233620 Bullies, 3955 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 77
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. sicksicksick is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    37

    Posted On:
    7/27/2002 7:03pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    After the emotional response, I will get back to business. You were a boxer. You'll know what thumbing is then. You'll know it's against the rules. But it happens. Boxers can fight. UFC fighters can fight. And I don't want to fight any of them. Because they can defeat me. Easily. Read the initial post again. Safety precautions are taken. I shouldn't be going to the ambulence if those rules are enforced properly. In the real world, someone will kill you if they get the chance. In the boxing ring, someone can kill you if the ref doesn't do his job properly. So what is your definition of a fight.

    -----
    Traditional Martial Artist. As in I don't expect to fight in cages where I can't just poke them in the eye and rip their throat out.
    Mixed Martial Artist. As in I study more than one style and mix them together.
  2. ruk is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147

    Posted On:
    7/27/2002 7:09pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Personally, I'd much rather get in a fight with a UFC fighter like Tito Ortiz than with some random gangbanger on the street.

    Ortiz would kick my ass and then leave. With the gangbanger, if he beats me down, then he and his friends will start kicking me in the head until I either die or get brain damaged. If I beat up the gang banger, he'll likely be back, armed and with friends. The gang banger might have hepatitis or HIV.

    Ortiz has a life. He's making money. He's less inclined to want to toss everything away.

    The gang banger hates life, he hates everyone and generally doesn't give a **** about anything. He has nothing to lose by fighting. He does not need to worry about missing time from work, having customers/clients/boss look at them strangely. For them, there really aren't any consequences to the fight.

    Even jail isn't too much of a big deal. They've been there before and they will be there again.

    "Streetfighting" against a vicious criminal thug is not a game. BJM isn't there to stop things when they get out of hand...

    After the emotional response, I will get back to business. You were a boxer. You'll know what thumbing is then. You'll know it's against the rules. But it happens. Boxers can fight. UFC fighters can fight. And I don't want to fight any of them. Because they can defeat me. Easily. Read the initial post again. Safety precautions are taken. I shouldn't be going to the ambulence if those rules are enforced properly. In the real world, someone will kill you if they get the chance. In the boxing ring, someone can kill you if the ref doesn't do his job properly. So what is your definition of a fight.

    -----
    Traditional Martial Artist. As in I don't expect to fight in cages where I can't just poke them in the eye and rip their throat out.
    Mixed Martial Artist. As in I study more than one style and mix them together.
  3. Andy Kaufman is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    199

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 3:52am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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
  4. migo is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    446

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 3:57am


     Style: Baboo Baby

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "often times people develop theories in order to address situations were 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."

    being aware of that possibility is better than being a dumbfuck like I choke you and thinking that it's impossible.
  5. migo is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    446

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 4:00am


     Style: Baboo Baby

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I agree the UFC is a good gague but there are still things missing which have to be factored in, especially weapons. Once knives are brought in the fight changes a lot and you're better of going to a Dog Brothers gathering instead of watching UFC.
  6. ruk is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 4:22am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Kaufman,

    consider this, though... Cheung and Boztepe went to the ground, but Ralph Gracie and Bobby Southworth did standup only. Ralph ran up and punched Southworth. He didn't try and pull guard or go for a takedown. His first instinct was striking.

    And don't forget Tito Ortiz's recent beatdown at the hands of an English soccer hooligan after the last UFC... that was pure 100% brawling/striking

    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
  7. ruk is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 4:27am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well, need I remind you that of the two finalists for UFC2, one (Gerard Gordeau) was a pure striker with zero ground skills. He still bulldozed through grapplers like that Tuli guy... Tuli went for a shoot which Gordeau dodged, and when Tuli fell down, Gordeau KOed him with a kick to the head.

    These days, Gordeau would be disqualified for that. Basically, under current rules, grapplers can make any kind of lame shoot they want without fear of being kicked by the striker if he misses and falls on his knees.


    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.
    Edited by - Andy Kaufman on July 28 2002 03:59:46
  8. Rorny Gracie is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    28

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 4:39am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Tuli did not get KOed in that fight rukster BUT he did lose a tooth and get a bloodied eye. Tulis so called "Sumo style" in that fight was funny!
  9. ruk is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    147

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 5:04am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You're correct. But he would've been probably stomped to death if the ref hadn't stopped it at that point.

    Those early UFCs were the best. The one gloved boxer, Tuli the Sumo guy, Emmanuel Yaraborough, Fred Ettish...

    You gotta figure that these guys didn't just wake up one day and say "hey, why don't I get my ass beat down in front of a live audience for almost no money"... they really thought they could win.

    The early UFCs showed that some of that crap just won't work in a real situation... but it also showed that the fighter and not just the style are critical. Fred Ettish looked positively pathetic with his karate... yet, Keith Hackney was out doing traditional Kenpo complete with an eagle claw fist and kenpo fighting stance, he managed to put a serious beatdown on Royce before losing.


    Tuli did not get KOed in that fight rukster BUT he did lose a tooth and get a bloodied eye. Tulis so called "Sumo style" in that fight was funny!

    --If Sakuraba had children
    would that mean he has "Little Saks"???
  10. Rorny Gracie is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    28

    Posted On:
    7/28/2002 5:20am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hackney was one guy in the tournament I gave respect to. The power of the "Mullet" made him invincible and thats how he defeated Emmanuel and he almost cracked Uncle Royces skull in!
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.