Anyone Practiced This Defense?

[migo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't even need CM, the wrestler in the video from 1934 just covered his face completely and it worked.

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.

And how exactly does CM prevent you from using regular boxing footwork? You're using your hands, there's nothing stopping you from using your feet. You're arguing against a contention that has never been made.

I already offered to post video after video of instances where countering beats covering.

And I already showed you one that shows where countering fell short compared to 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.

Ummm.... Ali vs Foreman, one of the most famous fights in boxing history.

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:

CM is targetted at people who aren't professional level fighters. That's hardly relevant to the core discussion about CM.

[quo]eThe 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.[/quote]

Is your head really so high in the clouds that you think the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they didn't understand you? I understood you just fine, I just plain disagree with some of your base assumptions in discussing a strategy.

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."

By that logic takedowns don't work because they allow submission experts to submit you from their backs.

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.

Wanderlei was also known for his swinging punches, as was Chuck Liddell. Rampage was guaranteed to fight Liddell, and possibly Wanderlei. Clearly training something that deals with an attack both fighters bring, particularly the one you'll be fighting first is of more importance than something an opponent you have a 50% chance of fighting in the second round brings, and spending time on it would make you less able to deal with your first opponent.

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.

You measure success by getting knocked out with punches meaning at least you didn't get kneed. How many times do I have to say that Yuki Kondo did EXACTLY what you said Rampage should have done against Silva and he got knocked out by punches for his efforts. Do you consider that successful counter-offense to Silva's punches? Getting knocked out by punches?

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

Talking about only one fight hardly makes sense when you're discussing a technique that has a much wider scope.

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.

Your context was wrong. The context is "Crazy Monkey", not "Crazy Monkey as used by Quinton Jackson against Wanderlei Silva". The whole thread started with a much broader context than what you're insisting the context is. Your context might be fine if the thread was started about the fight between Jackson and Silva, but that's not what the thread was about.

[Mike Brewer]

Don't even need CM,

Yup. That's what I've been saying all along! It's no different from what's already out there! My God man...learn to read!

And how exactly does CM prevent you from using regular boxing footwork?

I'm not sure. We were talking about Quinton Jackson in a clip someone posted, and in that clip, as well as in the overall context of the fight, Quinton didn't use any effective footwork at all. To me, it looks very much like the defense at the very least encourages people to brace for incoming punches, which in turn encourages solid base, not nimble footwork.

Ali vs Foreman, one of the most famous fights in boxing history.

Jesus, you're bad at this. The reason it's famous is because IT'S SO RARE FOR THAT TO WORK. Most people cannot and SHOULD NOT try to use such a strategy. Are you honestly suggesting that because it worked for Muhammad Ali, it'll work for "the average guy on the street?" Me? I'd rather train stuff that's high percentage, not so famous for its rarity.

CM is targetted at people who aren't professional level fighters. That's hardly relevant to the core discussion about CM.

Riiiiiiight. So Muhammad Ali vs. George Foreman...that's your top of mind example as to why it works?

By that logic takedowns don't work because they allow submission experts to submit you from their backs.

No. By your completely inaccurate misinterpretation, maybe. But takedowns fit well into a larger structure of hitting, positioning, submitting, etc.

Wanderlei was also known for his swinging punches, as was Chuck Liddell.

Make you a deal. Once again, you post a bunch of fights where people trained to deal with wide swinging punches using a turtle-up and wait defense, and I'll post some of people who trained to defeat wild swinging punches using crisp, straight punches. Then we'll make a case and see who makes more sense. If you'd like an example of how straight punches work better than covering up, by all means, go back to Ali. Of course, you could also look at almost any low-tier amateur boxing gym, too. The reason it's a common thread is because - NEWS FLASH - it works for average guys too.

Talking about only one fight hardly makes sense when you're discussing a technique that has a much wider scope.

Go back and read my original post after the clip was posted. I was talking about the clip, and calling attention to the result of that fight. Are you seriously so desperate that you can't deal with what I actually said? Are you just not man enough to say, "Shit. I guess I didn't read that. Maybe I misunderstood?"

[migo]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Yup. That's what I've been saying all along! It's no different from what's already out there! My God man...learn to read!

Now you're taking things out of context again. I referred to the video I posted from 1934, so I was clearly referring to not needing CM to make covering work. It's still clearly an improvement over covering where you completely block your field of vision.

I'm not sure. We were talking about Quinton Jackson in a clip someone posted, and in that clip, as well as in the overall context of the fight, Quinton didn't use any effective footwork at all. To me, it looks very much like the defense at the very least encourages people to brace for incoming punches, which in turn encourages solid base, not nimble footwork.

That tells us that Quinton didn't use effective footwork in that fight. Nothing more. You need a much larger sample to work with to make that contention. You'd need to look at other fights Quinton was in to see if he used better footwork when not using it, and you'd also have to look at fights in which other people used it, and compare it to fights in which they didn't and see how their footwork differed.

Jesus, you're bad at this. The reason it's famous is because IT'S SO RARE FOR THAT TO WORK. Most people cannot and SHOULD NOT try to use such a strategy. Are you honestly suggesting that because it worked for Muhammad Ali, it'll work for "the average guy on the street?" Me? I'd rather train stuff that's high percentage, not so famous for its rarity.

A guy on the street doesn't need to hang around for half an hour. He just needs to stay conscious long enough to run.

Riiiiiiight. So Muhammad Ali vs. George Foreman...that's your top of mind example as to why it works?

If there's an example of it working, then clearly it does work.

No. By your completely inaccurate misinterpretation, maybe. But takedowns fit well into a larger structure of hitting, positioning, submitting, etc.

And covering up against punches fits in much the same fashion.

Make you a deal. Once again, you post a bunch of fights where people trained to deal with wide swinging punches using a turtle-up and wait defense, and I'll post some of people who trained to defeat wild swinging punches using crisp, straight punches. Then we'll make a case and see who makes more sense. If you'd like an example of how straight punches work better than covering up, by all means, go back to Ali. Of course, you could also look at almost any low-tier amateur boxing gym, too. The reason it's a common thread is because - NEWS FLASH - it works for average guys too.

I already know of an example of it working, and I already mentioned it. Belfort vs Silva. Thing is Kondo did the same thing, but didn't make it work as well as Belfort did. It works in one situation, and fails in another. Like CM. Doesn't make either one invalid, but you seem to think because of one example of someone using CM getting knocked out, that it's not worth training. I have one example of using counter punching getting you knocked out, by your logic then it's not worth training either.

Go back and read my original post after the clip was posted. I was talking about the clip, and calling attention to the result of that fight. Are you seriously so desperate that you can't deal with what I actually said? Are you just not man enough to say, "Shit. I guess I didn't read that. Maybe I misunderstood?"

I didn't misunderstand at all. You said he got knocked out. You didn't say he got knocked out with knees from the clinch. That's a key piece of information that was missing from your post. Are you not man enough to say, "Shit, I guess I did forget to mention that. Maybe I wasn't being clear?"

[Mike Brewer]

by your logic then it's not worth training either.

That's not what I said, and it's not even what I insinuated. Now you're just flat out lying about me. I said that boxing already teaches covering. I box, and I use boxing methods, so I obviously see a place for covering against punches. Just not the way Quinton did it against Vanderlei. He screwed the pooch royally, and he'd have been better served by fighting than covering up.

Unlike your Man in the Street who only needs to wait a few seconds and escape, Quinton was in a ring, and he needed to fight his way to a win. Laying back showed us that he chose the wrong strategy.

My contention has never been that Crazy Monkey doesn't work. It's been that pure defense in a fight against an offensive fighter is an inferior strategy. It's been that Crazy Monkey is something that no one needed to invent, because the mechanics of covering against punches are already out there and practical and proven. It's been that in that fight - the one posted in the clip under the phrase "What about how Rampage used it in this clip?" (or something to that effect), it was a bad idea.


I've said that there are likely people out there who have, can, and do make it work, and I never discounted it's effectiveness in isolated cases. What I questioned was (a) the need for something different to answer a question that people already had lots of answers to, and (b) that in the clip posted, it was stupid and ended badly for the guy who chose to use it.

Now, as I mentioned in my last PM to you, I'm done with the discussion on my end. I'm finding myself talking in circles, restating the same points that you refuse to acknowledge or, apparently, comprehend. I understand that you're a disciple of the strategy and that I'm not going to change your mind. I also acknowledgethat I have a fully developed brain and that you're not going to change my mind. So if there's anything new to interject, I'm game. But if it's just going over the same tired, boring, plainly silly ground, then the thread's all yours.

Debate is an exchange of ideas - not a constant refusal to acknowledge them, nor the constant redefining of the discussion. If you'd like to debate - actually debate or discuss - then I'm more than willing as I'm sure many here will attest. But I'm all out of energy on this track.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

To pitch in with the flip side...

In the SBG concept as I understand it, the crazy monkey position is part of a Boxing program that is designed to be non-attributes based. They want someone to walk into their gyms, young or old, and be able to walk out with fundementals that aren't exclusive to athletes with 10 years of training. They see the crazy monkey position as a simple base that anyone can learn to defend themselves against punches coming in from a range of angles.

I applaud anyone who tries to bring martial arts to the every day person, people who really need it, and strip away techniques that are unrealistic to learn given the constraints of natural ability. As I say, not my personal cup of tea and not convinced it is a great option for the ring, but I don't believe that is the motivation behind the technique.

Not an expert, could be wrong, I'm sure Bodhi will be along promptly....

Crazy monkey is just a beginning stage, as I understand it.

At the training circle, we use crazy monkey to get people boxing very quickly with no experience at all and we're having a lot of success with it.

People very naturally, after a couple months of CM, move into a more common boxing stance and boxing hand position - only falling back to CM when they are getting bombed on.

And for that it works really well.

I wouldn't prescribe someone learn CM and stick with only CM. I think its necessary to learn more relaxed boxing postures as well.

I do think it gives an awesome base for future boxing instruction, and it teaches "Joe off the Street" to protect his head - and quickly.

Guys learn to slip and bob very naturally after a couple of monthso of CM defense and corner drills.

I like teaching the CM/fortress fighter position for self-defense as well. In ring boxing, you are often up against someone your size and strength. In self defense, you are often up against someone much larger or stronger or both.

The CM system is designed to keep as many punches as possible from getting through. That's important for self-defense, because if the opponent is bigger and stronger just a couple of shots can bring on an advantage you can't regain.

[bodhisattva]

A negative of the crazy monkey position is that both your hands are all the way back at your face - making your shots telegraph a bit more.

That's one reason why we start people out with CM for the first couple of months - after they "get it" we move them on to supplement the knowledge with more relaxed, classic boxing structures.

Then they always have the CM when they are outclassed or getting rocked or simply fighting at very close range - and they have the more open boxing postures for when they want their jab hand closer to the opponent at initiation.

[fire cobra]

A negative of boxing is it gets beat by Muay Thai and grappling most of the time so the question could be why box?!

[Joe Hubbard]

Body mechanics dude!

Out

Joe

[fire cobra]

Please dont get me wrong,i love boxing,but the fact is it gets owned by Muay Thai and Grappling,the body mechanics for both of those methods are far different to the body mechanics in boxing,they just dont fit,its a round peg in a square box as i see it.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by bodhisattva

Crazy monkey is just a beginning stage, as I understand it.

.....The CM system is designed to keep as many punches as possible from getting through. That's important for self-defense, because if the opponent is bigger and stronger just a couple of shots can bring on an advantage you can't regain.

Monkey styles are known for DECEPTION and trickery. They are not passive in defense at all.

Even backing up or guarding your head is intended to FEED a position of weakness. A ruse. A feint.

The elbows are weapons to destroy weapons. Some folks just can't get past covering up...

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by fire cobra

Please dont get me wrong,i love boxing,but the fact is it gets owned by Muay Thai and Grappling,the body mechanics for both of those methods are far different to the body mechanics in boxing,they just dont fit,its a round peg in a square box as i see it.

You're going to have to help me out here brother.

When did Boxing start to get owned like this, have I missed that?

A boxer in the Thai ring, sure he's going to be up against it, however the reverse is completely true of a Thai in a boxing ring. A boxer on the mat with a grappler, yeah he will get owned, but so will a grappler in the boxer's ring. So not sure I follow so far.

OK so MMA. Well, boxing is just a component of MMA, in the same way kicks, clinch, knees, elbows and grappling are just a component. I haven't seen boxing get owned by another component of MMA, I have seen MMA fighters get owned by better MMA fighters.

So, to the pavement arena. Every serious altercation I have been in has started and finished in conversation range, where hands are king, and all my primary tools have come from Boxing. All of the best people I have worked alongside in this arena also employ Boxing as their primary arsenal, to awesome effect.

So all in all brother I hope you don't mind if I'm still a little confused, and just wondered when Boxing started to get so owned?

[fire cobra]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

You're going to have to help me out here brother.

When did Boxing start to get owned like this, have I missed that?

A boxer in the Thai ring, sure he's going to be up against it, however the reverse is completely true of a Thai in a boxing ring. A boxer on the mat with a grappler, yeah he will get owned, but so will a grappler in the boxer's ring. So not sure I follow so far.

OK so MMA. Well, boxing is just a component of MMA, in the same way kicks, clinch, knees, elbows and grappling are just a component. I haven't seen boxing get owned by another component of MMA, I have seen MMA fighters get owned by better MMA fighters.

So, to the pavement arena. Every serious altercation I have been in has started and finished in conversation range, where hands are king, and all my primary tools have come from Boxing. All of the best people I have worked alongside in this arena also employ Boxing as their primary arsenal, to awesome effect.

So all in all brother I hope you don't mind if I'm still a little confused, and just wondered when Boxing started to get so owned?

Hi Michael,

The most recent evidence on a world level is in K1,most of the boxers that have entered have done ok but get beat,and thats K1 not Muay Thai, they cant handle the low kick mainly,if it was in Muay Thai ring with knee/elbow and clinch then even worse for them im afraid.

More evidence is in the Muay Thai rings(of thailand) themselves the thai fighters that like to punch still have to learn the other weapon defence and attacks or they just dont stand a chance,after that they have a punchers chance.

Yet more evidence(personal) is in the local gyms,all the Muay Thai coaches that i know have had either boxers come in to train or even challenge(had that a lot myself in the early days)the feedback from the boxers is always the same and puts what we do in a positive light.

Even in a Boxing only match the Muay Thai/Kickboxer has a better chance than the other way around,given that the punches are the same,this is evidenced by the ammount of World Boxing Champions that have come from Thailand and a Muay Thai background.

My main point on this though is for a MMA event i cant understand why fighters train boxing a lot when they could train all the stand up weapons,punch,kick,knee and elbow(plus clinch).

There is plenty of evidence that boxers get taken down etc in a MMA enviroment is there not?.

Now if we are talking about punching(not Boxing) then the value of good punching in any enviroment is a great asset,there are many good punchers in the Muay Thai rings.

And lastly for the street,i have heard a lot from doorman friends that say boxers dont do all that well in a scrap that stems from doorwork(ie when called out) the main reason they give for this is that combinations dont work so good,far better to punch twice with the same hand at the same target(ie a double right hand to jaw line).

As you can see i make a distinction beetween Boxing and Punching,punching is valuable in any enviroment imho,Boxing with its wide stance turned in front foot,bent upper body position etc has to be adapted for Kickboxing,Muay Thai and MMA(perhaps the street to),i do realise there are different ways to box,upright on the toes,or weight forward, bobbing ,slipping etc.

Michael i love Boxing,the skills that can be developed are awesome,the training methods can benefit any fighting art,and i actually think that a 12 round high level boxing match is the hardest of all the contact sports(ive competed in,Muay Thai,Kick Boxing,and wrestling) getting hit in the body and chin by a good pro must be hell and they deserve every penny the get for doing it,but i stand by what i said(or meant!) Boxers get owned in Muay Thai,KickBoxing,and MMA.

Thanks for making me think Michael,i always value your opinions,on this one we differ brother,

All the best.

[Michael Wright]

Thank you for such a great reply, that gives me far more insight into where you were coming from, and some very good points. No problems with your views, all valid, but equally I stand by my position. The very same is true in reverse.

For every Boxer who gets owned in a Thai ring, K1 event, Kickboxing arena, MMA fight, or on the pavement - I can show you a martial artist who gets owned by a Boxer.

I am both a martial artist and someone who trains Boxing, so its not my intention to bias the argument one way or the other, but perhaps to even out what I felt was a rather sweeping generalisation.

Its always great to speak to you too, and I am happy for us to differ. My view point comes from the very painful move from one arena into the other, as the saying goes "I was that soldier".

Peace.

[fire cobra]

Michael,

When it comes to "Martial Artists" getting owned by boxers im in total agreement with you,i suppose i would put Muay Thai,MMA,Boxing wrestling and bjj in the combatative sports bracket though its participants are very much fighters!.

Respect brother.

[Michael Wright]

Tried to pos rep you, for that's a great parting shot.

...but I have to spread some around :0(