Kyokushin or MMA?

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by yingyangzen, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Not sure I'd call that "successful".

    I wouldn't advise anyone to strike someone who's wielding a bladed weapon until they had control of said weapon. I'm certainly not the kind of guy to advise kicking blades out of people's hands or the like.

    There's nothing wrong with grabs, locks etc., but I could not imagine an argument for going to the ground when you have multiple attackers. Or any self-defence scenario where running away should be kept as an option.

    There are a whole bunch of YouTube vids with people beating multiple opponents in real fights. I've yet to see one that didn't involve the victor being very mobile and using striking exclusively.
     
  2. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    That's probably got a lot more to do with the fact that almost all fights involve exclusively striking and a great deal of movement.
    There's I agree that there should be a focus on standing movement and top positions in self-defense training but to completely discount groundwork is leaving a glaring hole in your ability to protect yourself.

    And you're right, you're not the one that brought up the weapons, that's my mistake.
     
  3. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    just like i'd never advise to start swinging punches like in that video in real fight on a knowledgable groundfighter.the two obviously weren't that good seing as man on bottom chose to start swinging his hands as opposed to look for an escape, and man on top couldn't keep good mount. this most certainly is one of those 1 in a million things.

    striking works but as been proven before grappling is very effective in dealing with people of much larger stature and without hurting oneself in the process too much. this multiple opponents thing is touted too much seing as no art is multiple attackers made. do you think it smart to get into a striking war in a enclosed area with a much bigger and stronger opponent? someone hopped up on drugs can take entire clips without going down, but a RNC takes everyone out.
     
  4. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Absolutely, no argument about that from me.
     
  5. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Could you rephrase that please? I'm not sure what it means.
     
  6. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    I disagree with the idea that groundfighting isn't viable option simply due to the possibilities that someone else might show up. everything situational. If you attack me in a bathroom i'm fairly sure you're not bringing backup.even if they try they wouldn't fit.
    when you're striking there is always still the possibility of being taken down is there not? yet you still learn to strike. to not learn to fight and finish on the ground completely limits an entire aspect of fighting. plus grappling is a lot easier to argue self-defense then striking.

    for self defense i'm more drawn to a standing grappling style like judo or sambo anyway.
     
  7. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    damn auto correct- no art is made for multiple attackers.
     
  8. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I'm not trying to give a "striking vs. grappling" argument. I think that's dumb, as both are important. Those partisan arguments don't interest me.

    I agree with your standing grappling point... probably mixed with boxing.
     
  9. Kurtka Jerker

    Kurtka Jerker Valued Member

    Well frankly most standing grappling doesn't work without a boxing foundation if striking is allowed. That's a big reason the shot is so popular. It's one of the only ways to consistently hit takedowns on someone who is a better striker. If you're going to do clinch takedowns you've got to enter somehow.
     
  10. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Hehe, I feel your auto-correct pain...

    I'd say that almost no art is made for multiple attackers.

    Some do have inherent strategies and tactics for multiple opponents though.

    These guys are about the only example I can find a video of (the short sequence at 0'20" where 3 attackers go after 1 guy, I realise it's somewhat compliant and staged, but these are serious people doing a serious job, very much "for real". It's not so much what techniques the guy does, but his understanding of positioning and tactics):

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0kI9-bD5Bo&playnext=1&list=PLD241F3845B17F696&feature=results_video"]Pekiti Tirsia Kali - Knife vs Gun - YouTube[/ame]
     
  11. roninmaster

    roninmaster be like water

    to me its just tactic. not the style though. I always looked at multiple attacker strategies as just that, strategies. having no set style. just that some choose to teach strategies along with the art.
     
  12. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    If by style you mean technical repetoire, then I'd definitely say that some techniques are more suited to certain tactics. And by that token, an art that considers application in multiple attacker scenarios from day one will end up with a different technical repetoire, even for use against one opponent, than one that doesn't.

    I don't think that anyone would argue against the contextual emphasis of an art influencing its technical content, would they?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  13. icefield

    icefield Valued Member

    Whilst no one wants to go to the ground against multiple opponents that’s not to say they wont end up putting you on the ground and then you might want some ground experience.
    As someone with a decade of grappling both standing and on the ground I can say that people have a very hard time putting me down (even in a 2 or 3 on one situation) and once down they have an even harder time keeping me there or inflicting damage on me
    And I believe Hannibal was referring to the whole: biting, gouging, sand in the eye, only grappling on soft surfaces and without weapons part of the argument, the multiple opponent bit was only a small part of the quote.
    And just to clarify i agree with him, i have dealt with guys trying to bite me, grappled on wooden and concrete floors (doesn’t make much of a difference when you are on top feeding the guy his teeth). I have also trained against weapons and prefer to have control over his limps and limit his ability to move, which is the definition of grappling be it standing or ground based.
    Would I choose to go to the ground against multipul guys, nope not unless I was with the lads from my gym and they had my back, in which case a quick throw knee on belly and stomping might be in order
     
  14. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Absolutely agree with all of the above.

    Your interpretation of Hannibal's remark makes a lot more sense than mine, so I'll presume you're right :)
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Show me ANY art that works against multiple opponents consistently

    The problem is that the "lava, syringes and biting" nonsense assumes that those are hazards for the grappler only - if as I grappler I scuff a knee on asphalt, as a non-grappler I will spread your head on the pavement

    As for " biting, gouging eyes etc" I make a study of that whole area via an actual discipline and guess what? We only launch then from a solid grappling base. Trying to go down and dirty against a grappler when you yourself do not grapple is a short ticket to the ass kicking of your life

    The hazards described for the grappler are identical for a striker
     
  16. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I'll show you an art that works against multiple opponents consistently when you show me an art that works against one opponent consistently. Anyone can practice any art and be rubbish at it (if their teachers let them). Some arts have more sensible techniqes than others, but it's down to how an individual applies them, and the attributes they develop as a basis for applying those techniques that does the business.

    But, when given solid, realistic tactics and lots of practice, you can increase your odds significantly - unless your opponents are similarly trained.

    The clip I posted above is pretty much the only thing I've seen that approaches what I would consider a good example of dealing with multiple opponents. So you're right, there is a serious dearth of multiple opponent tactics in the MAs.

    Please don't mistake me for someone who thinks you should never get hold of someone, and of course your point about the hazards for grapplers and strikers being identical is completely true. I don't see how it could be otherwise, and I'm in full agreement with the incredulity projected toward folks who think they can never be taken to the floor, or the idea that because an MMA fighter doesn't bite or gouge eyes in the ring they couldn't outside of it. The fact that plenty of untrained people have done both should make that obvious.

    But thanks for the amusing mental image of trying to bite someone without grappling them. I don't think you'd have many teeth left after trying that a couple of times.
     
  17. yingyangzen

    yingyangzen Valued Member

    "Out of curiousity" What about styles such as Aikido, or Hapkido? for mulitple attackers? How does Judo compare to something like Ju Jitsu? Do they go hand in hand complementing one another I would imagine so no?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klE0JIkYfVM"]Aikido: Awesome self defense against one or more opponents: Aikido history - YouTube[/ame]

    I saw this, but the only thing that ****es me off is I cant find anything that is street real to the application...I dont like how some systems look so Mechanical...

    Another question out of curiousity, MIND YOU I KNOW NOTHING OF GRAPPLING, for facing multiple opponants why would a grappler feel confident? I can understand tossing people around but taking them to the ground how can you focus on the other fighters?

    As a striker depending on the strikers skills and abilities its possible to implement the one strike one kill and move from one opponent to the next is not?
     
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    That's a very optimistic viewpoint, and one that is not likely to stand the test of four people crowding in and hitting you simultaneously.

    Do you really believe you could walk through a swathe of people and kill each one with a single blow, without them being able to do anything about it?

    [EDIT:] Not to mention the fact I find it a bit disturbing you could seriously consider taking the lives of people so casually...
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  19. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    I'd say BJJ (more specifically street orientated GJJ trained properly) would qualify as that.
    Say what you want about BJJ for SD but the core concept (displayed in the Gracie's in action films and the early UFC's) of bridging the gap, adopting a clinch position where striking power is limited, taking it to the floor and then attaining a dominant position from which to launch your offensive is tactically very effective and sound combatively.
    Especially how grappling skill isn't as widespread as the ability to hit hard enough to KO/stun.
     
  20. yingyangzen

    yingyangzen Valued Member

    @ Harrison, you know when I think of the one strike one kill, I never really take it for the kill part i just see it as putting someone down instantly...Shots to the chin or the solar plex how can you fight if you cant breathe? and when fighting multiple attackers vital shots to the eyes, chin, solar plex, neck, hell even the teeth or knees may just help you to get through people much quicker...

    But then again I have fought more than one person at a time, most of the time, its not like the movies...your being rushed by three or 4 people you barely have time to react..= (
     

Share This Page