āThe author also notes that only once in the UFC has a throw been the deciding technique, which is interesting.ā
Itās also false. Shamrock/Zinoviev, Ortiz/Tanner, and Hughes/Newton 1 all were KOs from a takedown/throw, just off the top of my head. You could argue the Johnston/Nasri fight, as well. This is discounting any fights where a throw or takedown led directly to a dominating position or finishing technique (a la Remco Pardoel v Orlando Weit). From your synopsis, Iām not terribly impressed with the author of this article, and Iām thinking itās highly unlikely he watched every UFC fight, let alone every fight.
āThat I think may be causing a new flaw to emerge in martial artsā¦the willingness to fall without proper caution because of the advantages that can be gained by heading down to the ground.ā
This Iād have to agree with, though. I gave up arguing with the āIād just pull guardā BJJ brigade years ago, for much the same reason I donāt advocate non-grapplers add grappling to their training - the evidence is there, and if theyāre too dumb to see it, screw 'em.
Sport-specific training (as opposed to sport-based training) can inspire some uniquely stupid tactics for Real Fights ā¢. āFull contactā karate guys donāt guard their face well, 'cause no one tries to punch it. Boxers donāt do much in a clinch, 'cause refs break them up. Wrestlers and judoka give up their back too easily, and BJJers pull guard.
I wonder if concrete-floored vale tudo would fly in Brazil?
Lee Casebolt
Whew, thank God thereās nothing wrong with TKD or else Iād be scewed.:eek:
mabye the next trend will be well-trained kung fu 
TKD is the deadliest form on earth, bar nun.
..
ā¦
ā¦
:eek:
'Specially ATA (American Tae Kwon Do ASSociation). They duh bom!!!
:rolleyes:
Very funny Vash, considering it comes from a guy whose arts practitioners are so lame they couldnāt even have beginners kata!
Rei!
Yeah, We Suck.
Yeah, we do suck. Starting next month or two, Iāll suggest, nay, DEMAND, that all of our classes start and end with thirty minutes of two-step kata and thirty-point bows!
The future is later!!!
Oh, RE MasterKiller and the BJ phenom . . .
Did she ever run track? I think a buddy of mine knew her . . .
Originally posted by Serpent
[B]BJJ exposed a sport weakness under a certain set of rules.
How often did you hear about BJJ people successfully taking out street attackers, etc.?
[/B]
funny enough i was recently viewing a royce gracie street defence book and all the texts are basic good kungfu kata applications!!? :)ā¦whatās all the fuss:)
Diegoā¦we all think ROYCE was smoking crack when he released that BOOK! That book is HORRIBLEā¦and yesā¦itās like 1 step 2 step kata drills. I suggest getting the MASTERING JUJITSU by Royceās cousinā¦RENZO GRACIEā¦by farā¦much better than the crap Royce published.
Re: Serpent
Originally posted by joedoe
That is all true also. However, even a schoolyard bully knows to sit on the personās chest/abdomen once they have them on the ground, and that from there you have far superior position for ending the altercation.
Yeah, true, but my system has taught some groundfighting as most complete kung fu systems will. The people that think the armbar was a Gracie invention really bother me! 
Originally posted by SevenStar
[B]
The majority of the people I know that have been in bar fightrs were high school wrestlersā¦ [/B]
Thatās a fairly uniquely American thing. High school wrestling is pretty unheard of in lots of other countries. However, basic groundfighting techs that should be included in all good systems should give you the tools to deal with this.
This is a circular argument anyway. Itās a valid point, but not that relevant.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
Serpent:
I know, personally, two people who have used their BJJ in a streetfight. One broke his opponents arm and ran like hell. The other managed to reverse position, make a hole, and run like hell in a group situation. That opportunity may never have existed if he hadnāt taken BJJ.
Sure, it could prove useful in a street fight, as any kind of fight training could. But itās primarily a sport style and designed that way.
As for your argument, how many people you might get in a brawl with are trained fighters of any sort? Thereās no ultimate style, but I sure donāt understand what the problem is with āgoing to the experts,ā to get what you want/need.
Couldnāt agree more. But I see BJJ as the experts in sport fighting and other systems as the experts in stuff thatās more street oriented. And, again I reiterate, a good system like this will include some goundfighting and grappling techs.
Have to agree with Serpent situations and opponents will vary according to location.
Back home chances of meeting a wrestler, American football players, hockey player or similar were slim.
Said that I will stay far aware from Rugby players, those are bad news.
Most problems were the 18yr old on their first leave from their compulsory military service when the āDrugā started to wear off.
Seeya.
Yeah, true, but my system has taught some groundfighting as most complete kung fu systems will.
Iām betting in much the same way that BJJ teaches ātakedowns,ā ie, kinda sketchy when compared with guys who really know how to do it.
But itās primarily a sport style and designed that way.
Not necessarily. My experience and that of others is different than your conjecture.
But I see BJJ as the experts in sport fighting and other systems as the experts in stuff thatās more street oriented.
Weāve all got rules in our training. To pretend otherwise is a joke. Whatās more realistic? Randori-style arts emphasize taking out things like eye-gouging, groin shots, throat strikes, etc so you can practice your techniques full speed. Some arts āacknowledgeā that the eye-strike āwould have got themā when they spar. I, for one, have never seen any school, ātraditionalā or āsportiveā practice these types of techniques full speed. Which approach is more vaild? One way may leave you vulnerable to certain techniques, the other may leave you vulnerable cause you arenāt REALLY used to landing a good chunk of the stuff you train.
So Iām afraid I donāt buy your distinctionājust like somebody says āOh, well even though weāre pulling it NOW, a FIGHTās different!ā Kinda the same with āsport.ā Iām not going to rush up to my opponent, pull guard and try to flower sweep him over cause Iāll get fāed up, any more than somebody using a groin shot would accidentally tap their opponent in the jimmy vice pounding his nuts through the top of his head.
And, again I reiterate, a good system like this will include some goundfighting and grappling techs.
In the same way WC teaches you to throw, and SC teaches you to knock out people by punching? Iāll take my chances with wrestling, Judo, SC and BJJ rather than some non-grappling oriented art, thanks, just as I donāt expect to learn to punch and kick really well in these arts.
I really donāt get what the problem is for acknowledging certain arts have expertise in certain things and might be listened to on those matters.
I think BJJ has influenced a lot of people in the more traditional Martial arts. I practice Judo semi-regulary and I can tell you that it looks like a BJJ class for the most. More than half the lesson is Ne-Waza!..When I first did Judo maybe 25 years ago, Ne-Waza was maybe only 20% of the total time practice. BJJ influenceā¦
We see a lot of Kung Fu schools that are integrating āGround workā in their curriculum. It can be a complement to any styles of Kung fu without ādenaturingā the art!..
I think it is āeverywhereā to stay.
Old Jong,
I agree. Groundfighting, long neglected, is here to stay. Further people are realizing that because ground and standing are so different, you can practice both without compromising either.
TKD is the deadliest form on earth, bar nun.
Only for the person trying to use it.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
[B]
Iām betting in much the same way that BJJ teaches ātakedowns,ā ie, kinda sketchy when compared with guys who really know how to do it.
Not necessarily. My experience and that of others is different than your conjecture.
Weāve all got rules in our training. To pretend otherwise is a joke. Whatās more realistic? Randori-style arts emphasize taking out things like eye-gouging, groin shots, throat strikes, etc so you can practice your techniques full speed. Some arts āacknowledgeā that the eye-strike āwould have got themā when they spar. I, for one, have never seen any school, ātraditionalā or āsportiveā practice these types of techniques full speed. Which approach is more vaild? One way may leave you vulnerable to certain techniques, the other may leave you vulnerable cause you arenāt REALLY used to landing a good chunk of the stuff you train.
So Iām afraid I donāt buy your distinctionājust like somebody says āOh, well even though weāre pulling it NOW, a FIGHTās different!ā Kinda the same with āsport.ā Iām not going to rush up to my opponent, pull guard and try to flower sweep him over cause Iāll get fāed up, any more than somebody using a groin shot would accidentally tap their opponent in the jimmy vice pounding his nuts through the top of his head.
In the same way WC teaches you to throw, and SC teaches you to knock out people by punching? Iāll take my chances with wrestling, Judo, SC and BJJ rather than some non-grappling oriented art, thanks, just as I donāt expect to learn to punch and kick really well in these arts.
I really donāt get what the problem is for acknowledging certain arts have expertise in certain things and might be listened to on those matters. [/B]
MP has double legged the correct, mounted it and viciously pounded it.
You basically stole the words outta my mouth.
I really donāt get what the problem is for acknowledging certain arts have expertise in certain things and might be listened to on those matters.
I donāt think anyone has a problem with acknowledging that grappling arts have more expertise in grappling than striking arts; the issue is only debated when grapplers claim to have cornered the market on using and/or inventing ground and submission techniques.