Ok, i’m sure you guys will let me know if i’m way off here, but me and Shifu often times discuss how a CMA practitioner would do against a BJJ style. Now granted the Monks trained for more warlike situations as opposed to one on one, however, in most styles pressure points are very common and a very good weapon. A real skilled Kung Fu practitioner (not saying i’m one) could easily take advantage of a man diving at his legs trying to take him down by hitting him with pressure points shots to the temple as well as other parts of the head. If someone gets hit squared in a pressure point used for a destructive purpose, they aren’t going to be able to continue trying to take me down (UFC however doesn’t allow pressure point strikes). It would take a highly skilled practitioner to hit a target that small, or to just be that precise, however, a true master would use this, and therefore have a great weapon against ground fighters.
What warlike situations did the monks train for? The best bet and its been said by better here, is that to learn to defend against groundfighting, you need to practice groundfighting.
Answer this: Do you train to defend against a takedown as much as a grappler trains to take a person down. If the answer is no, you might have a surprise waiting for you if you fight a grappler.
Hi. I understand the theory behind what you are saying, but I do not feel that it has proven to have much validity in actual practice. Pressure points have been allowed for decades in many MMA/NHB competitions such as Vale Tudo in Brazil (and plenty of kung fu guys have fought in Brazil). I have never seen pressure points win any fights. I’ve had all sorts of people demonstrate pressure point techniques on me and I’ve yet to find one who could actually do anymore than annoy a strong resisting opponent. Not saying its impossible, but I am saying that pressure points have yet to be proven effective in realistic application, from what most of us have seen. But to be fair, I guess we haven’t seen very many experts in pressure point fighting in modern competition so perhaps it hasn’t been given a fair chance yet. The only specific examples I can think of are in two earlier UFCs: Ryan Parker, a black belt in Okinawan Te and an alleged expert in pressure point striking fought Judo champion Remco Pardoel. And Baguazhang fighter Thomas Ramirez also claimed knowledge in such techniques when he fought Don Frye in UFC 8(?) Ramirez didn’t get much of a chance to demonstrate his knowledge in that area, as he was KO’ed seconds into the fight. Parker’s fight on the other hand, was long and drawn out and very close range. You can actually see him attempt his techniques repeatedly, to no real effect. Pardoel controlled the fight 100%. But then maybe Parker wasn’t any good.
What’s wrong with learning to sprawl? It directly addresses a skilled (and non-skilled) takedown attempt, and it’s not a terribly difficult technique to learn.
“And Baguazhang fighter Thomas Ramirez also claimed knowledge in such techniques when he fought Don Frye…”
For the record, I think Ramirez’s style was billed as “Pa Kua Chan” and it was listed as a “hybrid style”. Like maybe he was trying to say it was not the same as Baguazhang (or that the UFC people didn’t know what Ba Gua was ). He said he was undefeated in hundreds of streetfights. If he counts pushing people out of his way at the buffet line as fights then I absolutely believe his claim. Well no matter, “The Predator” made him a footnote in history.
“Answer this: Do you train to defend against a takedown as much as a grappler trains to take a person down. If the answer is no, you might have a surprise waiting for you if you fight a grappler.”
Ryu I was simply talking theory. I didn’t say I coudl do it, and i didn’t take ne thing away from BJJ. All I said is that it was tool, just like u. So don’t be a pr!ck all the time ok
But that is exactly the point. In theory, I could beat every fighter in the world. In practice it is a whole different matter. You can talk about what you could do all you want, but unless you try it that is all it is - talk.
Every time I come on this board it’s always “OMG STRIKERS VS. GRAPPLARS!@!@#! IAM TEH BEST I WIL TAEK YOU DOWN WITH TEH ARMBAR AND A FLYING NUTSAC!@@111 ^_____^”
apeters-Theories are only useful if they can be applied. Ryu is NOT being a *****. He’s saying if you want to beat a grappler, go train against one–don’t work from theories–do it. There’s nothing *****like about that, in my mind.
AWWWWW…ok you people think i’m talking about myself. I probably couldn’t do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.
Originally posted by apeters28 AWWWWW…ok you people think i’m talking about myself. I probably couldn’t do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.
Does he do empty force too, as well as birthdays and bar-mitzvahs?
Originally posted by apeters28 AWWWWW…ok you people think i’m talking about myself. I probably couldn’t do it, but I know my shifu could, so thats where it goes from theory to practice. A lot of masters could, and when u become proficient at Kung Fu, and become extremely advanced it no longer is theory, its practical. So therefore they would have a weapon against a grappler.
You know he could? Has he, or is this still theory?
I know my sifu could too - he could beat any fighter in the whole world
Yet another quality thread on KFO.
Yet another reverse troll trying to get the grapplers to dis’ kung fu.
Yet another…
Yet another…
Yet another…
Yet another…
Yet another…
Yet another…
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
To be fair to the lad, its all very well saying “go do it” but we are on an internet forum, so if we’re here, we’re talking theory.
I do agree that these things have to be road tested. But I don’t think people should be lambasted for theorising on an internet discussion forum. Although this has been done to death.
Im gonna cry foul in a harsh like mannor.
This post is a troll, your trying to be nice but this is obviously a troll. Proof is no further away than your profile…
"I’m a 17 year old high school student who holds a black sash. The style of Kung Fu I practice does a lot of hard full contact sparring, and is very traditional. "
Your 17 and have a black sash in Kung fu which is traditional. Yep im believing this about as much as im believing im gonna kick some Gracie ass when i can afford a plane ticket.
Read my post which is nearly exactly the same but done in a serious mannor and not a troll. I stated clearly i was taken to the ground by surpise whilst chatting with someone else. In a self defence situation where does that leave you? No time for hitting any five cent peice size targets moving like lighting out of your sight. Only time to hit the floor and scramble like heck.
In all honestly blow all your preasure points for one dead simple reason. You MAY simply miss and be easily distroyed, if you rely on palor tricks i would not expect to be winning any fights.
Im sure preasure points work but im yet to find anyone who thinks there the be all and end all of fighting. At least no one who wasnt trying to sell me anything.
It directly addresses a skilled (and non-skilled) takedown attempt, and it’s not a terribly difficult technique to learn.
). He said he was undefeated in hundreds of streetfights. If he counts pushing people out of his way at the buffet line as fights then I absolutely believe his claim. Well no matter, “The Predator” made him a footnote in history.