. This is significantly different than trying to fight your way out of the situation. If you attempt to fight through his tactics, you will be defeated. Remember, these are his strengths, contesting them is not going to work unless you are a superior grappler. Your safest strategy is *not* to play his game. Get back to where your strengths are.


When to use grappling
The purpose of ground fighting is to subdue an opponent and establish dominance. It is my heartfelt opinion that there are only two reasonable applications for grappling skills. And within these parameters, it is wonderful.

Those are:
1) When you don't want to hurt the guy
2) If it's your job to restrain and control someone

1) Not hurting your opponent - You friend is drunk and out of control. Because he is your friend, you don't want to snap him like a matchstick. Or it is some stupid, college-aged kid who is trying to impress people by picking a fight with you. In a nice restaurant, some ******* swung on you because you didn't back down or give into his unreasonable demands. These low-level threats are not situations where you want to gouge out somebody's eye or snap his neck. It is neither warranted, nor legally justified to use an extreme level of force.

This is where grappling utterly shines. You can control and dominate such an opponent, and, if the police show up, you can easily justify your use of force.

2) It's your job to use control tactics in protection of property or others - When everyone is doing the smart thing and running away, it is your job to do the stupid thing of charging into the conflict. Then yes. You do need to know how to handle yourself on the ground. You do need to know control and restraint tactics. Usually, however, your job will also have very specific standards for use of force and restraint tactics. You will need to be well versed in departmentally approved defensive tactics, control holds and use of force continuums. Additional training in grappling is a wonderful adjunct to this training. With this in mind, I would highly recommend taking a trip to the LEO section of this Web site.

These two conditions provide the optimum application of ground fighting.

However, when you have several sociopathic gangbangers coming at you, a knife-wielding mugger threatening your life or are in a large, unruly crowd, you *don't* want to try to grapple. In fact, you don't even want to try to fight. Escape should be your number one priority. Charging in and wrestling him to the ground, doesn't conform to the definition of escape.


Should you learn floorfighting?
Absolutely

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

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

-Marc MacYoung

[Merryprankster]

How did this devolve into an argument about groundfighting?

This is VERY specific--the insinuation was somehow that the rules are more restrictive than Kuo Shu or San Shou--both of which are acceptable venues for Kung Fu fighters. But the rules for Pride, etc, make MMA disadvantaged venues?

Royal--it takes a LOT to get a stalling call. What they are talking about is a failure to engage at all. If you want to play a defensive game, picking and choosing your shots, or even just playing defense the entire time that's one thing. But if you are actively and extensively refusing to engage (like turning your back and running away) then you'll get disqualified. If you want to slip shots and defend kicks and takedowns all round, feel free. You'll not get a stalling call even if you never attack the entire round, as long as you are not running away (vice using a defensive, counterpunch type strategy.) Heck, some fighters with lousy takedown skills have buttscooted their way around the ring and not been called for stalling, when they can't match their opponents standup skills.

Are you telling me that in a full contact Kuo Shu or San Shou match, a person wouldn't be disqualified for turning tail and running from the opponent? Because THAT is what it takes to get a stalling call.

Normally, I like what you have to say, but LMAO at trying to use the rules to demonstrate that KF is disadvantaged in the MMA ring, and then picking this particularly lame-ass argument. This falls squarely under excuse, vice reason.

I'd have a lot less problem if you just said "Hey, most Kung Fu guys aren't interested in this, and that's just the way it is. They'd rather compete in Kuo Shu and San Shou..."

But to make a perfectly ignorant statement about "the rules" in general, be shown that PRIDE Rules, at least, allow the kneeing and stomping and headkicks on the ground that you originally claimed was the limiting factor, and then come back with something like this...

Do I think that the ring mirrors a streetfight? No. Neither does the Kwoon or a sparring session. Do I think that demonstration of skill in the ring is a requirement to be successful in the street? Absolutely not. Do I think that some venues might not be ideal for somebody trained in a particular style? Absolutely. If you have a style that relies very heavily on elbow strikes, you might not like PRIDE Rules. If you have a style that focuses on stomping opponents on all fours, then you might not find UFC rules to your liking.

But, strictly from a MMA rules restrict Kung Fu fighters but Kuo Shu/San Shou rules are ok--that's just utter crap, and completely unjustifiable.

[Braden]

"But, strictly from a MMA rules restrict Kung Fu fighters but Kuo Shu/San Shou rules are ok--that's just utter crap, and completely unjustifiable."

Well, it's true in the sense that CMA's don't teach any floorfighting, and you don't need any to compete in koushou/sanshou.

[Merryprankster]

LOL

[Shaolindynasty]

Phrost- You missunderstand. I wasn't using the "competitions aren't real fights" excuse. What I was trying to say was that BOTH MMA competition and Koushou/sanshou competition have merit when it comes to testing your skill for real self defense. I also was trying to say the arguement over which is more real is kind of ridiculous. MMA tournaments promote the practice of effective technique just like the practice of san shou/koushou/sanda is supposed to promote effective technique.

What I was trying to say about records not being an effective way to judge a style I stand by. Luckly in today's modern world we can order a tape of the event and see for ourselves what happened. So I agree sport events like this do help to judge effective technique but I don't follow fight records for the reasons I listed before.

I wouldn't "step into the ring" of an event like UFC or Pride because i am not in that kind of fighting condition. I may be pretty good at fighting but aren't those guys supposed to be the cream of the MMA crop? I don't think I'm up to their standards in physical conditioning. I'd like to see Cung Le fight in one though.

"And this isn't an "Us vs. Them" thing."

It shouldn't be but it degrades into that, both sides are guilty of doing this.

BTW, I haven't been studing CLF long(about 5 months) and don't know any CLF guys outside of my sifu's school, but I probally know of your sifu.

[Merryprankster]

I would like to state, for the record two things:

1. Most of us in MMA would LOVE to see Marvin Perry and Cung Le fight MMA!

2. I have no problem with San Shou/Kuo Shu, nor do I consider MMA to be a more "realisitc" venue than San Shou/Kuo Shu. I was taking specific issue with the idea that MMA rules are somehow limiting when the other sets are, in fact, very similar or even MORE limiting.

[Shaolindynasty]

All sporting events have rules and some do favor certain types of fighting but i don't see why CMA guys couldn't train for MMA comps. The thing is MMA tournys aren't usually on the top of the list in a CMA's intrests. I read an interveiw with cung le and he was asked if he was going to compete in a MMA fight soon and he said probally not because he wants to promote san shou. Most CMA guys want to promote their own events first and we all know that training for a MMA fight is a full time activity.

It's difficult because if a CMA guy wanted to fight in MMA he would have to develop some new types of defense or at least work on ones he knows againts grappleing. This is the problem once he goes outside of CMA and trains in a groundfighting art some says "he isn't a traditional kungfu guy".

So really the rules aren't the problem it's more that they need to prepare for that kind of opponent without learning groundfighting(so they will still be considered "traditional") Very difficult to do isn't it.

BTW, Most guys I know and consider traditional (including myself) train at least alittle in different arts including groundfighting. Traditional doesn't mean to me being closed minded and running a "mcdojo". Being traditional is using what works because in the old days that's what they did to win, reguardless of where they learned it.

[SDriver]

I just wanted to mention some things about the pasted article, which I thought was a pretty level-headed piece.

1. Training in grappling helps keep one from going to the ground if one doesn't want to. In my experience, the only "mobility" training that will keep your butt off the ground is track and field.
2. Those submissions aren't pain compliance techniques for the most part. Some are, most aren't, because of the widely recognized fact that an amped up opponent doesn't give a squirt about a bicep pinch. But you don't have to stop a "submission" technique when the joint hyperextends or when the vision gets blurry. You snap the thing or knock them out. In a "real fight," you keep going, and because you trained to know where the "breaking point" is, you know how far to go and how to get there fast.
3. Getting out of a grappler's range. Well, if you get out of my range, why the heck would I follow you to fight you? Fight's over. Walk off. I'm not just going to chase some guy around to fight him, especially on "the street."

I believe the most important point to remember is the first one. In my experience, the people who are best at avoiding takedowns are the same people who are best at performing them. If you've got a good mastery of position, it's harder for some goon to put you on your butt, unless of course you want to flop there. Seriously, I often hear complicated explanations of "how to defend against a grappler" when a simple sprawl-and-get-away would work like gangbusters.

All in all, though, that article was what I consider "good" -- non-reactionary, well-reasoned stuff from the other side of the fence. Just wanted to put in my two cents.