Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29
    Style
    JKD
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Do you honestly believe that a successful ufc fighter does NOT need to absorb the useful from different fighting styles?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29
    Style
    JKD
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I should point out that of course I dont mean JKD in its stylised form, as in 'Bruce Lee's personal fighting style', but in its pure concept form. I imagine that was obvious really but just to clarify.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,824
    Style
    Wing Chun, Hung Gar
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by jnp
    Do you honestly believe this?
    I believe it. Because its true.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,069
    Style
    BJJ, Ju-Jitsu
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sickses
    Attack proof is partly a laughing stock on these pages due to its dismissal of grappling styles, which I also disagree with it on, and its own frankly bizarre groundfighting techniques. Bullshido is frequented by many bjj/grappling practicioners who seem to take this dismissal personally, as many people take insults to their their MA as a personal matter.
    No, it is simple stupidity to ignore the ground game.

    Anyone that does so has completely missed the last 14 years of Martial Arts development.

    With regards to sensitivity training. I think it is time that I write a "Why Chi Sao Sucks" thread so we can just link back to it. Suffice it to say that it will not work against anyone with a decent clinch game. Try it against a greco-roman wrestler for example and see how you do.
    "Sifu, I"m niether - I'm a fire dragon so don't **** with me!"

  5. #15
    jnp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    8,359
    Style
    BJJ, wrestling
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sickses
    I should point out that of course I dont mean JKD in its stylised form, as in 'Bruce Lee's personal fighting style', but in its pure concept form. I imagine that was obvious really but just to clarify.
    No, without being able to read your facial expression, your body language and your vocal tone, it is not obvious. Be as specific as you can to avoid confusion because your statement appeared to declare that there would be no MMA without Bruce Lee, and that's retarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axelton
    I believe it. Because its true.
    I'm not going to bother to ask you why, because I already know you're an idiot.

  6. #16
    kohadril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Seoul, ROK
    Posts
    551
    Style
    BJJ, Debate-Fu
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yeah, okay, let's be extremely clear about this: nobody cross-trains in every style. Usually, you've got guys who have a primary and a secondary style. For instance: boxer/wrestlers. These guys, like Jens Pulver, use the takedown avoidance and standup grappling skills wrestling teaches to prevent the fight from going to ground, and use boxing to knock guys out. Another class is Submission Grappling/Kickboxing; guys who use their kickboxing skills to survive long enough to get in for the takedown.

    What I'm saying is, nobody at the highest levels of the sport try to take something from every style; they pick two or three styles to train and develop a gameplan based upon their competencies. They don't think: "hey, I'll be good at everything and win from every position," because they know better; they pick their means of winning (standup KOs, GnP, Submission) and cross-train primarily to learn how to avoid the counters to their strategy.

    So yes, I think you can be successful without training in more than a couple of styles. Empirically that's how the winners train.

    That doesn't mean that MMA fighters never win outside of their game plan. Joe Lauzon didn't expect to beat Pulver standing up, but when you're trading blows, sometimes you're going to knock somebody out. Especially if you're a natural super-athlete like Lauzon. So yes, cross-training is good, and sometimes it can do more than shore up your deficits. That doesn't mean, however, that cross-training is always good, or that one should always seek to broaden one's skillset at the expense of deepening it. The assumption that MMA fighters would be better if they cross-trained in WC or Kung-Fu or Ninjutsu or Systema is pretty absurd. All the things the original poster said WC offered boxing offers as well, and better. You learn balance, looseness, mobility...you learn to throw combos instead of single shots when your opponent gives you an opening.

    At the point where JKD is no longer a collection of techniques, to say that fighters are doing JKD is a meaningless statement. What you call JKD I call applying the scientific method: theory, empirical test, rejection or continuation, further empirical test... JKD doesn't have a mortal lock on empiricism.

    So yes, maybe Lee's philosophy is similar to the philosophies underpinning modern MMA fight training. But it's not like Lee was the progenitor of the falsifiability doctrine of modern positivism. I think that was Sir Karl Popper, actually. And I'm not sure who invented instrumentalism, but again, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Bruce Lee. Give Lee credit for applying reason to fighting. But don't give him credit for everything by calling MMA Jeet Kune Do.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29
    Style
    JKD
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kohadril
    At the point where JKD is no longer a collection of techniques, to say that fighters are doing JKD is a meaningless statement. What you call JKD I call applying the scientific method: theory, empirical test, rejection or continuation, further empirical test... JKD doesn't have a mortal lock on empiricism.

    So yes, maybe Lee's philosophy is similar to the philosophies underpinning modern MMA fight training. But it's not like Lee was the progenitor of the falsifiability doctrine of modern positivism. I think that was Sir Karl Popper, actually. And I'm not sure who invented instrumentalism, but again, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Bruce Lee. Give Lee credit for applying reason to fighting. But don't give him credit for everything by calling MMA Jeet Kune Do.
    Bruce Lee should be given credit for helping to open the way for eastern martial arts to be taught in the west, to westerners, by raising the profile of these arts and by teaching any who wanted to learn.

    That said, I didn't intend this thread to turn into a Bruce Lee worship diatribe - I disagree with some of the things he said in his tao of jeet kune do. And JKD as he proposed it WAS exactly about "applying the scientific method...test, rejection or continuation..." which was not at the time really done in what he viewed as the stylised traditional arts. Did martial artists commonly cross-train before his time? Not that I am aware of, but I am prepared to be proven wrong if need be...

    And I am not knocking MMA/UFC fighters here, I happen to think that they are developing martial arts to a new level where every striker has to acknowledge the dangers of grappling, and everyone the need to expand their skill base to keep up. Full-contact fighting against unco-operative opponents should be a part of every serious martial artists regime. I simply said that I hate to see wing chun and, yes, even ki chuan do (despite its far fetched dismissal of groundfighting) dismissed due simply to changing fashion.

    Thanks for all well-reasoned responses. Peace all.

  8. #18
    Virus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,964
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Find us a video of good wing chun and we'll talk business.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29
    Style
    JKD
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Haha fair enough, I'm trying right now...

    ...

  10. #20
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,631
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You know the truth about the "Tao of" right?

    If you don't, you better do some research.

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

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
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO