Anyone Practiced This Defense?

[Mike Brewer]

I'm sorry, this was just so entirely and completely full of Lewis Black temper tantrum inducing bullshit I couldn't let it go:

Context is always more than one fight. The context is always going to be a number of fights for both fighters. It's never just one fight.

It can be one fight! Especially if you're talking about a two second clip someone posted and you're talking about it IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIGHT!

Context can be any damned thing that surrounds the event you're discussing. Look it up.

God my head hurts.

[migo]

If you want to talk about just one fight you could look at Mark Coleman vs Mirko Filipovic and conclude that Coleman has no takedown skills as he didn't even get close. The context you seem to want to use is pointless. Either you stick to the 2 second clip (no context, WYSIWYG), where Rampage succesfully defends himself against getting KOed, using CM, or you take everything into account, including what both fighters have demonstrated.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I'm sorry, this was just so entirely and completely full of Lewis Black temper tantrum inducing bullshit I couldn't let it go:



It can be one fight! Especially if you're talking about a two second clip someone posted and you're talking about it IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIGHT!

Context can be any damned thing that surrounds the event you're discussing. Look it up.

God my head hurts.

Did you forget the red pill Mike?

[migo]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

This is entirely too desperate, but I'll entertain it. He didn't apply it because the decision to stand and cover allowed Vanderlei to get close enough to take his other options away. There's a rule in soldiering that says, "If you didn't bring it, you ain't got it." It goes for extra bullets, spare wheels, radio batteries, and in this case, counter-offense in boxing range. The stand still and cover routine didn't work because Vanderlei didn't play along. Rampage got the shit kicked out of him because his opponent didn't back off and take turns like he was supposed to. That's the flaw in any defense-based strategy. If the bad guy brings enough ammo to keep on pounding, the defense always cracks. That's why Rampage lost, and that's why covering up and waiting sucks donkey nuts.

So... Muhammad Ali vs George Foreman never happened? 'Cause I swear I saw the offense cracking there...

Every clinch was preceded by punches, to which Rampage responded with your bullshit defense. Every series of punches ALLOWED Vanderlei to get close, clinch, and knee. If Rampage had any answer for punches against Vanderlei, he might have had better luck stopping the clinch. That's why it's relevant. That's why it makes sense.

Video Pride 12 Wanderlei Silva Vs Dan Henderson Part 1 - Pride, 12, Wanderlei, Silva, 1 - Dailymotion Share Your Videos

Bullshit defense eh? There we see Dan Henderson getting knocked down in the first flurry. Hmmm. What would that indicate? If you don't defend the punches, you don't have to worry about the knees, because you're getting hit anyway. Context. If you're throwing punches to avoid getting clinched in the future and not defending against the punches coming in the present, it's going to be a short fight for you. So much for your bullshit offense. (Obviously not, it worked just fine for Belfort, but I'm just using your own logic against you).

And for the record, if you couldn't make punches work, that's your own damned fault. You might ought to have tried going to something like clinching, kicking, takedowns, or any number of other things you could have done.

I guess you left your reading skills in the boxing ring? I said I went for takedowns. Man... telling a grappler to clinch and go for the takedown, you just eclipsed Ken Shamrock's "Do something" as the least constructive advice ever.

It's good that covering up stopped you from getting hit, and I'm happy that it worked for you. I'd still wager that a successful offense would have worked better, and I'd still wager that if Rampage had any kind of answer for Vanderlei's punches, he would never have had to worry about the knees.

Yeah, nope. Here's another example of what happens to someone when they try to use your bullshit offense against Wanderlei Silva.

YouTube - Wanderlei Silva vs Yuki Kondo (Pride) headstomp

Covering up worked way better for Rampage than throwing punches worked for Yuki Kondo. You're right that Kondo didn't have to worry about the clinch by throwing punches, because he got knocked down from the punches and stomped, Wanderlei never had to get to plan B.

[migo]

Anyway, while that little dance was fun, how about you explain what it is about CM that makes it impossible (or impractically difficult) to integrate counter punching with it. As far as I can gather, that's what you were trying to say in the first place.

[migo]

Oh hell, let's look at some more pure covering up against punches with no counter-punching and see how it went.



Pay attention at 0:50

[Mike Brewer]

Migo, I don't know what this thing is up your ass that makes you feel you have to hop up and down and defend the crazy monkey to the death, but everything you just spent all that time writing is horseshit. I also don't know why you are having such a hard time reading simple English, but I'll say it again.

I was talking about Rampage vs. Vanderlei.

I have said elsewhere, in different contexts that there's no inherently "wrong" techniques. Anything can work, and if it does, it's a good idea. With Vanderlei and Rampage - it didn't work. Every other fight you listed was, well, another fight. You're using a tactic that's very well known in debate, and I'm just not going to play along. You're trying to change the context of the discussion so that your argument works. Sorry, but no. I was referring to Rampage against Vanderlei, and in that context, everything I said was true and correct. The proof of that is easy to see, and is demonstrated beautifully by the fact that you have to point to other fights to try to make a point about that one. For example:

You brought up Ali Foreman. But you ignored what I said about what makes pure defense crack. I said:

If the bad guy brings enough ammo to keep on pounding, the defense always cracks.

Foreman didn't. He ran out of gas.

It's not really relevant, though. You're a follower of the Crazy Monkey stuff, so I expect you to back it up even when you're completely wrong. If you'd like to expand the diuscussion to a different context and just talk about why a good counter-offense is BETTER than pure defense I'll gladly own you there as well. As for this discussion, you're still wrong. I'm still right. Get over it.

To punctuate my point, you cited Ali vs Foreman. That fight took 8 gruelling rounds and it helped tear Ali down into the man he is today. By comparison, watch this fight in which Ali counter punches.

YouTube Video

This fight lasted about a minute, compared to your 30 minute fight.

[Mike Brewer]

Incidentally - I thought it might be fun to help you put this whole thing in context, since that appears to be important to you as well, and since you obviously need a great deal of practice:

This was one of my first replies on the topic. Read it carefully. There will be a test later.

I'm sure someone from SBG will be along directly to refute all this advice, but I agree with what's been said thus far. This is a defensive position. Can you learn to throw offense from it? Yeah, sure. But why? It answers a question nobody asked. Boxers have a great way to defend against punches, and you see it working all the time against world class opposition. Head movement, footwork, and well-timed/placed counters will do a lot more for fighting effectiveness than turtling up ever will. What's more, they'll actually help you win the fight on offense as well. If you want to get really tricky against bare knuckle (streetfighting) opponents, then you can raise the hands a little and learn to put an elbow in the way now and again. See Paul Vunak for a demonstration.

The "Crazy Monkey," apart from being a totally ridiculous name for anything, may be cool, and hell, it may even work for those who do it. But why be different just to be different? Why bother learning a whole new delivery system, offense, and defense just to cater to some trendy on guard stance when you could just as easily learn the basics of regular old boxing anywhere?

I've bolded a few pieces of this so you can see that I have absolutely no problem with the tactic when it works. I just don't see the point. It seems like the lazy man's excuse not to learn footwork, head movement, etc. It doesn't appear to me to have any advantages whatsoever over conventional boxing methods. I don't see it being anything special, and I don't see it as an improvement on what existed before it. When you show me clips of the Crazy Monkey, I see guys who cover up and don't move their feet anywhere but straight back. I see them letting opponents get close to them. I see them sitting still and not moving off on angles. Even in your own examples, you'll see that this is true. When a fighter puts his stock in covering up, he often forgets that you need to be moving and controlling range in order to be effective. That's exactly what got Rampage caught by Vanderlei - he covered up and moved straight back, allowing Vanderlei to close with impunity and knee - and it's why your average guy on the street will get his ass kicked trying it.

Of course, I suppose you think that since Ali could do it against Foreman, you are good to go. After all, you're every bit as good as Ali, right?

More context for you, skippy:

You'll clearly notice that the defense did nothing for Quinton in terms of being able to counter in that clip. It did nothing to keep Vanderlei from attacking again. It did nothing to improve his position. In fact, all it did was keep him from getting hit.

Here's some more:

I'm of the mind that anything that saves your ass is a good thing. However, professional level fighters should see and train to take advantage of the openings that precede and follow attacks, and this particular defense doesn't allow for that. The very best times to hit a guy are in the immediate before, during, and after his attack, and those are the moments that are taken away by the so-called crazy monkey cover method. Using this defense, a fighter is now relegated to hitting out of the blue or only working behind fakes. That means either you're offensive or you lose. It takes away the whole counter-fighting and drawing aspects of the game. Okay for your average street guy? Maybe. For a professional in the ring? I'll just go ahead and say there are better ways out there

I point all this out because again, you've been working hard to skew this and make it seem like I'm totally discrediting Crazy Monkey as a technique. You're working overtime to try and show me people who've used covering up before as a defense (surprise surprise!) and in so doing, you've apparently failed to read even what I've written about it here in this very thread.

Now to close out, since Crazy Monkey is something that obviously had to have its own name because it was different from what's being taught, why don't you go back and find some professionals who use Rodney King's method rather than the standard, conventional boxing tools that I already mentioned were out there? Everything you've shown here actually supports my point, because I said:

Can you learn to throw offense from it? Yeah, sure. But why? It answers a question nobody asked. Boxers have a great way to defend against punches, and you see it working all the time against world class opposition.

So thank you for reinforcing the point that no one actually needs anything except what boxing already teaches in this aspect of the game.

[migo]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I have said elsewhere, in different contexts that there's no inherently "wrong" techniques. Anything can work, and if it does, it's a good idea. With Vanderlei and Rampage - it didn't work.

It did work. Watch the original clip. CM is for defending against punches. Wanderlei threw punches, and Quinton blocked them. What bizarre criterion of "worked" are you using?

It's not really relevant, though. You're a follower of the Crazy Monkey stuff, so I expect you to back it up even when you're completely wrong.

No, I'm not a follower of CM. I watched a video once and started applying it, and it has worked quite well for me. That's not being a follower of it. That's incorporating a small aspect of it into my game.

If you'd like to expand the diuscussion to a different context and just talk about why a good counter-offense is BETTER than pure defense I'll gladly own you there as well. As for this discussion, you're still wrong. I'm still right. Get over it.

I already did. See the Yuki Kondo vs Wanderlei Silva fight. He used a counter offense, he got knocked down with punches as a result of it. Quinton's pure defense worked better against Silva than Yuki's counter offense.

To punctuate my point, you cited Ali vs Foreman. That fight took 8 gruelling rounds and it helped tear Ali down into the man he is today. By comparison, watch this fight in which Ali counter punches.

Ali was offensive all throughout the first round and wasn't able to put Foreman down. He had to switch to defense because offense wasn't working.

[migo]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I've bolded a few pieces of this so you can see that I have absolutely no problem with the tactic when it works. I just don't see the point. It seems like the lazy man's excuse not to learn footwork, head movement, etc. It doesn't appear to me to have any advantages whatsoever over conventional boxing methods.

Sure it does. You can teach it to a wrestler so that within the span of a couple days he can protect his head enough to get the takedown safely. You can teach it to anyone who is interested in surviving a fight to handle the first few punches, break and run like hell. That's very much an advantage, you're looking at 3-6 months to get some solid boxing down following conventional methods, vs less than a week to get something workable with Crazy Monkey. How is that not an advantage?

I don't see it being anything special, and I don't see it as an improvement on what existed before it. When you show me clips of the Crazy Monkey, I see guys who cover up and don't move their feet anywhere but straight back. I see them letting opponents get close to them. I see them sitting still and not moving off on angles. Even in your own examples, you'll see that this is true. When a fighter puts his stock in covering up, he often forgets that you need to be moving and controlling range in order to be effective. That's exactly what got Rampage caught by Vanderlei - he covered up and moved straight back, allowing Vanderlei to close with impunity and knee - and it's why your average guy on the street will get his ass kicked trying it.

Rampage covered up, backed up and was out of range from being attacked, there was a pause in the action. For the average guy in the street that's enough time to run like hell. Block the punches that are coming, get out of range, run. That's not going to get your ass kicked.

I point all this out because again, you've been working hard to skew this and make it seem like I'm totally discrediting Crazy Monkey as a technique. You're working overtime to try and show me people who've used covering up before as a defense (surprise surprise!) and in so doing, you've apparently failed to read even what I've written about it here in this very thread.

You contradicted yourself there. First you said it'll get the average guy on the street his ass kicked, then you quote yourself saying it's OK for the average guy on the street. Are you even sure what your stance on CM is?

Now to close out, since Crazy Monkey is something that obviously had to have its own name because it was different from what's being taught, why don't you go back and find some professionals who use Rodney King's method rather than the standard, conventional boxing tools that I already mentioned were out there? Everything you've shown here actually supports my point, because I said:

Quinton isn't a professional??? o_O

So thank you for reinforcing the point that no one actually needs anything except what boxing already teaches in this aspect of the game.

Except, you know, Yuki Kondo....

[Mike Brewer]

First of all, you're still trying to skew the discussion. Boxing teaches basic covering and movement, too. If you believe a wrestler can learn to defend against a skilled puncher in a couple of days using Crazy Monkey, then you're going to have to show some evidence of it. More to the point, if you believe that the Crazy Monkey idea lends any merit above regular boxing footwork, evasiveness, and countering, I'm afraid you need to show that, too. I already offered to post video after video of instances where countering beats covering. I already showed you one. I stand by that position, and I stand by the challenge. You post fights where people won because they covered against multiple shots and didn't fire back, and I'll post fights where people won because they hit back. We'll see who can build a more impressive library.

Rampage covered up, backed up and was out of range from being attacked, there was a pause in the action. For the average guy in the street that's enough time to run like hell. Block the punches that are coming, get out of range, run. That's not going to get your ass kicked.

Do you do a lot of meth or something? Maybe hooked on phonics really doesn't work, because I could SWEAR I wrote something earlier about:

I'm of the mind that anything that saves your ass is a good thing. However, professional level fighters should see and train to take advantage of the openings that precede and follow attacks, and this particular defense doesn't allow for that.

The bold, underlined portion is the part that should have clued you into the fact that I was not referring to the "average guy in the street." In fact, as I have said so many, many times before - I was specifically talking about Rampage and Vanderlei. Forgive me if I sound confused by your astonishing inability to comprehend english. You ability to construct sentences and spell with reasonable ability led me to believe you understood the language.

As for my stance on Crazy Monkey, I think it's a gimmicky and needless approach to something that already exists within boxing. I don't know the guy who "invented it," and as with anything else, I leave open the possibility that I will later change my mind. But as of right now, your arguments are weak, and you've failed to persuade me at all. For instance, you came up with this gem:

CM is for defending against punches. Wanderlei threw punches, and Quinton blocked them. What bizarre criterion of "worked" are you using?

This may come as a shock, but my criteria for "worked" in an MMA fight is a structure that doesn't get me so fixated on covering up against punches that my opponent can liesurely stroll up to me and knee me through the ropes. I prefer a structure that is geared toward handling "fighting," not just "punching." I would have thought that someone stepping in the ring against a guy known for knees, who comes from a school known for knees, might have shared at least some of that concern. Apparently, though, your measure of "success" is getting knocked all the way out of the ring, smiling through your broken front teeth, and being able to say "yeah, but I handled the punches!" I prefer something that fits well into a structure I can use for all ranges. But hey, you're entitled to your approach too.

Ali was offensive all throughout the first round and wasn't able to put Foreman down. He had to switch to defense because offense wasn't working.

You're not much of a fighter, huh. Ali went after Foreman to piss Foreman off enough so he'd be blind to the tactic he planned to use. He got Foreman mad, because he knew Foreman had no gas tank. But he couldn't just walk in and lay on the ropes. Why, you ask ignorantly? Because Foreman had Archie Moore in his training camp. Archie Moore is known to many as the inventor of the Rope a Dope. Ali not only had to be able to capitalize on mistakes when George made them, but he had to convince the man to keep coming, regardless of the cost in stamina. He did that with the first round, and his subsequent, short-lived bursts in other rounds anytime George slowed up. The result was that George ran flat out of gas, and Ali was able to finish him.

But again - hardly relevant as I was talking about Rampage and Vanderlei.

I understand that you'd really like to carry this discussion out of that context, and I'm fine with that. But do me the courtesy of at least admitting that you were wrong about my comments on context. If you're man enough to admit that you misunderstood or something along those lines, I can see myself getting a little more civil. Otherwise, I'm afraid this just looks like that same desperate act you've put up on other forums that banned you.

[TylerJamesMead]

just a question but i hear alot of comentators on mma shows saying head movement sets you up for head kicks never really been a problem for me what u guys think

[fire cobra]

Head movement defo sets you up for head kicks bro,hence Thai fighters dont do much of it these days.

[Mike Brewer]

I think that's a matter of whether you're doing straight boxing types of movement or whether you've got the ability to adapt your tools to the game you're playing. Command of range plays a big role, as does one's ability to use the movement of the upper body (a much more accurate way to describe "head movement") for better applying offensive tools. To be sure, just moving around and trying to avoid blows is silly. But a good fighter uses his upper body movement to set up strikes and hide angles. When that's combined with good offense and command of the ring/range, it can be really effective.

I'll look for some coaches who teach it well, but I have to be honest, I don't know of anyone off the top of my head. I just don't follow it like I used to.

[fire cobra]

Yeah Mike i Agree,
if i can just clarify what i meant by head movement was moving the head to the side and forward in a big movement,seen plenty of kos from basic 1-2- high kick when a fighter makes large head/upper body moves,small moves you can get away with more for sure.