Tweet
How come Dana White and those other promters say that no one has ever died in MMA competions when heres one I stumbled upon just watching some random fights:
-
-
huh.... maybe they dont wanna admit that grappling can get you killed even in the ring...looks like the last thing that guy ever did was try a takedown...lessons to be learned, strikes can kill you....no matter what the rules and hype of your sport....Gee why didnt he just arm bar him?
if he had not voluntarily put his head next to the ground so the punches do more damage, he might still be alive...but that takedown protects you from the strikers weapon right?
takedowns attempts and throws on a resisting and non-stunned opponent are foolish and can get you hurt or killed as i have stated tons of times before, the proofs in that video. -
Emmm, I think Dana white and the UFC claim that their have never been any deaths in the UFC, not MMA. And if they did, how old is that fight and where is it, I doubt that fight was after the start of the UFC, and like it or not the UFC was really the birth of MMA competition. Maybe not the very first, but the first one that counted.
To BoarSpears never try to take a fully resisting person down unless they are stunned because you will get hurt remark.
I dont think this is true, while I'm going to use MMA/sport type competitions... I feel the same applies to the street.
Judoka have no trouble taking down a fully resisting opponent.
No strikes you say, okay.
Matt Hughes doesnt need strikes/stunning to take his opponents down.
Not the street you say.
How many times has the person who "got the takedown" (ended up on top) won street fights that you see, its like 95% of the time.
Takedowns are effective and can be used in the street or the ring without severely damaging or peppering your opponent up before hand.Comment
-
if you take an opponent to the ground without hurting him, you just moved the fight...if he also has ground skills you still have to wait for him to make a mistake...if you made a mistake on entry it may be ended with a strike...if you havent stunned or injured him with the throw youre gonna be there AWHILE if he has any skills...judo does stun you, with the throw...and many throws need a setup to get them to work...sure a big steriod freak can pick someone up and slam them...are you a big roid freak? then you might wanna try some other techniquesOriginally posted by SamuraiGuy
Comment
-
In your first post you said this
"takedowns attempts and throws on a resisting and non-stunned opponent "
that implies the stun would have to come before the attempt, not the stun being a result of the takedown or throw. I realize the point of the throw is to stun the person (so you can run away or kick them in the headI suppose).
So im right on that account, the takedown is possible without a previously stunned opponent as you stated.
And we agree that the point of the takedown is to stun people. (Or in some cases slam them on their kidney's so hard they feel like shitting and throwing up at the same time and when they wake up the next morning they pee blood) (I still won though)... ..
....
...
Anyway, no im not a roid freak, but I have dabbled in non roided out powerlifting/strongman for several years, and sheep farming/construction jobs.
Plus I got a few techniques/skills myself. Just a few though.Comment
-
Granted some throws are attempted without a set up...but those are typically sport or used after the guy grabbed you...contact has been established and the gap closed...thats where the strikes fit, before the grabsOriginally posted by SamuraiGuy
Comment
-
"sports" like wrestling(greco and freestyle and fokstyle) and Judo and BJJ train you to execute moves on a fully resisting skilled opponent, that is some moves work better than others and other dont even work. All this involves TECHNIQUE and TIMING not brute strength or even athletism.Comment
-
I'm not discounting the importance of a setup, and I realize some throws come without a setup too, however, you never mentioned a setup in your very first post and thats what Im arguing.
"takedowns attempts and throws on a resisting and non-stunned opponent are foolish and can get you hurt or killed as i have stated tons of times before, the proofs in that video."
That doesnt mention a setup at all.
I think we're both thinking along the same lines, and both know what the other one is saying.
I'm just proving that takedown attempts on a resisting and non-stunned opponent arent always foolish. I feel I've already done that, I'm just trying to get you to admit what you WROTE was wrong.Comment
-
i stand by the statement dude...sure in a situation where you chose to close and grapple with each other you can get a throw...try that when someone steps back and is prepared to fight...no contact yet and the gap aint closed... if you walk, dive, or duck into grappling range youre gonna get nailed if your opponent can fight...in order to take someone down you have to grasp, and control the body and destroy their root...thats aint so easy on a striking opponent...ps the reason grappling is effective is that most strikers cant land a stopping shot in a fight on a resisting opponent...thats because their stand up game wasnt much better than their ground game...yes you HAVE to know the ground game to defend it...but the gracie butt scoot proves you need stand up MORE unless you can scoot around the ring BEGGING and pleading for your opponent to stop hitting you and fight like a Gracie. The majority of strikers throw shots that can be withstood long enough to get in and secure a hold...that means those thigh kicks from MT are best left out of your arsenal...many strikers go down for that DUMBASS attempt....its GREAT on a guy set up to punch...stupid on someone set to shoot in....Originally posted by SamuraiGuyComment
-
(I'm arguing this from a MMA standpoint, and I could do it from a self defense standpoint, but this is the MMA forum, and I got the feelign from your post that you were relating it to MMA with the Sakuraba reference, muay thai reference, etc.)
You said that
"sure in a situation where you chose to close and grapple with each other you can get a throw...try that when someone steps back and is prepared to fight...no contact yet and the gap aint closed... if you walk, dive, or duck into grappling range youre gonna get nailed if your opponent can fight...in order to take someone down you have to grasp, and control the body and destroy their root...thats aint so easy on a striking opponent..."
Okay, then explain to me why just last week on TUF 3, the golden gloves boxer got absolutely fucking wrecked by the greco roman/bjj guy.
The guy clearly had better striking, and the grappler "walk dove or ducked" into grappling range and wasnt nailed. You said if the opponent can fight, well a golden gloves boxer can strike, cant he?
You cited the Gracie butt scoot, and you said
"but the gracie butt scoot proves you need stand up MORE "
Clearly from my previous example you dont need stand up more, as anyone can throw a punch, or a combination, but not everyone can grapple. Look at the first UFC's who won? the striker or the grappler. Look at the video posted in this very forum of Rorion Gracie vs the Hapkido guy. Everyone knows how to fight standing up (I didnt say well, but everyone knows how to do it), not everyone knows how to fight on the ground.
Trust me I realize the importance of standup, but in a pure grappler vs pure striker scenario the grappler willl win, a million times out of a million and one.
Now if you get someone who can stop the takedown or grappling and has superior striking ALA chuck Lidell, then the grappling is out matched.
In a MMA fight (remember this is what I'm arguing, I can do it for street defense too) grappling is more important than striking, unless you face one of the few strikers who can stop the takedown (CroCop, Lidell) and even then, they can still be put on their ass , (Fedor put CroCop on his ass), (Even though Couture lost he put lidell on his ass).
Boar I know you think of grappling as a last resort type thing, and I agree in a self defense situation, but this is after all a mma thread, mma forum, and mma discussion isnt it?Comment
-
Yes dude in an MMA sense youre right, i was actually thinking in general terms which in my mind revolves around SD...you are right, this is a place where the biggest name in MMA and their patented butt scoot are respected...My bad...Originally posted by SamuraiGuy
See when i think of fighting i understand it begins before the first physical movements are made...good strikers with the ability to ground fight usually arent forced to ground fight..the ground guys are forced to butt scoot around...that says takedowns without setups DONT work..even in the ring...unless of course your opponent sux
Outside the ring whats more likely to be helpful...the gracie butt scoot or the ability to throw a good punch?
Comment
-
I never said takedowns without setups work, were not disagreeing on that point.
Clearly a good punch is gonna be better than a crab walk, but in all honesty in a one on one street fight assuming no weapons are involved (it changes the parameters of the discussion and this whole argument is worthless if they are involved). who would you take, the guy with a year of boxing or a year of wrestling (as you seem to be anti GJJ or BJJ even).
I'd go with the wrestler because he knows how to punch but the boxer doesnt know how to wrestle. What is gonna happen when the boxer seems to be landing more shots on the wrestler. The wrestler is just gonna grab him and throw him on the ground which wouldnt be that hard. (Grabbing and falling is likely if they are both untrained as well).
I'd like to think I have a "good punch"... does that mean Royler Gracie is gonna butt scoot around if he were to fight me, hell no.
The thing is he was forced to butt scoot as he was outclassed in the standup and couldnt get the guy to the ground.
While you advocate striking, and I advocate grappling, the grappler will have no problem taking the striker down as the striker doesnt have the ability to stop the grappling like Sakuraba did.
It was Royler and Sakuraba right?
By using the boot scoot example you arent giving a good representation of grappling.
What if I posed the question to you,
Outside the ring whats more likely to be helpful, a nice explosive double leg shot, or the road bikers spinning backfist in this video?
Comment
-
i prefer wrestling over boxing, if you have to limit yourself to one art. I think the ground is a great addition to a stand up game...like sak does it...however relying on the ground like the Gracies do is flawed...see the butt scoot...the MOST humiliating experience possible....even a straight up ass whoopin (which he recieved anyway) wouldnt have been that embarrassin', it reminds me of the fight scene from Troy with the puss who wouldnt fight...his brother had to kill the opponent while he butt scooted around begging for his life...exactly like Gracie would have been outside the ring...fortunatly for him that was a sporting event...if he couldnt get past punches and kicks tell me again how they defend against knives? ( i already know about Helio's bullet proof shield )....
Tell me again why im not more popular 'round these parts?
Comment
-
BoarSpear,
If I'm around 5'7, avg reach, and someone 6'2 with long limbs and
athletic build around 210 lbs gets in my face, do you suggest I not try to close the distance?
While I may still get my butt kicked If I try to take the fight down,
it's a lot better knowing I may have a shot taking it down instead
of standing up and having no shot in an exchange by someone with even avg non-trained stand-up.
If you know of a stand-up art that can diminish such reach and
strength advantages, Id give it a serious look...Other than
that I feel grappling/subs is my only shot.
Two nearly equal sizes (such as MMA) you may be right...But in the
real world, for me at least, I think your strategy is not the
best.
Also is the butt scoot just falling back into the guard?Comment
-
I would put it the other way Boar, good stand up skills can complement even better grappling skill. Grappling in a confrontation is inevitable due to the unpredictable nature of striking. They are both arts, but striking inherently has more variables making it more difficult to be completly relied on. And I'm definitly not knocking striking ability, I love boxing, it's one of my favorite sports and I box myself. In order to stop grappling from taking place, one must keep the distance, and ultimately attain the knockout(variable). Though I don't agree with Samurai on a double being a practical self defense takedown... because of environment. I would never want to shoot on concrete or pavement... This is where striking is superior... all techniques can be used regardless... But then again, it all depends on the person.Comment
Comment