ego? because i disagree with you and the other bjj-ers? sorry if you got that from my posts. i've tried to maintain that i don't consider myself a badass. actually, i run...a lot! like 20 miles a week. i've been lucky in that i've only been in a couple confrontations that i couldn't run away from. usually, the only thing that most people see is my backside as i'm scurrying away!
The first UFCs rulesets allowed biting, headbutts, gouging, & Stamping, then later on they banned them to get accepted as a sport, around the world some MMA events still allow some of these, the fights generally look the same (apart from stamping which changes the dynamic and tactics) Quite importantly id like to add this to the street discussion ''Martial Misconceptions: Civilian Use of Force -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Addressing an issue that I see raise its head from time to time, including recently on several forums. It is also a topic of primary interest for the martial artists in the self protection classes I teach: in fact, I think that LE does much better understanding the articulation of use of force, and is not well versed in the technical abilities to do so, and "civilian" martial artists tend to have more technical ability with little idea of how and when and to what extent they can act. The misconception: "Civilian use of force does not have to follow the same standard that law enforcement does. Civilian use of force can always immediately go to more dangerous techniques and tactics because the idea is not “arrest and control” but rather “self defense.” Therefore, “unlike police,” civilians can immediately use more violent means to defend themselves and are not bound by the same restrictions police are." The Fact of the Matter: For the martial artist who has at least some inkling of using his or her art in self defense, I must warn you that this is NOT TRUE. While you as a civilian are not required to restrain criminals who are attempting to escape, you also cannot use any level of force you desire against a perceived assault. You – just like a police officer – can only use force which is reasonable for the threat you can articulate. Except in some misguided department policies (not by any means a national standard), police officers are also not required to use the minimal amount of force, or “not to harm” a suspect. The officer can use that force which he can reasonably articulate is necessary in the circumstances he faces. That may be high, that may be low. It is totally situationally based, to include what the individual officer and the individual assailant brings to the encounter. “Civilians” are bound by the same standard. You simply must measure your self defense response in light of what you can reasonably articulate. In some states, you as a citizen may also have a duty to retreat (if you are not in your own home). Regardless, if an aggressive transient pushes you, you cannot gouge his eye out or attack his throat with a shuto if you cannot also give valid reasons for why you needed to do so. You cannot simply say “he *might* have pulled a knife” or “he *might* have had buddies attempt to surprise attack me” unless you can articulate the other various factors that would lead another person (as in the Jury) to the same conclusion. You simply do not get a “free ride” because you are accosted in the street or anywhere else. Unless you have some rather questionable personal habits or hang with the wrong crowd, the majority of self defense situations will be nowhere near that violent. They will be relatively minor “aggressive transient” situations, bad attitude squabbles, or will be altercations/issues that are either domestic or otherwise involving people you know. Certainly any of these situations *could* develop to a point, or erupt at a point, that a high level of violent response is necessary, but that has to be supported by what you can reasonably conclude is about to happen, not by throwing everything and the kitchen sink into your justification for force because it could happen. You have some leeway there, just as does police use of force against violent threat (NOT arrest and control), but you do not have carte blanche to do whatever you want, especially if you are in fact over-reacting to the actual level of threat. Once again, you will not be held to the standard that an experienced officer will, but you could very well be held liable – even criminally - if you are perceived as over- reacting to a situation that was not in fact what you made it out to be. More than one person has gone to prison because they severely injured someone in a garden variety push-and-shove that turned deadly based on their actions. Kit Leblanc http://prevailtraining.wordpres.com/ ''
*Yawn*. I have lots more. But quite honestly, I'm tired of this kind of quasi-trolling. I don't know if I should take you seriously and feel sorry for your misconceptions, or pat you on the back and congratulate you for getting us all going with this little joke of yours. Yeah, I'm smart like that. Glad you got the connection there. So....karate schools that only spar with other karateka are better? Training insularly in aikido/hapkido/judo is better? Knock the ruleset all you want, but the UFC is a heck of a lot more like a real fight than anything you'll find in almost ANY martial arts class out there. And, just out of curiosity, how would you have designed the rules to make them more "fair" and "realistic", since you seem to have such a good idea of what those terms mean? But you just said the UFC rules favour ground fighting....and now a stand-up fighter is one of the greatest? The fact that fighters like Chuck can do so well specifically disproves your argument about a bias toward groundfighting.
actually, it's this kind of denigrating of others that typically makes me so upset about the bjj holier-than-thou attitude. you feel sorry for my misconceptions? oh please, spare me your charity. i have actually cross-trained in different martial arts. have you? finally, who's the troll here? the guy who's actually done hapkido and contributed to this forum in a productive manner? or the guy who goes around telling hapkido people that his/her martial art is better? ufc has very little to do with a real fight. the moment you say that is the moment i can't take you seriously at all. i've maintained all along that while sport can be useful, it cannot replicate a real fight. period, end of story. look at some of the prison riot videos that bruce posted earlier. have you ever seen a real fight? i have seen many. they look nothing like the ufc, or wec, or strike force. the point i was trying to make in separate posts is that yes, the rules do favor ground fighting, but liddell is able to overcome that because he keeps the fight in stand-up mode. sorry if that's not clear.
You only need to look at my profile to see what arts I've trained in. Also, please refer me to the part where I said my martial art is better than anyone else's. In fact, where did I say what "my" martial art is, anyway? As far as I can tell, you're the one who came into this thread with an ax to grind months after the debate had settled. You came in with guns blazing claiming BJJ's inferiority to your training style, and I simply disagreed with you. Never have I said that one art is better than another; all I've talked about is training methodology. And, just for the record, I've been around "contributing" to this forum a lot longer than you have, so please don't accuse me of trolling. You're entitled to your opinion. Let me ask you the standard question, though: if we took two students of equal training experience, one an average TMA student, the other an average MMA student, and pitted them together in a fight with absolutely no rules, who would win? Do you really think the "average" level of TMA training is equal to that of "average" MMA training? Because I seriously doubt it. Again, not saying one art is necessarily better than another, but it is true to say that certain training methods are more effective than others. Again, please elaborate on how the rules favour ground fighting. You still haven't answered my question on how they could be made more "fair", either.
wow i was gonna jump in a go to war on one of my favorite topics to argue, but it looks like omicron and fusen beat me too it. well let me state my few little sub facts. im fresh out of highschool. an inner city school for that matter. so believe me when i say i have seen more fights and most recently then more people here. most of which i was doing kungfu at the time. i can honestly say that i KNEW that there was something not right with what i was doing compared to the fights i was seeing. most fights end or to some degree look like this ( though out of self ignorrance giovanni most likely wont "lower" is samurai-esk code of standard to view it) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_op_yahQ0po"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame] ( my apologies for the course language) early UFC allowed everything. any martial artist or brawler was allowed to join, thats why its so authentic and held to the degree it is. dont make up escuses for why you cant do something. that and video of what i just listed show how real fights look. and BJJ/MMA( though BJJ itself is more structerd then its sport Counter part) have proven to work. you want to argue that your aikido, wado ryu, yellow bamboo, hadoken etc work? then lets see the evidence. i thought that the post i made from pat millitech's website proved the point but i guess your above reading that too. in short, he is a pro fight trainer, AND one of the worlds most sought after millitary, and police self-defense instructors. He has years and years of martial arts expiereince to boot. and what type of techniques does he teach to soldiers and law enforcement? the same stuff that fighters use. why? simple. it works. it has proven itself unlike the theoretically effective techniques so many TMA guys support. you also mention that MMA and BJJ arts arent combat arts. because there used for a sport environment. This is one of those times where i wish foamy the squirrel could jump out and say all the things map wont allow me to. (sigh) once again. these guys; though they dont kill eachother. fight very tough opponents, have to train in all ranges of combat, and most of all. have actual combat expiereinece against some one who was trying to hurt them. you say there not for the battle field. then why does the millitary use the gracie combatives program as base for all there training? you can quate me on thisany martial art that offers competition against a opponent trying to harm you, is superior to the ones that dont. end of story. how can you claim your martial art is suppose to be for a situation that is EVEN MORE dangerous and hardcore than a MMA match. yet to train for it you dont do anything that even resembles anything as realistic or diffcult as MMA, which you claim is of the lower level? here ill put it to you like this? if you disturbed a bear and its cub, and it begins charging at you and seeing as bears travel much faster than humans, so you cant run. and you have a gun that can kill it. which would make more since to have. a model civil war gun, that may or may not still fire. plus shoots one to two bullets. Or a AK47 which shoots tons of bullets, still used in war to this day, and is proven and known to be highly effective? i would take a quick effective body lock takedown over, over some small joint finger lock takedown attempt any day of the week.
I think I will quote you on that. If more people understood how to train in this way, we wouldn't end up debating it in thread after thread.
oh my apologies i seem to have posted this article on yet another TMA vs MMA debate. my mistake. the following is a open letter written by UFC fighter trainer, and police and millitary defense instructor pat millitech. It has been brought to my attention that some private police and military training companies state that the skills needed to compete in a cage fight, better known as MMA, have no place in the police or military world. They make several uneducated statements and claims I feel compelled to discuss, which leads me to writing this article. The fact I have gained immense knowledge from others in both the fighting world and the LE/Military world over many years has led me to find this an easy subject to debate. I become frustrated when reading certain articles that disrespect the fact that officers are learning these skills to help them survive the attack they hope will never happen. We must address the motives behind articles of this type. I have always been a believer that every system has something to offer, however small that something might be. This is the true essence of Mixed Martial Arts fighting. When an individual writes an article of this nature, I feel a sense of fear and lack of being open minded on their part. Perhaps more likely is they feel a little threatened as far as loss of business. They also do not understand the years of experience and development that goes into bringing these two worlds (LE/Military and MMA) together to save lives. After all, are we not in this to gain knowledge that will save lives? The people who have truly done their homework in the two fields have come to an understanding of the mixed martial arts material that is appropriate and applicable in the LE/Military worlds. As in the martial arts world, many traditional martial artists make ludicrous claims stating that they do not compete in MMA because they would kill someone with their one strike, one kill techniques. The other one I hear is that we are not martial artists. I find that hard to believe when I have black belts in Karate, two forms of Jiu-Jitsu, held a title in Muay-thai kickboxing, wrestled for 20 years, was unbeaten in pro boxing and held the world title in the UFC for 3 1/2 years. I have also been either lucky enough or good enough to train more pay-per-view and world champion fighters than anyone else in the game. The previous statements about myself are not an attempt to toot my own horn, but rather to make a point. I do understand how to handle a human body. I also understand police use of force rules, lack of budgets and time for training officers, coupled with the unfortunate lack of enthusiasm by some officers to train enough to save their own skin in a tight spot. My experience in training police and military has had a few mentors to which I paid very close attention. Although I have had many advise me, I have spent time learning from three individuals. Mark Hanssen is the first I will mention, as Mark and I have been steadfast friends for many years. Mark started me in the training world when he would bring me in to help train officers in our home state of Iowa. Mark is a police officer in Davenport, Iowa and also a very accomplished martial artist who was ranked in the top ten heavy weights in the world of MMA. He would correct me if I mistepped in teaching incorrectly in relation to use of force rules police had to follow. The next two are Don Roberts and Tony Grano. Tony and Don are two of the most experienced I have seen in the industry and I greatly respect the knowledge they have passed on to me in the LE/Military training world. Pat Miletich (center) at USMC Martial Arts Center for Excellence in Quantico, VA They explained that they wanted to tap into some of my knowledge in the fighting world to help officers learn how to move correctly when under stress in encounters with street savvy subjects as well as passive resisters. The following are some of the misconceptions I see taking place in the police and military training world towards mixed martial arts being taught in the police and military world. They assume the following things when attacking our way of thinking and teaching: 1) All involved in the MMA game are teaching police and military to perform submission holds. ANSWER: This could not be further from the truth. After years of experience I have learned officers must be taught the fundamental basics of movement and control to survive an encounter with a passive resister and beyond. To teach officers submission holds does not apply to their line of work and is offending my intelligence to say I would even teach this as a goal to officers. Could an officer use a submission hold? Of course, but it's not the goal! 2) MMA techniques are not useful in the police world because of use of force rules now implemented in law enforcement. ANSWER: Quite the opposite is true. The fundamentals of controlling a subject taught in MMA are without a doubt the best we have available to us in the history of combat at whatever level. The sport of MMA fighting is simply a proving ground for these techniques. By using this arena we quickly find out what works and what does not work. These techniques can be used to gain compliance of a passive resister without injury, or can be escalated as needed if the subject escalates in level of force. 3) The skills needed in a cage fight cannot be used to defend oneself against multiple attackers. ANSWER: Wrong!! The fundamentals of cage fighting can easily be used to survive multiple attackers. Don’t assume that I would take a fight on the street to the ground against even one opponent. And yes, I have been attacked by multiple attackers and things worked out quite nicely. 4) It would be easy to stick the barrel of my gun down the throat of a skilled fighter if he were to attack you. ANSWER: Who are you kidding? You think that people announce when they are going to attack a police officer. When officers are attacked they are always surprised and very seldom ready to react. Don’t mislead officers by saying you would almost always win the fight because you are in possession of a firearm. Imagine a street wise fighter attacking you when you’re not ready. He throws you on your head and begins to pound you in the face. You’re saying you would, while being punched in the face, remove your hand from protecting your head, reach down and pull out your gun and shove it down the attackers throat. Not likely. You'll be suprised how self preservation insticts take over in a real fight. Protecting your head from being caved in usually comes first. If you have been trained how to first stop the takedown, then defend yourself on the ground if needed and escape back to your feet, you would then be able to pull your weapon and take care of business. I don't know about you, but I would rather understand how to survive the fight first and depend on the weapon as a last case scenario. Putting your faith in a weapon you might never have the chance to pull is odds I would never bet on. Officers have said to me that they would die for their families. I simply tell them to train hard so they can live for their families. Officers who are trained in MMA fighting techniques are much more confident and less likely to panic under a stressful situation. Using common sense on how to stay relaxed in a verbal confrontation and the skills of controlling subjects used in MMA fighting helps save lives. This is our main goal, right?
Yes.....But these discussions ALWAYS COME TO THIS POINT. Every damn one of these discussions ALWAYS come to THIS POINT. The Point is that NOONE can use debilitating or lethal force. which would be the only way to prove the point under discussion. As a result all we have are a bunch of advocates for their particular practice suggesting that their particular practice comes just a lil bit closer to that line across which lies lethal force than anyone else. The rules are always skewed in favor of the guy who makes the rules--pure and simple. What I object to are the thinly-veiled suggestions that one person's practice is just a teensy-weensy bit more "real" (read also: "closer to the use of debilitating or lethal force") than the other guy. Nobody here is going to participate in an event where their know there is a significant risk of death or permanent impairment so the rest of this is just chest-thumping and marketing. Best Wishes, Bruce
Sorry....but I really object to this. This is blatant advertising and I have seen this "letter" posted before. As far as I am concerned this confirms to me that these "discussions" are not discussions at all but marketing ploys used to circumvent paying for marketing and advertising. Earlier I wanted to have the discussion move in a more technical vein and that effort was not reinforced. What we have now, is the typical bickering culminating in bombast. I have no problem if this is the best use you can make of this forum but I think its really a shame. Best Wishes, Bruce
I hate to jump into a troll wars, but I'm going to do it anyways. It'll be a new experience for me and when people refer to troll wars I have actually participated in one and know how it actually feels . First of all, I'm going to defend TMA a bit, since I have the impression you guys are bashing it. The rules do favor grappling (let's just say BJJ) above striking (and some TMA techniques). You can't deny it. Groin attacks, biting,... A striker can't use his strongest weapons. Also, don't they wear some kind of gloves? Also grapplers train against strikes and grappling, strikers only against strikes. This has changed now in MMA, not in TMA's that do striking only. This means grapplers often have an advantage, especially BJJ, since even less styles consider(ed) ground fighting. Small joint manipulation isn't allowed either, which leads to the: Actually the small joint fingerlock takedown like you call it is not really a takedown if you don't want to. If performed very fast you dislocate or do whatever serious injury to the wrist if the receiver does not know what to do. We do a "takedown" because otherwise we could only train with the same person twice :evil:. I also read in 1 of the above posts that aikido is mainly about clinch control. This is not true. There are techniques that can be used in a clinch though. You guys don't know a lot about (real) aikido, no ki-fireball-aikido. To comment on another problem: aikido derived from battlefield-tested techniques, aikido itself is not battlefield tested. All in all, an MMA fight is the ultimate "test" for unarmed 1 on 1 fighting, no denying that and it's awesome. But on the streets you might face multiple opponents and weapons like knives. This means BJJ is useless here. The answer to all problems are: - cross-training - more training, less trolling Now don't kill me lol. I think most things written here are facts and only little opinion. Edit: wow, at least 2 posts were posted while I was writing this.
Daito ryu isnt geared around the battlefield, so how do you come to the battlefield conclusion? Much of aikido is geared around standing contact geared around pushing and pulling hence the clinch, plus a little striking.
You guys should check out the old Vale Tudo and the early UFC's pretty much all the thing you guys are talking about; groin striking, biting, ripping open cuts etc was allowed. The fights still looked very similar to PRIDE FC fights, it seemed to come down to whoever had the better positioning could use their tools. In fact PRIDE FC didn't allow biting, eye gouging, etc but they did allow knees to a grounded opponent and, kicking or stomping a downed opponent (tell me that isn't favourable to strikers), yet the org wasn't dominated by strikers. MMA is MMA no one skillset/range is dominant anymore.
I don't think many strikers would say nut-bashing and biting are their strongest weapons I reckon that would be, you know, all that punchey/kickey stuff that they do.
So you're attacked by multiple people and are knocked to the ground as is likely to happen. One or more may have a knife. Thus from this disadvantageous position you would require techniques which would allow you to disengage and get back to your feet. Where would you find these techniques? .... grappling arts, perhaps?
look this is a video from the elitedefense system website. while i dont live there nor indorce there school. I understand they are a JKD school, and there method is specifically for self-defense. you will notice many similarities with what you might see in an octagon environment.[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJaXyPhuav4"]YouTube- Adult Self-Defense Training at Elite Defense Systems[/ame] also. i do BJJ and i must say just because its used alot in MMA events. doesnt meen we dont train for other scenariors. we have multiple occations done seminars with the local police covering, gun, knife defense. as well subduing opponents stronger than you. Simple= most effective. why train for decades to do the same thing that can take you half the time by taking out the middle man.
thats another thing im sick off every TMA guys who hates MMA always argues the Multiple oppenent crap. "that BJJ would suck against more than one person". the fact of the matter is so would TMA guysyour still at an extreme disadvantage fighting more than one person there for, no matter what style you do, you will still probably lose. or least get hit alot. but as stated before, its better to know how to regain your positon once knocked to the ground, then to not train for it at all.
