i have heard this argument before. the title of this post should have been called "the mcdojo anthem".
these excuses are frequently used by those who are unwilling or unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of their training.
i use the word "training" not "style". there are styles that i consider more effective than others. but at the core, training methodologies would the most important factor.
is the training consistent with the anatomy of a streetfight?
i'll pick on bjj as that is what i take. my training could go 2 different routes. the first being that i always spar starting from the ground. i concentrate on fancy sport techniques (always wearing a gi), and often put myself in positions that do not take into account a striking opponent. in the second scenario, i begin rolling from the standing position so i can work takedowns. i concentrate on techniques (gi & no gi) that are designed to be used against an opponent who is intent on ripping my head off. i will also throw some gear on and have my partner strike.
same style, different training.
the next issue would be, what techniques are effective in a street situation? how is that to be determined?
let's say i am financial consultant and you walked into my office with $50,000 dollars to invest. would you follow my advise without question because i have a certificate on the wall? if so, you need to email me as i have some great investment tips for you! i hope that we can both agree that intelligent people would like to see some hard data on the success/failure of a plan they were considering. why would you invest your $$ in a plan that does not perform as well as another? how about investing your $$ in a plan that has NO hard evidence as to its profitability?
vale tudo fights have been documented outside of the US well before the UFC. the original UFC only restricted eye gouges and biting. it amazes me how many people are not aware of that fact. due to political correctness, there have been more rules implemented since its inception. however, more than enough of these events have taken place to show what is effective and what is not in a fight.
i do not understand how people can dismiss these fights as somehow being unrealistic (especially in the case of the earlier UFCs & other true vale tudo matches) there are fighters who play the rules (fighting for a decision, lay & pray), but they are not relevant in terms of what is effective.
assumption is the mother of all **** ups
often times people develop theories in order to address situations where their training falls short. a good example would be grabbing someone's balls from the guard. it may be possible, but that just tells me you've never been in a good guard before.
do not get the impression that this is another “bjj is best” thread. i site bjj examples because that is what I am familiar with. the boztepe vs. chueng video is a prime example of what i am referring to. this fight took place before bjj was even popular. that fight could have just as easily taken place outside of a bar at closing. there is no recognizable technique at all. if i were one of their students, i would demand my $$ back! they were unable to apply what they knew in a real situation. did anyone notice how the fight ended up on the ground (ok, I couldn’t resist that one)?
ripping out throats, dim mak, pressure points are fantasy. these highly advanced techniques have one thing in common, they have never been proven (unless you count someone's word or a demonstration on a cooperating assistant).
i am proud to announce that i am starting my own style. it is called kaufman-jitsu. my style is based on the ancient art of eye gouging and groin attacks. my students will be able to handle any street situation be it on the ground or standing with their vicious eye and groin attacks. biting will is taught only at black belt level. please send $500.00....
now i hate to burst anyone's bubble, but i have unfortunate news. fighters have been able to continue fighting after being bitten, gouged, & nailed in the balls! i wouldn't have believed it if i hadn't seen it myself!
of course these things have a chance of ending a fight. i do not feel they should be relied upon as heavily as some argue.
in summary, vale tudo fights, pride and the UFC have given us a fairly accurate gauge as to what is effective and what is not. so unless your training consists of picking fights w/ people in dark alleys or bars, i encourage everyone evaluate their training based on the next best source available.
Edited by - Andy Kaufman on July 28 2002 03:59:46