One of my former employees and now peer in my company is both a martial arts enthusiast (he's a small tank that is into grappling styles) and a movie buff. Recently he came into my office, and dropped a couple of UFC tapes off to view. After a brief discussion, I decided that UFC III (in Charlotte North Carolina) was the one I'd look at first (I don't have a whole lot of free time).
Yes, it was time with the boys last Sunday. We got mamma out of the house. My number 1 son, a 7-year-old who is training with me, is a more-or-less casual karateka. I had a talk with him about it, and decided it would be a good thing for him to see the tape with me. Too often kids see gratuitous violence that is make believe. While UFC may be gratuitous, there's nothing fake about it. My son got a good view of what fights are REALLY like - not pretty. We had a long talk about it afterwards. I think it made a very positive impression on him.
After reading all the hype, after hearing all the discussions, these are my impressions after viewing UFC III.
* Even "very long" real fights don't last long.
* Whenever you get into a fight, you are very likely going to get hurt - even when you win.
* UFC III was a sham. Nobody fought more than 2 rounds. The winner was someone who stepped in fresh and fought someone who exhausted himself on another fighter. And THAT fighter made it to the final round because his second-round opponent exhausted himself on his first round opponent and needed to withdraw. What's the conclusion? See the point above.
* There is such as thing as being too big. Help, I've fallen and I can't get up! Very sad. Sorry, my humor is sick (but true to the mark).
* Steroids work. No, I can't prove what I believe to be the case. Don't get me started on the long-term consequences of such.
* Most people don't know how to power train for martial arts. The weak link prevails! What good are massive chest, shoulders, and arms, when you break your hand on your opponent's head?
* What kicks?
* Like those elbow and knee techniques!
* People do some wierd things in the name of their god. Once again, religion and war mix.
* Soooo....what's the verdict on strikers vs. grapplers? Best to know and train for both. Hey, Uechiryu's a good place to start!
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-19-99).]
UFC III - Lessons learned
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
UFC III - Lessons learned
Bill-san you may be surprised (I know I am) that a female is responding to this thread (UFC too violent for femmes?)but I have watched quite a few UFC tapes - God knows why? I understand that UFC I was banned in Canada (I was "lucky?" enough to see it)
What amazes me is when these guys that come into the cage and the measure of the tape...everyone is a 10th degree in everything...now, that, I think is a sham. How does one get to be a 10th degree in street fighting? (Okay, maybe Tank Abbott - oh, he's a dreamboat!!!)
As for strikers v. grapplers (ah, there's the rub...) I would say the stylings of the Gracie family would be where the money is...I don't know alot of the history behind them (yes, I know some) but they seem to have a tradition that has passed itself down from generation to generation - their students seem to do quite well also and I think it's because they use a combination of both striking and grappling - dependent upon the opponent - I believe it's the versatility.
Personally my money has always been on "Leon the Cut Man".
------------------
What amazes me is when these guys that come into the cage and the measure of the tape...everyone is a 10th degree in everything...now, that, I think is a sham. How does one get to be a 10th degree in street fighting? (Okay, maybe Tank Abbott - oh, he's a dreamboat!!!)
As for strikers v. grapplers (ah, there's the rub...) I would say the stylings of the Gracie family would be where the money is...I don't know alot of the history behind them (yes, I know some) but they seem to have a tradition that has passed itself down from generation to generation - their students seem to do quite well also and I think it's because they use a combination of both striking and grappling - dependent upon the opponent - I believe it's the versatility.
Personally my money has always been on "Leon the Cut Man".
------------------
UFC III - Lessons learned
Gracie grappling style is very effective however what makes the gracies so dangerous is the training methology, they are warriors. Just because you train in Gracie JJ doesn't mean you can fight like a Gracie.
2. Gracie JJ isn't an effective striking style per se. They spend countless years learning how to take out a striker. When was the last time as a striker, you practiced taking out a grappler...
3. versatility is the key, however you must do more than learn a few moves from every style. You must learn all the 'subjective' points a style has to offer i.e balance, distancing, leverage, spirit... these things are uniform. Then you must diversify.
4. finally, the highest compliment I can pay to Royce Gracie: He took on all comers, won, and didn't have to hurt anyone. Can Tank Abbott say that? This speak volumes on his martial mastery...
later
2. Gracie JJ isn't an effective striking style per se. They spend countless years learning how to take out a striker. When was the last time as a striker, you practiced taking out a grappler...
3. versatility is the key, however you must do more than learn a few moves from every style. You must learn all the 'subjective' points a style has to offer i.e balance, distancing, leverage, spirit... these things are uniform. Then you must diversify.
4. finally, the highest compliment I can pay to Royce Gracie: He took on all comers, won, and didn't have to hurt anyone. Can Tank Abbott say that? This speak volumes on his martial mastery...
later
-
Scaramouche
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: LA, CA, USA
UFC III - Lessons learned
Exit lurking mode...
I have seen a few of the earlier UFCs, been to a few Dog Brothers' Gatherings, and train with and under several martial artists who fight or have fought in the UFC, Vale Tudo, and other limited rules matches. I have a few observations, though I could easily change my mind in the light of strong evidence to the contrary. Many people know more about these sorts of matches than I do.
1. Almost all victories gained in most one-on-one minimum rules combat done without weapons, have at their core a combination of grappling drawn mainly or entirely from BJJ and/or wrestling, and striking, drawn mainly from Muay Thai. (Sambo training has also contributed to some victories). The kick that tends to be successful to an appreciable degree is the Thai roundhouse, delivered without chambering (or telegraphing), and hitting the outside of the thigh just above the knee with the attacker's shin. I have seen such kicks alone drop a target.
2. Strong groundfighting ability is a major component in the victories, though more importantly, strong mix of Muay Thai style striking skills _and_ groundfighting has usually proved particularly useful. Even the Gracies and Machados often study standup stiking skills, though for most of them groundfighting is still their bread and butter.
3. Some styles (shootfighting, shootwrestling, possibly pancrase and others) are based largely or completely on the sort of combined styles of grappling and striking skills mentioned above. That is, they combine (sometimes modified) Muay Thai striking with BJJish and submission wrestling techniques. These styles tend to have relatively low learning curves. They have also dominated limited rules fighting matches. (Though again, Sambo practicioners have also distinguished themselves).
4. Standing grappling techniques have seen little if any successful use in these matches. I believe that supports the argument that it can be hard to execute a standing arm bar, chicken wing, come along, or other standing lock against an opponenent who is putting up much resistance.
3. Styles that depend to any appreciable degree on kata or other forms have not done well in one-on-one minimum rules competition. Styles that focus on drills done with partners (such as grappling styles, and Muay Thai) and on hitting heavy bags and related training gear (such as boxing and Muay Thai) completely dominate one-on-one minimum rules competitions.
4. In addition to a lack of standing grappling, there is a distinct lack of A) chambering punches, B) chambering kicks, C) traditional blocks, D) low stances such as the horse stance as it is often done, and E) other stances commonly perceived as traditional (such as any cat stance). Approaches many would perceive as traditional do not seem to appeal to fighters in such matches, despite the fact that I know many are familliar with traditional arts. Traditional style fighters done badly in minimum rules one-on-one matches.
5. OTOH, there was at least one "one strike one kill" knockout in one early UFC. It was sort of a heel palm strike to an inrushing fighters nose/face.
6. Against a competent shooter (a grappler who is proficient at takedowns), a committed punch facilitates a shoot, and a committed kick also does so. Unless that shooter is greatly outclassed, if at least one of the fighters _is_ a shooter, the fight will go to the ground if at least one shooter wants it to.
7. Some say that UFC and similar rules favor shooters, and I once believed this also. However, I now think that the padded floor helps both strikers and shooters. Personally, I'd rather be thrown to a padded floor by a shooter that onto a concrete one.
A good shooter can make sure that _you_ go down first, and that he lands on you, so the padded floor prevents the shooter from softening up his opponent by slamming them on a hard surface. Chain link fences provide a means to resist going down.
Of course, in a real fight, the shooter might well be statisfied with throwing the opponent to the concrete, and then walking away. If they are more vicious, they might forgo going to the ground for a submission, and simply pick up a trash can or other nearby object to smash the grounded opponent.
Strinkers may not be able to use eye jabs, but such techniques are also well known to grapplers (who sometimes do them "by accident" in BJJ cometitions). In addition, fishhooks are illegal, and these are more grapplers' than strikers' techniques.
The rules of the UFC and similar events _may_ give grapplers an advantage over pure strikers, but if it is the case, I think that it is a relatively minor one.
Scaramouche
I have seen a few of the earlier UFCs, been to a few Dog Brothers' Gatherings, and train with and under several martial artists who fight or have fought in the UFC, Vale Tudo, and other limited rules matches. I have a few observations, though I could easily change my mind in the light of strong evidence to the contrary. Many people know more about these sorts of matches than I do.
1. Almost all victories gained in most one-on-one minimum rules combat done without weapons, have at their core a combination of grappling drawn mainly or entirely from BJJ and/or wrestling, and striking, drawn mainly from Muay Thai. (Sambo training has also contributed to some victories). The kick that tends to be successful to an appreciable degree is the Thai roundhouse, delivered without chambering (or telegraphing), and hitting the outside of the thigh just above the knee with the attacker's shin. I have seen such kicks alone drop a target.
2. Strong groundfighting ability is a major component in the victories, though more importantly, strong mix of Muay Thai style striking skills _and_ groundfighting has usually proved particularly useful. Even the Gracies and Machados often study standup stiking skills, though for most of them groundfighting is still their bread and butter.
3. Some styles (shootfighting, shootwrestling, possibly pancrase and others) are based largely or completely on the sort of combined styles of grappling and striking skills mentioned above. That is, they combine (sometimes modified) Muay Thai striking with BJJish and submission wrestling techniques. These styles tend to have relatively low learning curves. They have also dominated limited rules fighting matches. (Though again, Sambo practicioners have also distinguished themselves).
4. Standing grappling techniques have seen little if any successful use in these matches. I believe that supports the argument that it can be hard to execute a standing arm bar, chicken wing, come along, or other standing lock against an opponenent who is putting up much resistance.
3. Styles that depend to any appreciable degree on kata or other forms have not done well in one-on-one minimum rules competition. Styles that focus on drills done with partners (such as grappling styles, and Muay Thai) and on hitting heavy bags and related training gear (such as boxing and Muay Thai) completely dominate one-on-one minimum rules competitions.
4. In addition to a lack of standing grappling, there is a distinct lack of A) chambering punches, B) chambering kicks, C) traditional blocks, D) low stances such as the horse stance as it is often done, and E) other stances commonly perceived as traditional (such as any cat stance). Approaches many would perceive as traditional do not seem to appeal to fighters in such matches, despite the fact that I know many are familliar with traditional arts. Traditional style fighters done badly in minimum rules one-on-one matches.
5. OTOH, there was at least one "one strike one kill" knockout in one early UFC. It was sort of a heel palm strike to an inrushing fighters nose/face.
6. Against a competent shooter (a grappler who is proficient at takedowns), a committed punch facilitates a shoot, and a committed kick also does so. Unless that shooter is greatly outclassed, if at least one of the fighters _is_ a shooter, the fight will go to the ground if at least one shooter wants it to.
7. Some say that UFC and similar rules favor shooters, and I once believed this also. However, I now think that the padded floor helps both strikers and shooters. Personally, I'd rather be thrown to a padded floor by a shooter that onto a concrete one.
A good shooter can make sure that _you_ go down first, and that he lands on you, so the padded floor prevents the shooter from softening up his opponent by slamming them on a hard surface. Chain link fences provide a means to resist going down.
Of course, in a real fight, the shooter might well be statisfied with throwing the opponent to the concrete, and then walking away. If they are more vicious, they might forgo going to the ground for a submission, and simply pick up a trash can or other nearby object to smash the grounded opponent.
Strinkers may not be able to use eye jabs, but such techniques are also well known to grapplers (who sometimes do them "by accident" in BJJ cometitions). In addition, fishhooks are illegal, and these are more grapplers' than strikers' techniques.
The rules of the UFC and similar events _may_ give grapplers an advantage over pure strikers, but if it is the case, I think that it is a relatively minor one.
Scaramouche
UFC III - Lessons learned
Okay, I'm "just a girl" but I have to respond Tracy-san....on your point #2
You said the Gracie striking style wasn't "effective" per se. I'm not sure I agree, because it is used in "combination" perhaps it is effective to a certain degree...after all, I would expect more of a grappling situation than striking based on the Gracie JJ training background, however, as a "stunning" technique I think striking is effective for them in this regard.
I know we all love to watch those "punch em out" fights and they are much more "entertaining" than the grappler fights which seem to go on for eternity until someone chokes out...
And as for Royce Gracie I agree with you there. Hmmm....Tank Abbott ... is he human?
------------------
You said the Gracie striking style wasn't "effective" per se. I'm not sure I agree, because it is used in "combination" perhaps it is effective to a certain degree...after all, I would expect more of a grappling situation than striking based on the Gracie JJ training background, however, as a "stunning" technique I think striking is effective for them in this regard.
I know we all love to watch those "punch em out" fights and they are much more "entertaining" than the grappler fights which seem to go on for eternity until someone chokes out...
And as for Royce Gracie I agree with you there. Hmmm....Tank Abbott ... is he human?
------------------
UFC III - Lessons learned
As someone who until recently trained in both Uechi-ryu and Brazilian jiu-jitsu, let me ad the following:
*BJJ is great for one-on-one encounters but of limited utility against multiple assailants.
*Uechi-ryu is direct and efficient, as long as all combatants are standing up. Although there are grabbing and ground techniques, most don't train enough to become proficient in using them.
*Conditioning for each is different. Although I jog and work out regularly, the only way that you can get into shape for grappling is to grapple. Even being in good shape, three minutes of free grappling in a BJJ class leaves me sucking wind for a good 10-15 minutes or so.
*Which leads to the last point. Correct breathing in both is ESSENTIAL. If you think that it is hard breathing while doing kata and sparring, try to remember to breath and conserve energy when you are wrestling with a 200 lb.+ adversary!!
I encourage you all to try both. Some like Sensei Rose do, as well as Sensei's Pomfret and Wiseman. These are the people that you don't want to run into on the street!
------------------
D. Steven White
swhite@umassd.edu
*BJJ is great for one-on-one encounters but of limited utility against multiple assailants.
*Uechi-ryu is direct and efficient, as long as all combatants are standing up. Although there are grabbing and ground techniques, most don't train enough to become proficient in using them.
*Conditioning for each is different. Although I jog and work out regularly, the only way that you can get into shape for grappling is to grapple. Even being in good shape, three minutes of free grappling in a BJJ class leaves me sucking wind for a good 10-15 minutes or so.
*Which leads to the last point. Correct breathing in both is ESSENTIAL. If you think that it is hard breathing while doing kata and sparring, try to remember to breath and conserve energy when you are wrestling with a 200 lb.+ adversary!!
I encourage you all to try both. Some like Sensei Rose do, as well as Sensei's Pomfret and Wiseman. These are the people that you don't want to run into on the street!
------------------
D. Steven White
swhite@umassd.edu
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
UFC III - Lessons learned
Scaramouche
I've had limited viewing, but my views given UFC III in Charlotte leave me with a bit of a different conclusion. My grappler buddy and I were discussing the "evolution" of such fighting. It was his opinion that the grapplers were doing much better in the earlier matches, but now there doesn't appear to be any one favored method. Tracy makes a good point that Gracie et al were training for strikers, whereas the strikers were likely a bit too smug about their abilities. When you watch UFC III, you see grapplers striking and strikers grappling. It's hard sometimes to figure out who is doing what. It all looked like no-nonsense fighting to me. Bottom line is that you need to know your method and know your opponent.
Now that there are no novelties, the odds appear to be much more even. Best to cross train!
I think most any decent fighter doesn't chamber. Even in point tournaments, it's suicide. When you look at sanchin over several decades of training, you begin to realize that it's trying to teach you how to thrust from a hands-forward position with elbow in front, and NOT from a chambered position. But we need to crawl before we walk before we run.
I agree that the styles you mention that appear to be a combination of grappling and striking do well. On the other hand, I've always viewed Uechi as having both, and I've never seen much of a difference between Thai boxing and Uechi. But then again, maybe it's the company I keep.
Funny thing happened in Brokton at a dan test. One year one of my students came up to test, and did an elbow strike and head butt in his match. Sensei Bethoney chided him for both such techniques. Next year I was up there, he announced that elbow strikes would be allowed. :-)
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-19-99).]
I've had limited viewing, but my views given UFC III in Charlotte leave me with a bit of a different conclusion. My grappler buddy and I were discussing the "evolution" of such fighting. It was his opinion that the grapplers were doing much better in the earlier matches, but now there doesn't appear to be any one favored method. Tracy makes a good point that Gracie et al were training for strikers, whereas the strikers were likely a bit too smug about their abilities. When you watch UFC III, you see grapplers striking and strikers grappling. It's hard sometimes to figure out who is doing what. It all looked like no-nonsense fighting to me. Bottom line is that you need to know your method and know your opponent.
Now that there are no novelties, the odds appear to be much more even. Best to cross train!
I think most any decent fighter doesn't chamber. Even in point tournaments, it's suicide. When you look at sanchin over several decades of training, you begin to realize that it's trying to teach you how to thrust from a hands-forward position with elbow in front, and NOT from a chambered position. But we need to crawl before we walk before we run.
I agree that the styles you mention that appear to be a combination of grappling and striking do well. On the other hand, I've always viewed Uechi as having both, and I've never seen much of a difference between Thai boxing and Uechi. But then again, maybe it's the company I keep.
Funny thing happened in Brokton at a dan test. One year one of my students came up to test, and did an elbow strike and head butt in his match. Sensei Bethoney chided him for both such techniques. Next year I was up there, he announced that elbow strikes would be allowed. :-)
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-19-99).]
UFC III - Lessons learned
Hi Mary,
"2. Gracie JJ isn't an effective striking style per se. They spend countless years learning how to take out a striker. When was the last time as a striker, you practiced taking out a grappler..."
You are right, let me rephrase that.. Gracie JJ uses strikes but it's emphasis is on grappling.. I have seen some world class grapplers such as Ed MeLaugh use the JJ type strikes to attack/distract. I react as a striker next thing I know they are wrapped around my legs. Training is specific, you will do what you are trained to do. Grapplers spend hours learning how to take down and make ineffective strikers. What do we do? That was the point. It was not a slam on JJ rather a compliment! Edwin on the other hand felt leg kicks were useless and overrated. Then he ran into Jim DeLuca, one of Mr. Durkin's students. Jim is a world class fighter, Uechi guy, full contact guy, and now very proficient in Small Circle JJ. Jimmy showed Edwin how we do leg kicks (as stated above, with the shin). Now Edwin adapts his teaching style to include leg kicks and other Uechi style strikes. btw I went to one of the seminars put on by Edwin, Evan, and a stick fighter (his name escapes me for now) who moved like a dream combining all these aspects...
OK back to the point. As Steve says, you have to cross train. I agree, however you must have a core compenentness in one discipline to start.. Say you trained in Small Circle JJ for 5 odd years and became disciplined. It would be easy to incorporate striking leading to your core compentency. If you took the same 5 years, spent one year in a Uechi school, one in boxing, one in wrestling, one in pressure point, one in Small Circle JJ, well you get the point...
later
"2. Gracie JJ isn't an effective striking style per se. They spend countless years learning how to take out a striker. When was the last time as a striker, you practiced taking out a grappler..."
You are right, let me rephrase that.. Gracie JJ uses strikes but it's emphasis is on grappling.. I have seen some world class grapplers such as Ed MeLaugh use the JJ type strikes to attack/distract. I react as a striker next thing I know they are wrapped around my legs. Training is specific, you will do what you are trained to do. Grapplers spend hours learning how to take down and make ineffective strikers. What do we do? That was the point. It was not a slam on JJ rather a compliment! Edwin on the other hand felt leg kicks were useless and overrated. Then he ran into Jim DeLuca, one of Mr. Durkin's students. Jim is a world class fighter, Uechi guy, full contact guy, and now very proficient in Small Circle JJ. Jimmy showed Edwin how we do leg kicks (as stated above, with the shin). Now Edwin adapts his teaching style to include leg kicks and other Uechi style strikes. btw I went to one of the seminars put on by Edwin, Evan, and a stick fighter (his name escapes me for now) who moved like a dream combining all these aspects...
OK back to the point. As Steve says, you have to cross train. I agree, however you must have a core compenentness in one discipline to start.. Say you trained in Small Circle JJ for 5 odd years and became disciplined. It would be easy to incorporate striking leading to your core compentency. If you took the same 5 years, spent one year in a Uechi school, one in boxing, one in wrestling, one in pressure point, one in Small Circle JJ, well you get the point...
later
-
Scaramouche
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: LA, CA, USA
UFC III - Lessons learned
Bill Glasheen,
good points, though perhaps you misunderstood me to some degree. I never claimed that one method (at least as in "one style") was the most effective. I did say that in my limited viewing those who won matches tended to be trained in a combination of submission grappling and standup striking, particularly Muay Thai. While I did mention various flavors of shootfighting, I thought that I pretty clearly communicated that good training in multiple styles (crosstraining) was a major factor in UFC and other rules light fights. Perhaps I was less clear than I intended.
I actually have an article someplace that analyzes the techniques and methods that have been used in the UFC, and what has tended to work best. I don't have it handy, but when grad school allows (not too soon, I suspect) I can find it an summarize it here, if you like. In any case, I think that it is undeniable that certain appoaches have generally worked better in the ring than others.
As for chambering, I have had rather limited exposure to styles that chamber, but it was my impression that many forms besides sanchin include such positioning. God knows I've seen countless magazine articles that show people demonstrating defenses to attacks with the attacker(s) and defender holding their hands clenched by their sides, or launching kicks by extending leg after first bringing their knee on high.
In addition, when I thumb through martial arts books at the local shops I generally see Korean, Japanese, and Okinawan style kicking demonstarted with a chambered knee, even outside the context of any form. From this and other sources I was fairly certain that many Northwest Asian styles seem to teach that chambering is that needed to be done with punches and kicks, even outside of sanchin.
I cannot speak to the differences between Muay Thai and Uechi, but have you trained with Muay Thai stylists, or had them study under you? From the frequent discussion of forms, bunkai, sanchin, the virtues of low stances, and related matters on this forum I would have thought that the two styles would have some clear differences, especially since I have watched Muay Thai stylists train.
BTW, I mean no disrespect to Uechi or any person on this forum. I am sometimes a touch sceptical about some things even people I respect say. I am just the sort of person who tends to often ask probing questions, and sometimes exhibit disagrement. I do this where I train too.
Scaramouche
good points, though perhaps you misunderstood me to some degree. I never claimed that one method (at least as in "one style") was the most effective. I did say that in my limited viewing those who won matches tended to be trained in a combination of submission grappling and standup striking, particularly Muay Thai. While I did mention various flavors of shootfighting, I thought that I pretty clearly communicated that good training in multiple styles (crosstraining) was a major factor in UFC and other rules light fights. Perhaps I was less clear than I intended.
I actually have an article someplace that analyzes the techniques and methods that have been used in the UFC, and what has tended to work best. I don't have it handy, but when grad school allows (not too soon, I suspect) I can find it an summarize it here, if you like. In any case, I think that it is undeniable that certain appoaches have generally worked better in the ring than others.
As for chambering, I have had rather limited exposure to styles that chamber, but it was my impression that many forms besides sanchin include such positioning. God knows I've seen countless magazine articles that show people demonstrating defenses to attacks with the attacker(s) and defender holding their hands clenched by their sides, or launching kicks by extending leg after first bringing their knee on high.
In addition, when I thumb through martial arts books at the local shops I generally see Korean, Japanese, and Okinawan style kicking demonstarted with a chambered knee, even outside the context of any form. From this and other sources I was fairly certain that many Northwest Asian styles seem to teach that chambering is that needed to be done with punches and kicks, even outside of sanchin.
I cannot speak to the differences between Muay Thai and Uechi, but have you trained with Muay Thai stylists, or had them study under you? From the frequent discussion of forms, bunkai, sanchin, the virtues of low stances, and related matters on this forum I would have thought that the two styles would have some clear differences, especially since I have watched Muay Thai stylists train.
BTW, I mean no disrespect to Uechi or any person on this forum. I am sometimes a touch sceptical about some things even people I respect say. I am just the sort of person who tends to often ask probing questions, and sometimes exhibit disagrement. I do this where I train too.
Scaramouche
-
kamwingpang
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Hong Kong
- Contact:
UFC III - Lessons learned
As is always the case, the most important features in fighting one-on-one is not neccessarily the techniques but the person. There are numerous cases where mental side of fighting is of equal or more importance than the physical confrontation.
Obviously, the physical side is pretty important, but just learning techniques will not help you, if you don't train under pressure from external factors (a hard and fast sparring partner) or internal factors (tiredness, pain, self-defeating emotions etc). Pressure testing of techniques is important, if you want to know what works for you.
Obviously, the physical side is pretty important, but just learning techniques will not help you, if you don't train under pressure from external factors (a hard and fast sparring partner) or internal factors (tiredness, pain, self-defeating emotions etc). Pressure testing of techniques is important, if you want to know what works for you.
-
Evan Pantazi
- Posts: 1897
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: N. Andover, Ma. USA
- Contact:
UFC III - Lessons learned
One thing that the UFC definately showed is the affects of the "Chemical Cocktail", as proficient strikers when under pressure came up short as well as grapplers that where taken aback with strikes. The problem is that most strikers work only long and mid range intheir Arts. When someone introduces the close range that occured and the striker had not trained this range the Chemical induced flailing methodology (Really Gross motor skills - ahh Canna Sensei, case in point).
The beauty (?) and real value of the UFC's is in the fact that all ranges were addressed as was real pressure. By the way did anyone remember that KO from Tank that hooked right behind the ear (TW-17) that KO'd that opponent big time, or the elbows to the head of another...A striking method did end more fights than is given credit. there are no perfect Arts each has strengths and weaknesses.
Rose Sensei, the Stick fighter is Sifu ALix Lavaud (Turning style Wing Chun and Modern Arnis).
------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.erols.com/kyusho
The beauty (?) and real value of the UFC's is in the fact that all ranges were addressed as was real pressure. By the way did anyone remember that KO from Tank that hooked right behind the ear (TW-17) that KO'd that opponent big time, or the elbows to the head of another...A striking method did end more fights than is given credit. there are no perfect Arts each has strengths and weaknesses.
Rose Sensei, the Stick fighter is Sifu ALix Lavaud (Turning style Wing Chun and Modern Arnis).
------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.erols.com/kyusho
UFC III - Lessons learned
Thank you Evan,
Alix moved like a dream, hitting him would be like hitting a smoke cloud. This is where a pinning grab (a light, very mobile grab where the hand is lightly anchored to the opponent. The grab doesn't try to contol the opponent merely provide contact) in Uechi would be a neccessity.. All these great MA.. so little time to train with them. So, we must choose our 'training assumptions' carefully. I love the lessons imposed by the UFC but how much do they really pertain to my training assumptions? For example, I am not planning on nor do I relish the thought of fighting a Rickson Gracie. The scenario that I would consider more likely for me would be more of a street-type encounter. How much grappling do I need? Quite a bit actually. I need to know the principles of leverage, control etc. More importantly I need to know how to apply these with my core Uechi training. How can I use the little grappling I have when someone is charging and I didn't/couldn't get the strike off. Now I am standing (barely) tied up with this mutt humping my leg, and I need to get a strike off. This is where my limited knowlege of some grappling incorporated with what I know now comes in. I can use movement, leverage points, denial techniques (all gross motor movements) to create small space to strike. This I can do while becoming a class grappler I cannot do, I just don't have the time to practice grappling and everything else I wish to practice. So how much is enough? Depends on you and what you wish to accomplish. I wish I could be back in grad school like scaramouche and heavily cross train. I have seen the brutal effectiveness of grappling and asked myself "in my scenario, can I work against that?". The answer was no. So you take what you know extend it out till you reach a certain comfort level. Can I grapple with someone like Steve? Nope... Can I work with him from start to ground ? Yup.. and have fun too...
sorry for the rambling, this is an excellent subject, much like the old debates of which is better the .45 or the 9mm? The answer ended up being the one you could hit the opponent with since both rounds can kill you.
later
Alix moved like a dream, hitting him would be like hitting a smoke cloud. This is where a pinning grab (a light, very mobile grab where the hand is lightly anchored to the opponent. The grab doesn't try to contol the opponent merely provide contact) in Uechi would be a neccessity.. All these great MA.. so little time to train with them. So, we must choose our 'training assumptions' carefully. I love the lessons imposed by the UFC but how much do they really pertain to my training assumptions? For example, I am not planning on nor do I relish the thought of fighting a Rickson Gracie. The scenario that I would consider more likely for me would be more of a street-type encounter. How much grappling do I need? Quite a bit actually. I need to know the principles of leverage, control etc. More importantly I need to know how to apply these with my core Uechi training. How can I use the little grappling I have when someone is charging and I didn't/couldn't get the strike off. Now I am standing (barely) tied up with this mutt humping my leg, and I need to get a strike off. This is where my limited knowlege of some grappling incorporated with what I know now comes in. I can use movement, leverage points, denial techniques (all gross motor movements) to create small space to strike. This I can do while becoming a class grappler I cannot do, I just don't have the time to practice grappling and everything else I wish to practice. So how much is enough? Depends on you and what you wish to accomplish. I wish I could be back in grad school like scaramouche and heavily cross train. I have seen the brutal effectiveness of grappling and asked myself "in my scenario, can I work against that?". The answer was no. So you take what you know extend it out till you reach a certain comfort level. Can I grapple with someone like Steve? Nope... Can I work with him from start to ground ? Yup.. and have fun too...
sorry for the rambling, this is an excellent subject, much like the old debates of which is better the .45 or the 9mm? The answer ended up being the one you could hit the opponent with since both rounds can kill you.
later
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
UFC III - Lessons learned
Scaramouche
You're tendency to ask probing questions and to be sceptical definitely puts you in the right place here. We value your input.
The Uechi system is not a system of low stances. Sanchin is entirely a shallow stance kata. It is the first form of this system, and the whole style is based on it. One only sees the deeper stances in the more advanced kata, and they are transient positions with very specific applications like throwing a kick or dumping someone.
I have worked with Muay Thai people. The fellow I spoke of earlier studies it, and so does another burley fellow that I weight train with in the gym. The Thai boxing matches I remember from way back have indeed shaped my view of how I should interpret my system. Here are the similarities I see:
* Both use shallow stances.
* Both have a hands-up-front, elbow-in posture (Uechi's posture is very tiger-like or mantis-like) as opposed to the block-and-chamber posture of most of the Shorin/Shorei genre of styles.
* Uechi is billed as an infighting system. Seisan kata, the second of the big three, has elbow strikes, elbow thrusts, knee strikes, and knee thrusts. They are often done while grabbing the opponent.
* Many of the grabbing positions in seisan kata put you within head-butt range. It is a natural embellishment of several of the techniques.
* Sanchin is a very mobile stance. Only the break-and-bash demonstration crowd stand still in this stance.
* Uechi ryu is famous for kotekitae (forearm conditioning) and ashikitae (leg conditioning). Okinawan Uechi practitioners (Yonamine in particular) are famous for breaking baseball bats over their forearms and shins. Without conditioning, you don't have Uechi ryu.
* Uechi ryu is famous for leg blocks, stemming from the crane roots of the system. A leg-up block of a roundhouse kick in kyu kumite is identical to the classic hands-up, knee-up leg block in Muay Thai.
* Uechi practitioners are famous for their leg kicks. We can take it, and we love to dish it out. Don't dare face a conditioned Uechi fighter in a deep stance.
Sound a little familiar? The only thing different I know of is a tendency of the Uechi practitioner to toe-in for their stance. This is done to help "cock the trigger" for their front leg front kick. Also, Uechi practioners fight open-handed, without gloves. It helps for the grabbing so you can pull people into the knee strikes (sound familiar?).
While the roundhouse kick isn't in the kata, it exists throughout kyu kumite and dan kumite. Most Uechi practitioners apply it, and use either their big toe or shins when doing leg kicks.
So you see, there aren't really any substantive differences, are there? The essence of Muay Thai is within Uechi ryu. Uechi tends to be more complex in its use of open-handed techniques, toe kicks, and grabs/throws.
By the way, we'd be very interested in the contents of that article you speak of.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-20-99).]
You're tendency to ask probing questions and to be sceptical definitely puts you in the right place here. We value your input.
The Uechi system is not a system of low stances. Sanchin is entirely a shallow stance kata. It is the first form of this system, and the whole style is based on it. One only sees the deeper stances in the more advanced kata, and they are transient positions with very specific applications like throwing a kick or dumping someone.
I have worked with Muay Thai people. The fellow I spoke of earlier studies it, and so does another burley fellow that I weight train with in the gym. The Thai boxing matches I remember from way back have indeed shaped my view of how I should interpret my system. Here are the similarities I see:
* Both use shallow stances.
* Both have a hands-up-front, elbow-in posture (Uechi's posture is very tiger-like or mantis-like) as opposed to the block-and-chamber posture of most of the Shorin/Shorei genre of styles.
* Uechi is billed as an infighting system. Seisan kata, the second of the big three, has elbow strikes, elbow thrusts, knee strikes, and knee thrusts. They are often done while grabbing the opponent.
* Many of the grabbing positions in seisan kata put you within head-butt range. It is a natural embellishment of several of the techniques.
* Sanchin is a very mobile stance. Only the break-and-bash demonstration crowd stand still in this stance.
* Uechi ryu is famous for kotekitae (forearm conditioning) and ashikitae (leg conditioning). Okinawan Uechi practitioners (Yonamine in particular) are famous for breaking baseball bats over their forearms and shins. Without conditioning, you don't have Uechi ryu.
* Uechi ryu is famous for leg blocks, stemming from the crane roots of the system. A leg-up block of a roundhouse kick in kyu kumite is identical to the classic hands-up, knee-up leg block in Muay Thai.
* Uechi practitioners are famous for their leg kicks. We can take it, and we love to dish it out. Don't dare face a conditioned Uechi fighter in a deep stance.
Sound a little familiar? The only thing different I know of is a tendency of the Uechi practitioner to toe-in for their stance. This is done to help "cock the trigger" for their front leg front kick. Also, Uechi practioners fight open-handed, without gloves. It helps for the grabbing so you can pull people into the knee strikes (sound familiar?).
While the roundhouse kick isn't in the kata, it exists throughout kyu kumite and dan kumite. Most Uechi practitioners apply it, and use either their big toe or shins when doing leg kicks.
So you see, there aren't really any substantive differences, are there? The essence of Muay Thai is within Uechi ryu. Uechi tends to be more complex in its use of open-handed techniques, toe kicks, and grabs/throws.
By the way, we'd be very interested in the contents of that article you speak of.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 10-20-99).]
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
UFC III - Lessons learned
Tracy
I find the "Style A vs Style B" discussions to be interesting. In the end, though, it reminds me of what happened to the automobile industry during the fuel crisis. All the major manufacturers took their vehicles into the wind tunnel. For the final design, all cars ended up with the same bubble shape.
This seems to be what happens to a lot of styles. People get bizarre ideas about what works until they hit the proving grounds. Reality tends to make us all acquire a similar set of skills. Everyone will specialize, but all will steal from each other (or see the others' techniques within their own working paradigm). Pretty soon, you see many similarities.
Mary
Sorry, didn't realize that your comment about having a valid point of view may have stemmed from my original comment about getting mamma out of the house. It isn't a testosterone vs estrogen thing per se. Mamma is anti violence. Sunday mornings when Jerry Fallwell, the faith healers, Robert Schuller, etc, etc ad nauseum are on all the major local channels, number 1 son and I turn the TV onto the Fox channel to watch Zena, and then Hercules (while we eat our late-morning breakfast). Mamma says we're all going to hell. So we have to sneak our fight movies in when we can :-)
Keep it coming, Mary. Wanna join the boys for Sunday morning breakfast?
- Bill
I find the "Style A vs Style B" discussions to be interesting. In the end, though, it reminds me of what happened to the automobile industry during the fuel crisis. All the major manufacturers took their vehicles into the wind tunnel. For the final design, all cars ended up with the same bubble shape.
This seems to be what happens to a lot of styles. People get bizarre ideas about what works until they hit the proving grounds. Reality tends to make us all acquire a similar set of skills. Everyone will specialize, but all will steal from each other (or see the others' techniques within their own working paradigm). Pretty soon, you see many similarities.
Mary
Sorry, didn't realize that your comment about having a valid point of view may have stemmed from my original comment about getting mamma out of the house. It isn't a testosterone vs estrogen thing per se. Mamma is anti violence. Sunday mornings when Jerry Fallwell, the faith healers, Robert Schuller, etc, etc ad nauseum are on all the major local channels, number 1 son and I turn the TV onto the Fox channel to watch Zena, and then Hercules (while we eat our late-morning breakfast). Mamma says we're all going to hell. So we have to sneak our fight movies in when we can :-)
Keep it coming, Mary. Wanna join the boys for Sunday morning breakfast?
- Bill
UFC III - Lessons learned
Bill-san It would be great to join the boys for breakfast, as long as there is at least one decent food fight (would that be considered violence?) and I don't have to do the dishes....
I knew your original comment wasn't estrogen/ testosterone related anyway... - gee, nice girls don't partake in anything violent - (Ha!! One of my "nicest" female friends went into an absolute frenzy the first time she ever watched a UFC tape: "Blood, blood, show me more blood" - it was scarier than the guys who were watching!!!)
I can remember showing my family a video tape of my first sanchin testing at a grading ... it was great when the "boys" got tested but they all left the room while I tried in vain to explain that I wasn't getting hurt while being punched and kicked...and that I (we) condition for this...now I just don't bother trying to explain anymore. They know I "play" at karate and that's enough for them and I know "better" and that's enough for me.
------------------
I knew your original comment wasn't estrogen/ testosterone related anyway... - gee, nice girls don't partake in anything violent - (Ha!! One of my "nicest" female friends went into an absolute frenzy the first time she ever watched a UFC tape: "Blood, blood, show me more blood" - it was scarier than the guys who were watching!!!)
I can remember showing my family a video tape of my first sanchin testing at a grading ... it was great when the "boys" got tested but they all left the room while I tried in vain to explain that I wasn't getting hurt while being punched and kicked...and that I (we) condition for this...now I just don't bother trying to explain anymore. They know I "play" at karate and that's enough for them and I know "better" and that's enough for me.
------------------
