muay thai blocking

[cfr]

I posted this question a while back and surprisingly only got one response. So here it goes again.
My very limited MA experience is this:
6 months in a guys garage. A combination of kickboxing, bjj, judo,
and Jap jui jutsu. He moved away.
5 months Hapkido. Cant say I really beleived in it.
3 months Kenpo. Left due to foot injury that Im still recovering from.
So my new question is:
Watching UFC's I have noticed that blocking in any traditional sense is non existant. Ive always doubted regular Karate blocks and that reemphasized it for me. However, parrying , redirecting, deflecting has always made sense to me. Does Muay Thai do any of this? My guess is that it is purely keeping the hands up trying to not get hit. If so, how does that do without gloves? I mean after all, it would easier to get a non gloved hand through a small opening that it would a gloved one. Ive often wondered watching UFC's if an attempt to parry a punch would have been benifial to the guy getting smacked in the head while just trying to keep his hands up? All insight would be appreciated.

[#42]

Because I'm no native english speaker, and because I probably distracted you in my last reply by writing stuff
that you didn't ask for in the first place I'l give it a second try and answer just your questions in a terse manner.


1. You assume correctly, that shotkan-style blocking
and similar stuff in other styles is _not_ apropriate
in a real fight setting and that deflecting, parading, evading, etc. is the way to go.

2. Modern Muay thai, like it is taught today in many places, does usally _not_ provide for the most efficient defensive technique against bareknuckle striking and is in this regard similar to (kick)boxing technique.
There may be some exceptions though(certain gyms/trainers, etc).

3.An attempt to parry a punch would _most certainly_ have been beneficial to the guy you where referring to in your post, that is if he still (or at all) had the capability and skill to do so. On the other hand one has to see that many of those guys fighting today in the UFC and similar contests are somehow influenced by western (kick)boxing styles when it comes to punching and defending against a punch. In those styles relativly heavy gloves are utilized these days and many fighters there have degenerated to relying heavyly on static defense. Basically one can asume that the adaption of most modern fighters to bareknuckle style rules still hasn't completed or remains incomplete in some regards.

In case it matters to you, I started out with Muay thai in 1985, did work with pro-boxers for some years, and am doing my own stuff by know (self defence).

[Fighter]

The UFC is crap. The fighters are effective in the UFC but if it came to a real NHB streetfight there would be know way most of them would win.

as #42 said parring, bobbing and weaving are much better than the blocks most of the UFC fighters use.

[#42]

Thanks, fighter...;-)
Since I don't speak english particularily well,
I'm sometimes afraid to sound stupid and not to
get my message across, so I'm happy you seem to understand my post. Thanks again!

[#42]

Sorry I missposted my last one...
It was supposed to answer Fighters post in the
'new muay thai question' thread posted earlier!

[cfr]

thai blocking

Originally posted by Fighter
The UFC is crap. The fighters are effective in the UFC but if it came to a real NHB streetfight there would be know way most of them would win.

as #42 said parring, bobbing and weaving are much better than the blocks most of the UFC fighters use.

[cfr]

thai blocking

Originally posted by Fighter
The UFC is crap. The fighters are effective in the UFC but if it came to a real NHB streetfight there would be know way most of them would win.

as #42 said parring, bobbing and weaving are much better than the blocks most of the UFC fighters use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
woops.
Hey not that Im trying to argue or disagree in the least, but why do think think most UFC'ers would lose street fights? IMHO it seems as though they would excel. I am never going to get in a ring for the prize fight. (UFC or MT) So now wondering about theyre blocking abilities Ive got to wonder why I would consider taking this art. I see its true values over most styles. But blocking is kind an important thing. It seems as though the best knee'ing, elbow'ing, low kicking in the world are irrelevant if someone smacks me in the face first because I couldnt block very well. Again, I see its absolute power, but to lack blocking makes me reconsider.

[GrdStorm]

Hey I was just watching some NHB fights and just to point something out... They don't use any fancy blocks... because they absorb a lot of the damage if not just move away from an attack. You can't compare yourself with UFC guys because NHB fighters are most likely a lot tougher than the normal human being

[Fighter]

Exactly Grdstorm.

The UFC first started out as a NHB tounament but there are a lot of rules IMEAN A LOT OF RULES.

http://www.ufc.tv

Have a look at their rules there is probably more rules there than there is in Boxing.

So today Id have to say NHB fighters are much better fighters than a lot of fighters in the UFC.

[cfr]

Originally posted by Fighter

as #42 said parring, bobbing and weaving are much better than the blocks most of the UFC fighters use. [/B]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which is as I suspected. But what I still dont get though is why MT/ boxing are so popular for the guys in UFC's.

[#42]

Since Muay Thai at least provides for working knee, elbow, clinching, some throws and lowkicking ( you have no protection on your knees, elbows, shins) it has far more to offer than for example kickboxing and boxing even if it shares their insufficiencies when it comes to punching/defending against a punch under bareknuckle conditions. Additonally it's a very proven and exclusivly fullcontact centric style with no superflous elements in it( actually it has a much longer history to it than even most so called 'traditonal' styles). Most stuff tought in this sport at least works to a certain degree, which is far more than many other styles can claim for them. This all makes up for a decent supplement to fullcontact groundfighting. As for boxing, well, it has a proven fullcontact track record too, albeith only for punching/punch-defense. Still it is a huge classic in our(western) culture and very popular in general. Most fullcontact people at least somehow have grown up with it be it directly or indirectly by practising one of the many styles that incorporate western boxing-technique. This makes fullcontact punching and punch-defense synonymous with boxing technique for many fighters and lets them ignore
obvious insuffiencies. Further this fact is added to by many styles claiming to be aimed primarly at selfdefense/bareknuckle turning out being bizzare and fake instead and not putting out good streetfighters at all contradicting their own claims. This of cause doesn't mean you couln't improve on todays preferred fullontact styles. It just means that many styles who should be able to improve on them because they are aimed at a bareknuckle/seldefense style cenario in the first place fail miserably in doing so.

[Fighter]

Cool.

Another great post by #42.

As you can see what dominates the UFC scene? BJJ, Wrestling, Submission etc. Most of these styles are directed at grappling, wrestling etc. So what are the most well know striking arts? Boxing, Muay Thai, Kickboxing etc. So it would seem natural to cross train in A grappling art and a striking art.

Hope this helped.

[#42]

I would like to add a few words to my last post.
There is a particular advantage to many fullcontact sports styles over most selfdefense oriented styles.
It consists in that the relatively crude and few techniques in many fullcontact sports oriented styles don't make you waste much of your time learning them. Rather you make a lot of sparring and just try out and in many cases end up doing what works best for you any way . Most important you expose yourself to pressure thereby training the single most vital aspect of fighting, the mental aspect.
In contrast many (so called) selfdefense/combat oriented styles have some pretty complicated technique to them that more often than not turns out to be totally bullshit and together with other uneccessary elements of the training just creates a huge waste of time .
Add to that, that many selfdefense/combat styles don't emphasize sparring properly and thereby prevent you from building your mental capability to deal with stress and it becomes obvious why their practitioners tend to fail more often in a streetfight than those of a sports fullcontact style( beware of exceptions though!!;-) With the right mentallity you can compensate a lot! ).

On the otherhand this is of cause _not_ how it was supposed to be!
A proper selfdefense style _should_ certainly provide the most _effective_ techniques _only_ (instead of bullshit ...). It also _should_ focus on sparring and _not_ on useless stuff, but in many styles that's simply not the case.

So you basically are pretty much on your own in weighing the facts and determining what style would suit you the most.

Myself I, even though starting out with a fullcontact-sports style(muay thai), have taken the approach of rather adhering to certain princples, than to styles, grades etc.
I lined out most of those principles in an earlier post to the 'new muay thai question' thread. My sparring partners are often practitioners of fullcontact-sports styles and I simply try to deal with them through applying my own priciple and technique which works pretty well by now. Basically there is only one distinctive way the human physique is build, only one set of mechanicanical priciples in physics and only one way to move relaxed and naturally.
Either a technique/style adheres to that or not.
Also tactical implications can easyly be determined by applying some basic
logical reasoning(see my earlier post).
Either a style adheres to that or not.

In case you chose a distinctive style just take care it gives you enough freedom to experiment(or perfect technique, but certainly I have not come across that one up to this point in time) and applies proper contact sparring in any range . The rest is up to you.

Finally a little advice adding to the priciples I lined out in one of my posts.
It's basically a mental one.
Remember when you where playing basketball and you
had to block a player from getting into a good scoring position or passing the ball to someone else being in such a position?! You had to watch both the
player with the ball and anybody he could probably pass the ball to not letting the attention become atached entirely to either one or another yet still being alert . This
is pretty similar to how you have to handle fighting. Don't let your attention become
atached to either your oponent's hands, feet, head or any other body part. Don't let your attention become atached to any of your own movements or a part therof nor your body in general. In case of more than just one oponent don't let your attention become attached to either one of them.
Yet still be aware of anything, just don't let you get hypnotized by some single aspect of the whole cenario. Basicaly stay right in the middle of things with your
mental focus and try get relaxed and comfortable with it but without losing yourself in
daydreams or something like that.

O.K, I'm finished allready ;-)

[#42]

Thanks again fighter;-)

[#42]

The last sentence of the last long post I made in this thread should have been:

'Basicaly stay right in the middle of _everything_ with your mental focus and try to get relaxed and comfortable with it but without losing yourself in daydreams or something like that.'

Perhaps it makes more sense that way. Don't know exactly how to make the sentence sound right(my english is not native). I hope you get my message anyway...