Tweet
Brushing the eye of a fat, drunk punk is not my idea of testing. There is a lot of debate wether hitting each other actually helps you get used to it or if it is just self torture.
-
-
Oh my word! I call bullshite on EmptyneSs. I guess this is where the trolls seek sanctuary from when they get flamed on Bullshido.com
Are you sure you're not pstevens in disguise or his long lost twin?
Man, this topic has been beaten to death and has been found severly wanting - use a search function or Google the topic.
Here's how I know that you're a n00b and not qualified to offer such an ill-informed opinion. I am now being a dick - There's this chemical in your body called "adenaline" that courses through your body during fights that allows you to take more punishment than in a non-altercation/training event. So getting hit in the balls won't stop some people and will hurt like a mother only after. We also have this funny ability during stand-up to put our hands in front of our face, slightly turn and hunch our head to make it less of a target, and should someone be attacking our eyes, we have this weird reflex to close them and move them away, along with the memory of not letting it happen again.
I'm not saying that the "deadly and vulnerable" strikes don't work - in fact in a street fight use whatever you got and unleash your fury.
However, you're getting ripped off if your MA tuition is about letting you practice gouges and groin shots. To bank on those fight finishing techniques is folly.
Fight/SD training is all about "aliveness" (training with resisting opponents who don't give you their friggin' wrist, keep their head up and eyes wide open for easy plumming, or having their legs spread eagle) and proper positioning & techniques. How in the blue hell are you gonna gouge or go for the groin with someone who has the mount or knee on stomach? Try doing those "fight finishers" on a Matt Hughs or even a BJJ purist - it'll lead to a F'D up face and two broken arms/two broken legs, instead of the one limb or if they're nice they'll just put you to sleep. Why in the blue hell would you go for the eyes or teabag with a striker like Crocop? - he's got a better vulnerable strike that'll knock you into next friday.
Lastly, yeah the incidentle eye gouge worked on Tito, but do you think Lidell's pre-fight training consisted of that? Heck no - he trained in striking and grappling/submissions.Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson
u missed the point of what i was saying. i stated i wasnt talking about mma, i never said to only rely on these techniques, my friend doesnt bank on these moves its only a small part of a larger arsenal, and nor did i say i practice them. I do muay thai and western boxing at the moment, and since it does not really consist of eye attacks and deliberate groin shots, i was surprised at how my friend was able to use them. Plus i never said these techniques were to stop people, they are just a part of a combination. u know, nothing u said really had a point or was relivent, u only seemed to not understand anything i had posted earlier, but w/e i guess im a noob so what do i know.Comment
-
That is exactly what you are discussing:
You friend survived the fight not because he used the 'poke the eye' theory and the 'vulnerable spots striking' but rely on the average 'pound and keep pounding' rules.
You might say the 'brush' did the trick but he could have used a jab for all i care.
He could have been out punch by a better striker. Making his MA training useless.
Such story only proves that techniques that cannot be use a 100% against an 'unwilling' training partner will never be used in a fight because such people would have no clue/reflexes/experience how to apply such techniques for real.
So all such 'vulnerable spots' training was useless. He is better off doing more push up rather that doing such drills or more like join a Thai Box club that will teach him proper striking skills.
Since you are going to College, you must understand the empirical research concept.
I do not accept the fetishism for legend and myths when it comes to MA.Comment
-
To give an example, in Judo if one player is caught in an arm lock from underneath by the opposing player and he succeeds in standing up, the referee stops the action and both players resume from the a standing position. Consequently there is no great need for a technique to defend an arm lock from underneath, since by merely standing up you will be saved by the referee. In a real fight, however, the arm lock from underneath can be successfully applied even when the opposing player stands up (this often happens in medern MMA events). In recognition to this fact, in BJJ the match continues when one player stands up while caught in arm lock from underneath. As a result there is a direct need for a set of techniques to escapes such arm lock. That is BJJ.Originally posted by EmptyneSsComment
-
EmptyneSs,
Since you say I haven't read your thread accurately, let me dismantle some major points in your arguement and I urge to respond directly to the points of contention.
it seems to me there is a alot of people that undersestimate striking and think grapplers have a better chance vs a striker
- I think if you dig deeper you'll find that most people DO NOT underestimate striking.
- You may have gotten this impression because (with all other things being equal) grapplers do have a STATISTICAL advantage over a striker. This advantage disappears once a grapppler faces a fighter with both grappling and striking prowess.
so if u fight someone in the street with a ufc mentality or a bjj mentality, u could get hurt
- I know what you're trying to say, but at the same time I reading something else. It's true, if you're fighting an opponent with UFC or BJJ skills/mindset, you could get hurt in a big, big way. Why? Because they train/fight with dynamic, fully resisting opponents. Yes MMA and street fighting is different but the leap/transition into self-defence is not that great. Imagine the leap needed to go from training with static, cooperative partners, katas, board breaking, point sparring into a pressure cooker of a situation that real fighting is.
striking is rediculously effective in my opinion. it makes ur reflexes, and sight very fast, it gives u aweosme footwork wich can help u evade or attack, u leran to be acurate and can determine range well and set up combos
- Absolutely, I agree with your above statement - to a certain extent. Striking is very effective in the range that it is effective in. It can be nullified once that effective range is out of reach of closed in on (standing outside of their effective range and closing in on it such as the cling or takedown). While it's true that strikers can have good footwork, I will argue this footwork is made with another striker in mind as an opponent and almost useless against a proficient takedown artist (While Chuck Lidell is an awesome striker, his footwork for evading takedowns is all wrestling/grappling).
In real life u dont really have time to roll around on the ground trying to get an armbar or trying to sink in a choke, People in bjj can take there time, roll around, work for an armbar or choke
- There is an implication by you that grappling/submission fighting is slow and dangerous in a street fight. I think because of your lack of ground fighting experience, "i do some bjj now," and observations in class or of MMA events, you're making a faulty assumption. While true, staying too long on the ground is dangerous, grappling/submission fighting in "real life" can happen very quickly (watch "101 Submissions"). Roll with some highly skilled grapplers and you'll fiind that even proficient white and blue belts in BJJ can dispense with a novice in a flash. They're only "rolling around on the ground" because the other person knows how to "roll" also. A master grappler can easily spike a novice into the ground (literally knocking the MOFO out) and doesn't need to roll around with him (the "knee on stomach" position is a very versatile and punishing position).
In kajukenbo they will throw multiuple strikes to ur throat, groin, or gouge ur eyes or kick in ur knee
- Other than your friend, can you provide readers other instances or even better 3rd party information supporting the effectiveness of the above statement. Man, those techs. are low percentage shots (unless it comes from a "sucker punch" perspective and/or your opponent is asleep to begin with) and to use them as a crutch to begin/set-up your offensive or as a finisher is not being smart. My advice (and many others) is to go for spots with the most payoff - i.e head, body shots, the side of the leg/knee area. Do you actually know how hard it is to kick in someone's knee from the front and disable them? Maybe on your granny's arthritic knee or with someone whose fighting stance consists of their legs being straight and their feet caught in a hole.
anyway, if u disagree its cool. this was just a common sense, down to earth opinion of mine.
- Look man, I apologize for being kurt in my earlier post. You are entitled to your opinion - which is all that it is. The difference between an opinion piece and a well thought out argument is the use of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning - the problem with "common sense" is that it is not all that common.
Finally, to everyone reading this forum, I urge everyone to respond to these type of threads because it encourages good discourse and serves to educate. I know many of you like me hate responding to threads like these because this topic is so old and tired, but remember, there are many young ones (and sadly old ones) coming up in MA who take everything their Sensei, friend, or "Black Belt" advertisement has to say as gospel.
It only takes good men and women to do nothing, to let evil and ignorance triumph
Comment
-
.............................................................Originally posted by Ronson
Correct.Comment
-
Wow, the perfect thread for me. I used to study Kajukembo, moved to Houston and studied Muay Thai, MMA, and grappling, then moved back and started up on Kajukembo again. I now study Kajukembo two days a week and kickboxing and grappling on the alternate days, so this is pretty much a spot on topic for me.
Unfortunately, I've also been in this damn windowless office all day and I've got to get out of here before I go nuts. I'll get back to you guys shortly--Comment
-
not to sound dumb but what is mma?Comment
-
MMA=Mat Martial Arts, wel suited for working on a soft ground. JKOriginally posted by sirmattu
Mixed is what the first M stands for, Mixed as in Mixing 1 or more striking Arts with 1 or more grabling arts ( actually groundfighting is more what is meant)
Some go further and say contacts stiking arts only
Lots of sparring, free or semi free ( e.g. working from the guard)
And not the groupwise instruction as known from arts like Karate
Muay Thai and Brazilian Ju Jutsu are the most used arts in MMA schools often with some extra Boxing instruction
In the US you will find a lot of schools that have a wrestling base
In Europe a lot of schools are striking based and in russia and other former soviet countries, a lot of sambo based
In 5 to 10 years the competition will have ceated a more final form and most will be training the same stuff, which will be a bit of all
And because people compete in both UFC as well as in Pride, it overlaps a bit in the restrictions which nullifies them when it comes to trainingComment
-
thx toudiyama
Comment
Comment