Anyone Practiced This Defense?

[migo]

It's because he had to move through punching range to get to knees and if Rampage had any kind of counter-offense in boxing, the fight might not have gotten that far. "Sit and wait" is just not any kind of way to win a fight.

He wasn't sitting and waiting. He took Silva down, passed to mount and was pounding on him at the end of the round. You're making way too much of a leap that CM isn't all that good based on the fact that Rampage lost. You'd have a better case saying slams are no good because he still got armbared by Sakuraba - that directly related to slams as submission escapes. However we saw Rampage successfully slamming out of Arona's triangle. Whether any technique or strategy works depends on the specific situation and who you're fighting. Him losing to Silva was very much a case of styles making fights. Rampage is bad at dealing with knees, it's quite obvious in fact. The Chute Boxe guys are very good with their knees. Regardless of whatever else Rampage is good or bad at, that's a serious matchup defecit for him. A perfect counter example is that his counter striking works just fine against Chuck Liddell. In fact the way he KOed him the second time was beautiful counter striking. We see from that that Rampage clearly has counterstriking, that throws out your hypothesis that the reason Rampage lost to Silva was because he had inadequate counter striking skills. We also have a very clear indication that Rampage's deficit is his clinch defense.

The point of CM, in the context that I've been exposed to it and seen Rodney King talking about it (which I'm aware is likely not the only context for its use) has been for people with limited striking skills to be able to defend themselves against getting knocked out. In a self defense situation, doing what Rampage did, backing up and then running is completely appropriate. Unfortunately for Rampage he was in a ring fight and that wasn't an option, but it clearly did protect him against Silva's initial onslaughts. If I was fighting someone like Wanderlei Silva and the only thing I managed was to not get KOed by the first flurry he comes at me with, and then I can run like hell, I'll be pretty damn happy.

[migo]

Rampage got his ass kicked in that fight because he sat back, covered up, and had no counter offense through boxing range.

His counter offense in the boxing range was spot on against Liddell. I just can't agree with you (about that). He knocked out Chuck Liddell with a boxing counter punch. He has it. He demonstrated it against one of the hardest hitting punchers and most dominant fighters in his weight class. It doesn't get much more clear than that. I won't argue that he didn't display it in his fights with Silva, but he didn't actually display anything except balls in his fight with Shogun. Your explanation that he lacks the skills is completely implausible, especially compared to the explanation that Shogun and Silva had the skills to shut down Rampage and get through his defenses.

There's more context than just an individual fight. You need to look at all a fighter's performances. If you look at Mirko Filipovic vs Gabriel Gonzaga, and ignore his K-1 career, you'd think that Mirko has no defense against roundhouse kicks to the head.

[fire cobra]

I belive that RK got the concept of blocking/covering as he does from Muay Thai,in the Muay Thai ring because there are 6 more weapons you can use other than your hands it is a valid cover,
however the Thai fighters never just cover,the idea is as soon as a hand touches your shield you use another weapon at the same time,i call it touch and go,as soon as something touches your cover you go with a attack of your own either elbow, knee, or kick.

I dont think it(covering) is a great defence at all for just boxing i would prefer to evade and hit or move and hit,of course on both of these scenarios hitting first would be the best option if possible.

[migo]

We weren't talking about Liddell. We were talking about a particular fight, against Vanderlei, and in that fight everything I said about him was spot on. If you want to change the context, that's something different. I was talking about the Vanderlei fight, and that clip specifically, so what I said is a perfectly apt commentary.

No, it's not. You said he had no counter offensive boxing. He clearly does, the fact that he didn't display it in this fight doesn't mean that he doesn't have it. Since you're saying the problem is that he didn't do it, you'd have to look at why he didn't do it, which is clearly something other than his inability to do it.

And again, what Rampage did in the beginning of the fight is not a reflection at all of why he lost. I'm not trying to say Rampage is no good or anything, so you don't need to be all defensive and stick up for his abilities.

I'm not being defensive, in fact I pointed out he sucks at clinch defense. The central point (as I saw it) of your argument was the counter offensive boxing. I addressed that specifically.

He's a great fighter. He just got his ass kicked on two different nights by the same guy because of the same failure.

Exactly. Inability to defend against knees in the clinch. He lost to a different guy for the same reason. What I'm having a problem seeing is how THAT ties in with the validity of CM for defense against punches.

Did Rampage learn what to do later? Yeah, as all good fighters will.

What? No. He got blasted in the clinch by Shogun.

Was he able to avoid the same traps against others earlier in his career? Yes, he was. But if you want to get all nitpicky about keeping it in context - then keep it in context.

Context is always more than one fight. The context is always going to be a number of fights for both fighters. It's never just one fight.

My comments were about that clip and that fight. In that respect, everything I said about it is absolutely true and correct.

1. He covered up and waited when Vanderlei threw flurries of punches at him
2. He had no counter-offense in boxing range

Wrong. He did have it. That he didn't display it is a DIFFERENT issue.

1. The fact that he had no counter-offense in boxing range allowed vanderlei to close and clinch with no fear of reprisal

Again, context is broader. Wanderlei has no fear of reprisal anyway, his fights with Vitor, Mirko, Mike van Arsdale, Mark Hunt and a number of other fighters show that. He knew Vitor and Mirko had dangerous striking, he kept moving forwards against them anyway. Wanderlei wouldn't have stayed back if Rampage was throwing punches, if that was his style he wouldn't have continued fighting Mirko with a closed eye and wouldn't have just kept walking forwards towards Vitor.

1. Because Vanderlei could do that, he was able to win the fight
2. Thus, sitting back and covering up is a bad idea against a good fighter because he may not stop before he's knocked you through the ropes.

I think Muhammad Ali might have something to say about that.

It's cool that you're an advocate of Crazy Monkey and all, and I'm not trying to tell you that your school or your teachers are bad or anything.

None of my teachers taught me CM. I got it from the video. I practiced it for a bit at home before using it. Before watching the video, I was trying to throw punches in training to keep them from punching me (what you advocated) it didn't work - I got knocked out. I tried closing the distance by throwing some punches first and then shooting in, it din't work - I got knocked out, or sprawled on, and that sucked because then they'd be punching from 4 point position. After doing CM, with essentially no instruction, I was able to avoid getting KOed, and close the distance properly so I'd actually get a takedown and end up on top. CM, with minimal practice allowed me to impose my game, and be offensive (although not with boxing, since I wasn't good at it at all). I'm just starting to get an indication that I'll have some good power behind my punches, and maybe 3-6 months from now I'll be able to box in a way that makes people worry a bit. Compared to the amount of time I had to put into CM, that's a lot. Not saying it's not worth it, but there's definitely something to be said for an approach that has a high degree of success for the amount of effort put into it.

Also, your arguments just aren't convincing. You're using a fight that was won by knees in the clinch to argue against the efficacy of a defense intended for punches. A good sample of boxing matches (which I'm sure you have more familiarity with than I do) would be much better to use to look at how well CM fares than an MMA fight.

What I'm saying is that if that method of covering is what you build your fight around, you may do okay against lackluster opposition but you'll get beat down against someone who isn't willing to back off and take turns. Anything can work in a fight. But some ideas are better than others. In my book, counter-offense beats pure defense every single time.

I'm sure Ali had a very good reason for employing pure defense against Foreman.

[migo]

If you want to talk about just one fight you could look at Mark Coleman vs Mirko Filipovic and conclude that Coleman has no takedown skills as he didn't even get close. The context you seem to want to use is pointless. Either you stick to the 2 second clip (no context, WYSIWYG), where Rampage succesfully defends himself against getting KOed, using CM, or you take everything into account, including what both fighters have demonstrated.

[Tant01]

I'm sorry, this was just so entirely and completely full of Lewis Black temper tantrum inducing bullshit I couldn't let it go:



It can be one fight! Especially if you're talking about a two second clip someone posted and you're talking about it IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FIGHT!

Context can be any damned thing that surrounds the event you're discussing. Look it up.

God my head hurts.

Did you forget the red pill Mike?

[migo]

This is entirely too desperate, but I'll entertain it. He didn't apply it because the decision to stand and cover allowed Vanderlei to get close enough to take his other options away. There's a rule in soldiering that says, "If you didn't bring it, you ain't got it." It goes for extra bullets, spare wheels, radio batteries, and in this case, counter-offense in boxing range. The stand still and cover routine didn't work because Vanderlei didn't play along. Rampage got the shit kicked out of him because his opponent didn't back off and take turns like he was supposed to. That's the flaw in any defense-based strategy. If the bad guy brings enough ammo to keep on pounding, the defense always cracks. That's why Rampage lost, and that's why covering up and waiting sucks donkey nuts.

So... Muhammad Ali vs George Foreman never happened? 'Cause I swear I saw the offense cracking there...

Every clinch was preceded by punches, to which Rampage responded with your bullshit defense. Every series of punches ALLOWED Vanderlei to get close, clinch, and knee. If Rampage had any answer for punches against Vanderlei, he might have had better luck stopping the clinch. That's why it's relevant. That's why it makes sense.

Video Pride 12 Wanderlei Silva Vs Dan Henderson Part 1 - Pride, 12, Wanderlei, Silva, 1 - Dailymotion Share Your Videos

Bullshit defense eh? There we see Dan Henderson getting knocked down in the first flurry. Hmmm. What would that indicate? If you don't defend the punches, you don't have to worry about the knees, because you're getting hit anyway. Context. If you're throwing punches to avoid getting clinched in the future and not defending against the punches coming in the present, it's going to be a short fight for you. So much for your bullshit offense. (Obviously not, it worked just fine for Belfort, but I'm just using your own logic against you).

And for the record, if you couldn't make punches work, that's your own damned fault. You might ought to have tried going to something like clinching, kicking, takedowns, or any number of other things you could have done.

I guess you left your reading skills in the boxing ring? I said I went for takedowns. Man... telling a grappler to clinch and go for the takedown, you just eclipsed Ken Shamrock's "Do something" as the least constructive advice ever.

It's good that covering up stopped you from getting hit, and I'm happy that it worked for you. I'd still wager that a successful offense would have worked better, and I'd still wager that if Rampage had any kind of answer for Vanderlei's punches, he would never have had to worry about the knees.

Yeah, nope. Here's another example of what happens to someone when they try to use your bullshit offense against Wanderlei Silva.

YouTube - Wanderlei Silva vs Yuki Kondo (Pride) headstomp

Covering up worked way better for Rampage than throwing punches worked for Yuki Kondo. You're right that Kondo didn't have to worry about the clinch by throwing punches, because he got knocked down from the punches and stomped, Wanderlei never had to get to plan B.

[migo]

Anyway, while that little dance was fun, how about you explain what it is about CM that makes it impossible (or impractically difficult) to integrate counter punching with it. As far as I can gather, that's what you were trying to say in the first place.

[migo]

Oh hell, let's look at some more pure covering up against punches with no counter-punching and see how it went.



Pay attention at 0:50

[migo]

I have said elsewhere, in different contexts that there's no inherently "wrong" techniques. Anything can work, and if it does, it's a good idea. With Vanderlei and Rampage - it didn't work.

It did work. Watch the original clip. CM is for defending against punches. Wanderlei threw punches, and Quinton blocked them. What bizarre criterion of "worked" are you using?

It's not really relevant, though. You're a follower of the Crazy Monkey stuff, so I expect you to back it up even when you're completely wrong.

No, I'm not a follower of CM. I watched a video once and started applying it, and it has worked quite well for me. That's not being a follower of it. That's incorporating a small aspect of it into my game.

If you'd like to expand the diuscussion to a different context and just talk about why a good counter-offense is BETTER than pure defense I'll gladly own you there as well. As for this discussion, you're still wrong. I'm still right. Get over it.

I already did. See the Yuki Kondo vs Wanderlei Silva fight. He used a counter offense, he got knocked down with punches as a result of it. Quinton's pure defense worked better against Silva than Yuki's counter offense.

To punctuate my point, you cited Ali vs Foreman. That fight took 8 gruelling rounds and it helped tear Ali down into the man he is today. By comparison, watch this fight in which Ali counter punches.

Ali was offensive all throughout the first round and wasn't able to put Foreman down. He had to switch to defense because offense wasn't working.

[migo]

I've bolded a few pieces of this so you can see that I have absolutely no problem with the tactic when it works. I just don't see the point. It seems like the lazy man's excuse not to learn footwork, head movement, etc. It doesn't appear to me to have any advantages whatsoever over conventional boxing methods.

Sure it does. You can teach it to a wrestler so that within the span of a couple days he can protect his head enough to get the takedown safely. You can teach it to anyone who is interested in surviving a fight to handle the first few punches, break and run like hell. That's very much an advantage, you're looking at 3-6 months to get some solid boxing down following conventional methods, vs less than a week to get something workable with Crazy Monkey. How is that not an advantage?

I don't see it being anything special, and I don't see it as an improvement on what existed before it. When you show me clips of the Crazy Monkey, I see guys who cover up and don't move their feet anywhere but straight back. I see them letting opponents get close to them. I see them sitting still and not moving off on angles. Even in your own examples, you'll see that this is true. When a fighter puts his stock in covering up, he often forgets that you need to be moving and controlling range in order to be effective. That's exactly what got Rampage caught by Vanderlei - he covered up and moved straight back, allowing Vanderlei to close with impunity and knee - and it's why your average guy on the street will get his ass kicked trying it.

Rampage covered up, backed up and was out of range from being attacked, there was a pause in the action. For the average guy in the street that's enough time to run like hell. Block the punches that are coming, get out of range, run. That's not going to get your ass kicked.

I point all this out because again, you've been working hard to skew this and make it seem like I'm totally discrediting Crazy Monkey as a technique. You're working overtime to try and show me people who've used covering up before as a defense (surprise surprise!) and in so doing, you've apparently failed to read even what I've written about it here in this very thread.

You contradicted yourself there. First you said it'll get the average guy on the street his ass kicked, then you quote yourself saying it's OK for the average guy on the street. Are you even sure what your stance on CM is?

Now to close out, since Crazy Monkey is something that obviously had to have its own name because it was different from what's being taught, why don't you go back and find some professionals who use Rodney King's method rather than the standard, conventional boxing tools that I already mentioned were out there? Everything you've shown here actually supports my point, because I said:

Quinton isn't a professional??? o_O

So thank you for reinforcing the point that no one actually needs anything except what boxing already teaches in this aspect of the game.

Except, you know, Yuki Kondo....

[TylerJamesMead]

just a question but i hear alot of comentators on mma shows saying head movement sets you up for head kicks never really been a problem for me what u guys think

[fire cobra]

Head movement defo sets you up for head kicks bro,hence Thai fighters dont do much of it these days.

[fire cobra]

Yeah Mike i Agree,
if i can just clarify what i meant by head movement was moving the head to the side and forward in a big movement,seen plenty of kos from basic 1-2- high kick when a fighter makes large head/upper body moves,small moves you can get away with more for sure.

[migo]

First of all, you're still trying to skew the discussion. Boxing teaches basic covering and movement, too. If you believe a wrestler can learn to defend against a skilled puncher in a couple of days using Crazy Monkey, then you're going to have to show some evidence of it.

Don't even need CM, the wrestler in the video from 1934 just covered his face completely and it worked.

More to the point, if you believe that the Crazy Monkey idea lends any merit above regular boxing footwork, evasiveness, and countering, I'm afraid you need to show that, too.

And how exactly does CM prevent you from using regular boxing footwork? You're using your hands, there's nothing stopping you from using your feet. You're arguing against a contention that has never been made.

I already offered to post video after video of instances where countering beats covering.

And I already showed you one that shows where countering fell short compared to covering.

I already showed you one. I stand by that position, and I stand by the challenge. You post fights where people won because they covered against multiple shots and didn't fire back, and I'll post fights where people won because they hit back. We'll see who can build a more impressive library.

Ummm.... Ali vs Foreman, one of the most famous fights in boxing history.

Do you do a lot of meth or something? Maybe hooked on phonics really doesn't work, because I could SWEAR I wrote something earlier about:

CM is targetted at people who aren't professional level fighters. That's hardly relevant to the core discussion about CM.

[quo]eThe bold, underlined portion is the part that should have clued you into the fact that I was not referring to the "average guy in the street." In fact, as I have said so many, many times before - I was specifically talking about Rampage and Vanderlei. Forgive me if I sound confused by your astonishing inability to comprehend english. You ability to construct sentences and spell with reasonable ability led me to believe you understood the language.[/quote]

Is your head really so high in the clouds that you think the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they didn't understand you? I understood you just fine, I just plain disagree with some of your base assumptions in discussing a strategy.

This may come as a shock, but my criteria for "worked" in an MMA fight is a structure that doesn't get me so fixated on covering up against punches that my opponent can liesurely stroll up to me and knee me through the ropes. I prefer a structure that is geared toward handling "fighting," not just "punching."

By that logic takedowns don't work because they allow submission experts to submit you from their backs.

I would have thought that someone stepping in the ring against a guy known for knees, who comes from a school known for knees, might have shared at least some of that concern.

Wanderlei was also known for his swinging punches, as was Chuck Liddell. Rampage was guaranteed to fight Liddell, and possibly Wanderlei. Clearly training something that deals with an attack both fighters bring, particularly the one you'll be fighting first is of more importance than something an opponent you have a 50% chance of fighting in the second round brings, and spending time on it would make you less able to deal with your first opponent.

Apparently, though, your measure of "success" is getting knocked all the way out of the ring, smiling through your broken front teeth, and being able to say "yeah, but I handled the punches!" I prefer something that fits well into a structure I can use for all ranges. But hey, you're entitled to your approach too.

You measure success by getting knocked out with punches meaning at least you didn't get kneed. How many times do I have to say that Yuki Kondo did EXACTLY what you said Rampage should have done against Silva and he got knocked out by punches for his efforts. Do you consider that successful counter-offense to Silva's punches? Getting knocked out by punches?

But again - hardly relevant as I was talking about Rampage and Vanderlei.

Talking about only one fight hardly makes sense when you're discussing a technique that has a much wider scope.

I understand that you'd really like to carry this discussion out of that context, and I'm fine with that. But do me the courtesy of at least admitting that you were wrong about my comments on context. If you're man enough to admit that you misunderstood or something along those lines, I can see myself getting a little more civil. Otherwise, I'm afraid this just looks like that same desperate act you've put up on other forums that banned you.

Your context was wrong. The context is "Crazy Monkey", not "Crazy Monkey as used by Quinton Jackson against Wanderlei Silva". The whole thread started with a much broader context than what you're insisting the context is. Your context might be fine if the thread was started about the fight between Jackson and Silva, but that's not what the thread was about.