Seriously, do you really think joint locks and kung fu movements are fast?

[dre]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Scarecrow -

Do you really have 12 hands? That's the only way I can think of for you to throw 12 jabs at once.
.

Moral of the story : Don't ever fight Vishnu of India.

[Royal Dragon]

But isn't there a rule in the UFC that states if an opponent is on the ground, you must also be on the ground to hit him??

I remeber a guy in one of the UFC's just lay down and wait for his opponent to lay down and wrestle him.

If it was NOT set up sepcifically for ground huggers, then the Kung Fu guy would be able to cage him and pound him in the head with out having to lay down and play the grapeller's game.

THIS tells me they only want Ground Huggers.

Ever since I saw THAT one, I've been down on the UFC. It's not what it's made out to be anymore. If it ever goes back to the original 3 basic rules, I'll give it some thought, but untill then I see no need to pay any attention to it when there are plenty of good Kou Shuo or San Shou fights to watch.

Am I wrong here?

[DelicateSound]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon
Am I wrong here?

No. You are correct. And I'm a Judo guy.

[Archangel]

No, you are allowed to kick your opponent while he's down, not just when he's on all 4's. I admit this is a dumb rule but they were pressured by the sports commission. If the grappler is just laying there though, the striker can ask that he be stood back up which is a definate advantage to the striker. I think the rules are evenly distributed though. You have rounds which favors strikers, standups which favors strikers, taped fists with small gloves that favor strikers and a nice soft mat to land on that favors strikers (strikers would most likely be on the bottom of a takedown).

If you truly want an event thats closer to the original UFC there's IVC in Brazil, it has only 2 rules, no biting or eye attacks; The event is dominated by primarily grapplers with not that many traditionalists doing well. There's also Pride Japan which is alot closer to the original UFC, it has the biggest paycheck and still no traditionalists.

So there....

[Black Jack]

I have heard the IVC has a lot fewer rules, what are the paychecks like with that tourney and are any of them on tape to buy?

[Royal Dragon]

OK, Cool

[Ryu]

Real fights are usually won by sucker punching from the encroachment. You'd all be better off learning about how people react in the encroachment, pushing matches, blindside attacks, etc.
Doesn't matter what martial art you study, if you're street stupid.

The tools to fight are grappling skills, punching skills, close-quarter skills.

Use them how you see fit.
These threads are boring even me.

Ryu

[Chang Style Novice]

RD -

Thanks for pointing out that 'sticking' can be part of an aggressive strategy as well as a part of a reactive one. Of course, my post was intended to reply to the Scarecrow's scenario of 'how would you respond to a flurry of quick punches?'

[Braden]

"you are allowed to kick your opponent while he's down, not just when he's on all 4's."

This must be a new rule.

"If the grappler is just laying there though, the striker can ask that he be stood back up"

This must also be new. Or inconsistently enforced. I'm sure that anyone who has been watching them can think of a half dozen examples off hand of someone with a stronger ground game waiting in the guard for the standing person to come to them, while the standing person stares confusedly and then is warned to be more aggressive. There's some good examples from Sak's fights in another venue of what happens when this rule isn't in place.

"which is a definate advantage to the striker."

Interesting viewpoint. I'd say it's more (assuming it's being enforced now) to create even the slightest semblance of realism. A martial art which advocates lying on your back on the ground and waiting for someone to come to is of extremely limited worth outside the ring, even if you can consistently win in the ring with that strategy.

"You have rounds which favors strikers"

Or, again, realism. For example, it's always amused me when BJJ proponents assert the realism of their arts in the same paragraph they talk about a certain 3 hour long (!?) match.

"standups which favors strikers"

Allready addressed.

"taped fists with small gloves that favor strikers"

Another interesting viewpoint. Padding strikes (ie. decreasing the power of strikes) favors strikers? Hrmm...

"a nice soft mat to land on that favors strikers"

And yet another interesting viewpoint. Decreasing the damage you take from rolling on the ground favors people who are trying not to do that? I wonder how quick people would pull mid-range guard or go for many of the popular guard and flying submissions if the back side of their head was near something hard, let alone curb-like.

Please don't confuse any of this for a standup vs ground, striking vs grappling, or traditional vs modern argument. Simply commenting specifically on statements that were made.

[Braden]

MerryPrankster is correct in noting the absence of groundwork in koushu and sanshou; but only correct regarding sanshou in his comments concerning standing submission and positioning constraints.

For whatever it's worth, regarding self-defense I agree completely with what Ryu said.

[Paul]

Tank Abbot Rules!

This is just idle curiousity, but how many of you who go on and on and on about the UFC and all these other competitions actually fight? Must be great to live vicariously through others.

For those of you who think it's so easy to just stick to someones jab and shut them down, sounds nonsensical to me. The first assumption you are making is that you outclass this other fighter. How does that saying go? oh yeah "everyone has a plan until they get hit."

[Tinman]

Those LONG stories that should be a book you write, thats whats boring. You my man are simply boring.
How dare you call me boring, Your the fu(king king of boring.
You ramble on about crap.
When do you even train, your always here.
BROWN BELT, come back when you devote enough time to become a black.
Go on home Home Boy!!

[Archangel]

Some of those rules mentioned a pretty new but they have been around for a couple of UFC's. I've seen numerous fights where these rules were utilized: Ricardo Almeida vs. Semenov, there were numerous standups when Almeida was down in his guard and Semenov was standing.

I do agree with you though that laying on your back and just waiting is one of the silliest tactics around. We call it butt scooting and I really believe it has no place in this kind of fighting. Coming from a wrestling background I always hated it.

"Another interesting viewpoint. Padding strikes (ie. decreasing the power of strikes) favors strikers? Hrmm..."

I really thought this was obvious here....???? In the early UFC's numerous strikers were breaking their hands whenever they struck their opponents head; that isn't the case nowadays. Now you can reinforce your hands with wraps and tape. This adds a couple of lbs. to your fists and undeniably makes them feel like cement. Have you ever gotten hit with a taped fist Braden? it's not fun. The glove provides less than an inch of padding and are really there to stop cuts and soften the blow to your hands.

"I wonder how quick people would pull mid-range guard or go for many of the popular guard and flying submissions if the back side of their head was near something hard, let alone curb-like."

You' re definately right there, there would have to be an adaptation and alot of the flashier moves would have to be removed. However I do stand by my argument. Most pure strikers do not know how to breakfall, defend a takedown or any basic ground positions. They would find themselves on the bottom, with only conrete underneath them. Can you imagine what would happen if a Greco Roman specialist or Judoka connected with a high amplitude throw on concrete; they'd have to scrape that guy off with a spatula.


Paul,

I just had to say. The reason why so many of us use MMA as an example is because it can be verified. It's on video tape and everyone can view it. Would you prefer it if we used personal anecdotes as examples. I could easily say that I beat up 20 Kung Fu masters single handedly... would it be true?? no one knows because it's unverifiable.

[Ryu]

I didn't call you boring. I called these threads boring.

It doesn't even pay to be objective in these types of threads.

Bottom line is that grappling and striking are reality in fighting.

The way you perform any of these depends on the training you do in reality.

UFC and MMA try their best not to favor either striker of grappler.

The champions of MMA are well versed in BOTH grappling and striking.

Grappling on concrete does not equal hellish torture and death. ( )

Having tiny gloves does not decrease punching power. ( )

Not all fights go to the ground.

A lot of fights do go to the ground.

Many real fights can be (and are) finished with a sucker punch and flurry of strikes.

When you go to the ground in a streetfight you need to get dominant position and hit uninterrupted. KO's and concussions are much easier to get with uninterrupted ground and pound.

Uninterrupted ground and pound is not always possible.

Striking is not always possible.

Winning ....is not always possible.


......oh and Karate (Tinman's version at least) can't win in UFC or the Street

Ryu

[Braden]

AA - I haven't watched any of the recent ones, so I have to admit I'm probably "behind the times." I realize that padded hands and padded floor offer considerable benefit to striking-oriented fighters; I just believe they also offer considerable (but different) benefits to more grappling-oriented fighters. So I did not mean to imply that these rules favored grapplers, only that they didn't favor strikers.

As for your other comments, I'd have to agree.