| Author |
Message |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
 Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | The fact that karatekas got consistantly dominated by boxers and grapplers is why those arts are popular in MMA academies now. It's also the reason why for every Machida (who has a solid boxing/grappling game btw) there are dozens of boxer/mauy thai/wrestler/bjj champions in MMA. |
If you begin with the assumption that training in some boxing techniques takes precedence over karate everytime (Machida brothers are still training and competing in karate as far as I know), then there is no arguing with this bias. If they succeeded then there is something good in there.
Defeated by grapplers I agree, hey even boxers get that a lot too. But by boxers... no. Check K1. There are so many I can't list them all; Semmy Schilt, Masaaki Satake and Glaube Feitosa only to list those. You do have to realise that there isn't as many people in North America practicing full contact karate like there is in Japan ( I mean professionally) even less so in the 60-70's. I realised this when I was in Japan actually, it's another world. I realised that if I ever had to fight one of those guys in the street, I'd had to learn to exploit their gaps (if they didn't already filled it). I just couldn't compete with them and have a normal life.
| Quote: | Spoken like a true traditionalist.
Like I said, we just come from totally different schools of thought, Max. |
Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist, be it just from my experience I'm also alot on the modern side (BJJ, boxing, Krav Maga). I think there is much to learn from the past (I'm an archaeologist, so I guess it comes with it), but both the past and the future have to convince me that they have something to offer. I'm not a social-Darwinist like Hutton or Castle that thinks that their martial arts are more evolved than anything that came before and less than anything that will come after.
We'll have agree to disagree as I don't think we can go any further in our arguments at the current rate.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
   |
 |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JE Sarge wrote: | I've been watching this thread for a few days, pondering if there was anything that I could offer. I decided that I could.
I have been in the military since 1987 through different terms of enlistment and been employed in a law enforcement career since 1991; serving as a correctional officer, first time offender boot camp instructor, deputy sheriff, deputy investigator, and district attorney investigator. I have seen more than my share of confrontations as well as observing the confrontations of others.
But, does a training in a martial art make you an automatic master of real combat? No. Nothing can compare you for genuine combat for your survival because though you may have useful tools from martial arts, there are far too many undetermined factors. To think that because you have a black belt in TKD or won a sheild in the SCA that you will win a real fight is foolish. There are fear, weapons, your opponent's buddies, lighting, pain, surface, etc...its impossible to train in all of these factors. There is also point when animalistic drive takes over throwing your focus out the window, the adrenaline overloads your system, and you will do anything to survive as will your enemy. This is the part that martial arts cannot simulate - because you know at the base level in a martial arts competition that your opponent is not trying to kill you. Until you have experienced wrestling with a hispanic for your firearm the side of a bypass in the middle of the night without help from another officer or bashing the enemy in the face until he's dead with an LCH to keep him from getting the AK off the floor while clearing a house with your squad, you have not experienced combat in the true sense. Nothing, short of the experience, can prepare you for this type of struggle because you think and act differently under this kind of stress. You cannot simulate this no matter how hard to try.
In short, I think that martial arts go a long way to condition you for the fight and I am a firm believer that everyone should practice a martial art to better themselves. But as for the fight itself, martial arts do not really compare to actual combat, and nor should one assume so. There is no comparison really. You won't figure this out until you experience it. I personally hope that you do not have to. |
My experience in real confrontations, although surely not much compared to what you guys have to face, also make me agree completely with you. We can aproximate, we can train our body, condition our mind, but it's never comparable. And this is what's making martial arts training so unique from my point of view.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JE Sarge wrote: | I've been watching this thread for a few days, pondering if there was anything that I could offer. I decided that I could.
|
Hey JE,
I think you've hit on a very good point here, and one that underpins David's (and mine) opinion of why combat sports have been such an intergral part of martial history (until the 20th century it seems). You can't ever truly prepare for a life or death struggle, but pressure testing techniques in a mutually competative environment to the limit of safety allows you to make sure you are at least as physiologically prepared as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
I think training in arts with competition being the primary focus should be equal cause for caution, as I mentioned earlier in my contrasting of battle vs. competition groundfighting, which are vastly different animals. The intense focus on what's allowed in the ring also removes many critical real-life elements, like "what if he's armed?" |
Hey Christian,
I think you are missing the point a little here: MMA isn't any less relevent to real life situations than CQB or anything else. A well rounded MMA'ist takes his opponent to the ground because it's where he has the most chance of victory. If it's better for him to stand up and bang, he does that. If he should run away, then hey, the cardiovascular training a typical mixed martial artists does will help him out there too! If he needs to use UFC illegal moves such as small joint manipulations, eye gouging etc, his grappling background lets him know the safest and most efficient way to do that too. The point is that he can choose because he's well rounded, and due to the fact he has pressure tested his skillset, he has a superior knowledge of how to make that skillset work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dave -
-"No, it isn't the same.
The two kung-fu masters from 1954 were ostensibly serious practitioners, whereas it's no secret that the WWF/WWE is little more than a "Redneck Soap Opera"."-
No really, it is the same. For the people who take various styles of effective kung fu that compete in events like San Shou, we view these dillution styles of Kung Fu as "fake" arts that are around for mearly show and theatre, just like WWF is, thats it. We know they are not effective, and have known that, and have been saying that, before MMA events even started. So it is the same.
-"If they do, then their instructors must have cross-trained in boxing. "-
Again, no. Absolutely not. Are you saying that no Japanese or Korean art ever developed hooks and uppercuts? That is silly. My style of Kung Fu, Kun Tao, teaches the basic punches from day one, and niether the style, nor it's instructors, were ever cross trained in western boxing.
"-Only if they're willing to learn the ground game--something we have yet to see from Chung Le himself."-
So Cung Le's kicks, that break arms, are only effective if he learns how to fight on the ground?... Absolutely False,... yes, he also knows BJJ for ground work, and he can do it, he just chooses to stay on his feet, because thats what he's best at. Just because he hasn't shown his ground work in UFC, (though he's shown it other MMA events), doesn't make what he has shown "ineffective".
Taylor -
-" Besides the fact Shamrock hasn't been a top middleweight for over 8 years (a lifetime in MMA),"-
Shamrock was the middlefight strikeforce TITLE HOLDER... to say he hasn't been a top middle weight for over 8 years is simply trying to downplay Le's success. Cung Le won the title from him. I think it's extremely impressive that some one can step in, and take on a title holder in only 6 fights, and win.
-"(sanshou according to Wikipedia, being a Chinese combat sport )."
It is... San Shou is for the various Kung fu styles like MMA is for other martial arts styles.
-"I can understand that spending so much of ones life perfecting a particular discipline only to see it blown out of the water can be upsetting. The difference between the 2 schools of though Dave mentioned is one chooses to close their eyes, cover their ears and pretend its all ok, whilst the other gets out and fills the gaps in their skillset. Simple as that really"-
Yes, some people realize that you need to be good all around for MMA, like myself, as I have stated ump-teen times. And those same people also can watch when Cung Le snapps an arm in half with a kick and understand that his Kung Fu kicks are effective. While others, even though they see the same event I saw, and watched his kicks dominate several MMA matches, still can't bring themselves to say that kung fu is effective.
|
|
 |
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Taylor Ellis wrote: | Lets take a closer look at Cung Le being the pin up boy for traditional Chinese martial arts being effective in modern MMA.
He was born in South Vietnam, emigrated to the US at age 10, where he took up tae kwon do (currently holds a black belt) and sanshou (sanshou according to Wikipedia, being a Chinese combat sport  ). As previously mentioned he wrestled in high school and college, and went on to defeat Frank Shamrock earlier this year. Besides the fact Shamrock hasn't been a top middleweight for over 8 years (a lifetime in MMA), Le remains the only Chinese stylist (and a very, very eclectic and modern one at that) to have any success in MMA. When he takes out Anderson Silva or Georges St Pierre with traditional Chinese skills the MMA world will take notice. Until then...
I can understand that spending so much of ones life perfecting a particular discipline only to see it blown out of the water can be upsetting. The difference between the 2 schools of though Dave mentioned is one chooses to close their eyes, cover their ears and pretend its all ok, whilst the other gets out and fills the gaps in their skillset. Simple as that really. |
Excellent and totally pertinent observations, Taylor.
Thank you!
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Hi David! |
Hey Christian!
| Quote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | It's a preference that is scientifically motivated. Given the imperfect knowledge of these long-dead systems, it is thoroughly logical to approach their applicability to modern self-defence with a great deal of caution, to put it mildly. |
I think training in arts with competition being the primary focus should be equal cause for caution, as I mentioned earlier in my contrasting of battle vs. competition groundfighting, which are vastly different animals. The intense focus on what's allowed in the ring also removes many critical real-life elements, like "what if he's armed?" |
As I mentioned much earlier (I don't remember which page), MMAists and other combat sport exponents take those factors into consideration. Arts like BJJ and judo have self-defense curricula, but it's also common these days to expand the cross-training into weaponed systems, like Filipino eskrima/arnis.
| Quote: | | That said, your caution is reasonable. For that reason, I continue to feel it's important to cross-train and compare notes with other practitioners of extant arts. |
Most definitely.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I never said anything about leaving these arts "relegated to the past", but I'm not going to advocate them for modern self-defense, either. |
Ok, fair enough - thanks for the clarification. I think it's unfortunate you feel that way, but I get where you're coming from. I do feel that you should do some training in these arts before solidifying such an opinion however, but that's your call.* |
For the record, I'm not saying that I would never employ a technique or set of techniques from a period European fight manual in a real defense situation, but I still have my reservations about endorsing a long-dead system that is not fully understood, as a whole.
| Quote: | | For me, given I train to move in a fashion demanded by the art I study, it makes no sense to train in an unarmed art using a different tactical, and likely kinesthetic, paradigm: training thrusts trains punches; training dagger blows teaches the hammer-fist strike; guard transitions are takedowns and throws, etc. etc. It's holistic. |
Holistic--I dig that. Fencing always struck me as holistic, and, given how long many maestros have lived, their must be something to it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Classical fencing is a living tradition, and it certainly has a good deal of application, in terms of weapons use. The same can even be said of modern fencing, to a more limited degree (I earlier mentioned the beneficial overlap between fencing and the Filipino arts). Likewise, wrestling and boxing have their uses. |
I don't agree with regard to modern or Classical fencing, beyond the teaching of good carriage and tactical analysis. These do not teach the use of modern weapons, or weapons used in the fashion of modern weapons. |
On the contrary--what is taught in fencing can be applied to various other purpose-built and improvised weapons, such as ASP telescoping batons, night sticks, eskrima sticks, cue sticks, etc. I mentioned earlier how my fencing training and Filipino MA training only complemented each other.
| Quote: | | The overarching problem with the applications of late systems of fence to self-defense is that they have ceased to be integrated arts, unlike their medieval and Renaissance forebearers; it can be done, but it's far from optimal. |
I must firmly disagree here.
I'm sure you're aware that self-defense was part of the training in such fencing systems. Much like the modern Filipino arts, classical fencing styles taught the use not only of purpose-built swords and fighting sticks, but also of everday objects, like walking-sticks and umbrellas. Given FMA's connection with Western fencing systems (via the Philippines' 300-plus-year occupation by the Spanish), we probably shouldn't be surprised by this parallel.
| Quote: | | I do agree about wrestling and boxing. If you do both of those, you're in a pretty good place, I feel. And that of course goes back pretty much to modern boxing's pugilism antecedents anyway. |
Yeah, boxing and wrestling go together like choclate and peanut butter, lol (sorry for the Reese's reference, but I couldn't resist).
| Quote: | | *That's a not-so-subtle invitation, btw - I'm in CT and you're in nearby NJ. You're more than welcome to stop in some time! |
Much obliged, Christian!
Let's see what the New Year brings, schedule-wise...
Pax,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | | The fact that karatekas got consistantly dominated by boxers and grapplers is why those arts are popular in MMA academies now. It's also the reason why for every Machida (who has a solid boxing/grappling game btw) there are dozens of boxer/mauy thai/wrestler/bjj champions in MMA. |
If you begin with the assumption that training in some boxing techniques takes precedence over karate everytime (Machida brothers are still training and competing in karate as far as I know), then there is no arguing with this bias. If they succeeded then there is something good in there.
Defeated by grapplers I agree, hey even boxers get that a lot too. But by boxers... no. Check K1. There are so many I can't list them all; Semmy Schilt, Masaaki Satake and Glaube Feitosa only to list those. You do have to realise that there isn't as many people in North America practicing full contact karate like there is in Japan ( I mean professionally) even less so in the 60-70's. I realised this when I was in Japan actually, it's another world. I realised that if I ever had to fight one of those guys in the street, I'd had to learn to exploit their gaps (if they didn't already filled it). I just couldn't compete with them and have a normal life. |
You should keep in mind that Thai boxing is also popular in Japan, and led to the development of kickboxing there, in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, any Japanese fighters you see in combat sport kickboxing events like K1 are more likely to show a kickboxing/muay Thai influence, as opposed to karate.
Kickboxing and Thai boxing are also huge sports in Holland, so when you bring up guys like Semmy Schilt and try to pigeonhole them purely as karateka, it's downright misleading.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Spoken like a true traditionalist.
Like I said, we just come from totally different schools of thought, Max. |
Well I wouldn't consider myself a traditionalist, be it just from my experience I'm also alot on the modern side (BJJ, boxing, Krav Maga). I think there is much to learn from the past (I'm an archaeologist, so I guess it comes with it), but both the past and the future have to convince me that they have something to offer. I'm not a social-Darwinist like Hutton or Castle that thinks that their martial arts are more evolved than anything that came before and less than anything that will come after. |
Perhaps you need to re-read Hutton's works a little more carefully.
Many modern HEMA exponents love to talk condescendingly about their Victorian-era predecessors (which is thorougly ironic, since they actually paved the way for what we do today). It is true that many of the Victorians believed in the supposed "linear evolution" of European weapons-play, which was debunked so thoroughly by J. Christoph Amberger, first in his Hammerterz Forum newsletter, and later in his brilliant Secret History of the Sword book and website.
That being said, some Victorian HEMA researchers were more progressive than others--and Hutton is a perfect example of that. For example, Hutton took a rather indulgent view of George Silver--and even went so far as to state that Silver was "justified" in his feelings on the rapier and its corresponding system that was taught by the London Italian masters. Hutton wrote this at a time when virtually everyone else dismissed Silver as nothing more than some xenophobe who was merely trying to set back the clock (see his Sword and the Centuries). In his book on saber usage (Cold Steel), Hutton combined the current Italian method of the duelling saber with that of the older English backsword-play of the preceeding century. He also offered an interpretation of Marozzo's unarmed vs. knife defenses. Cold Steel is fortunately back in print, and the current Dover edition features an excellent introduction by classical maestro, Ramon Martinez.
In addition to Hutton, there was his friend Captain Cyril Matthey of the London Rifle Brigade, who wanted to include ideas and techniques from Silver's Brief Instructions (c. 1605), into a new saber method. So clearly, these men were not thinking in some sort of close-minded Victorian vacuum.
| Quote: | | We'll have agree to disagree as I don't think we can go any further in our arguments at the current rate. |
I concur wholeheartedly.
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
Last edited by David Black Mastro on Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
just caught this quote, sorry I missed this earlier.
-"You won't learn any method of fighting via kata."-
For the most part, this is true. It's true because many arts have devolved kata to be a show of different moves and techniques than the actual sets of moves said art uses for self defense. Many arts from all styles use forms or Kata as nothing but a choreographed dance to show off fantsy moves that for the most part, are not pratical moves. I suspect punching from the hip came from this.
However, there are a few arts where the kata or forms, are direct moves that are meant to directly translate to self defense. These forms are not as pretty to watch as the ones spoken about above, but they are meant to be a way to practice effective moves with out having a partner or a punch bag. Now, practicing them alone is not enough. The way we do it, is teach either the form, or the techniques (face to face defenses) of the form first. Second, we take the techniques to a sparring or semi sparring level, and then make sure the form that is practiced solo is similar to the way the technique is done in a sparring or semi sparring level. Next, the techniques are then applied in contact sparring and again compared back to the solo form technique for any differences. All the while, the form can be practiced solo when not in class. In this case, the forms are one way, or one tool, to help learn self defense fighting methods. I believe this is what they were originally developed to do, but most arts do not do this anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | So Cung Le's kicks, that break arms, are only effective if he learns how to fight on the ground?... Absolutely False,... yes, he also knows BJJ for ground work, and he can do it, he just chooses to stay on his feet, because thats what he's best at. Just because he hasn't shown his ground work in UFC, (though he's shown it other MMA events), doesn't make what he has shown "ineffective". |
Cung Le has never fought for the UFC and his BJJ skills are not developed. He's just started BJJ training a short few years ago and one could not expect them to be at any substantial level. At this point in his game, he'll never develop BJJ to any significant level.
| Quote: | " Besides the fact Shamrock hasn't been a top middleweight for over 8 years (a lifetime in MMA),"-
Shamrock was the middlefight strikeforce TITLE HOLDER... to say he hasn't been a top middle weight for over 8 years is simply trying to downplay Le's success. Cung Le won the title from him. I think it's extremely impressive that some one can step in, and take on a title holder in only 6 fights, and win. |
Shamrock is only considered barely top 20 in the game and only by some. The simple fact is that Strikeforce is not a deep pool of talent and the middleweight division, across MMA, is not the strongest division. Further, Shamrock hasn't been active nor has he faced top competition for quite some time. Phil Baroni? Give me a break. Renzo Gracie? Good competition, but no doubt over the hill. Cesar Gracie? Renown trainer, but new to MMA competition. Bryan Pardoe? Who cares! Elvis Sinosic, the sacrificial lamb gatekeeper? Come on! Tito Ortiz? Good competition, but now we're already back to 1999.
Yeah, six fights since 2000. Nothing notable. Saying Frank Shamrock has not been a top middleweight in over 8 years is quite reasonable and such an argument has nothing to do with Cung Le.
Cung Le is not a major player in MMA.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | just caught this quote, sorry I missed this earlier.
-"You won't learn any method of fighting via kata."-
For the most part, this is true. It's true because many arts have devolved kata to be a show of different moves and techniques than the actual sets of moves said art uses for self defense. Many arts from all styles use forms or Kata as nothing but a choreographed dance to show off fantsy moves that for the most part, are not pratical moves. I suspect punching from the hip came from this.
However, there are a few arts where the kata or forms, are direct moves that are meant to directly translate to self defense. These forms are not as pretty to watch as the ones spoken about above, but they are meant to be a way to practice effective moves with out having a partner or a punch bag. Now, practicing them alone is not enough. The way we do it, is teach either the form, or the techniques (face to face defenses) of the form first. Second, we take the techniques to a sparring or semi sparring level, and then make sure the form that is practiced solo is similar to the way the technique is done in a sparring or semi sparring level. Next, the techniques are then applied in contact sparring and again compared back to the solo form technique for any differences. All the while, the form can be practiced solo when not in class. In this case, the forms are one way, or one tool, to help learn self defense fighting methods. I believe this is what they were originally developed to do, but most arts do not do this anymore. |
The point stands that kata on their own are useless. Unless one works with resisting opponents, one cannot develop the attributes necessary to apply techniques in a real situation. John Danaher stressed this in his amazing book with Renzo Gracie--Mastering Jujutsu. I already mentioned how the Kodokan cleaned house during the Tokyo Police Tournament of 1886, against classical jujutsuka who were often trained almost purely through kata. Another good example would be the early 18th century duels between "cosmopolitan samurai" who's training was kata-based, and the "rural fencers" from the suburbs who came to Tokyo at that time. Those rustic swordsmen happened to embrace the idea of testing themselves in competitive matches, as mentioned on E-Budo by Dr. William Bodiford, many years ago. And those swordsmen routinely defeated their kata-trained opponents.
Kata appear to be something of a "Living Catalog of Techniques"--a way to preserve a given set of techniques, and hand them down from generation to generation. That's all well and good, but it's not sufficient on its own, to train fighters. Free-sparring--whether you call it randori, "rolling", the assault, "loose play", "rough play", "fencing loose", or what have you--is absolutely essential.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nathan -
Your right, I was under the impression strikeforce was apart of UFC, not sure why I thought that. This is honesly beside the point. The point is Cung Le's Kung Fu techniques are effective. Would you say they are not? How many times does some one have to win to show that a technique is effective?
Edit: Just checking Le's record, he's a champion in at least 15 other fight circuits and tournaments all over the world... again, I have to say his techniqes are effective.
Last edited by Chris Fields on Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:57 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Quote: | " Besides the fact Shamrock hasn't been a top middleweight for over 8 years (a lifetime in MMA),"-
Shamrock was the middlefight strikeforce TITLE HOLDER... to say he hasn't been a top middle weight for over 8 years is simply trying to downplay Le's success. Cung Le won the title from him. I think it's extremely impressive that some one can step in, and take on a title holder in only 6 fights, and win. |
Shamrock is only considered barely top 20 in the game and only by some. The simple fact is that Strikeforce is not a deep pool of talent and the middleweight division, across MMA, is not the strongest division. Further, Shamrock hasn't been active nor has he faced top competition for quite some time. Phil Baroni? Give me a break. Renzo Gracie? Good competition, but no doubt over the hill. Cesar Gracie? Renown trainer, but new to MMA competition. Bryan Pardoe? Who cares! Elvis Sinosic, the sacrificial lamb gatekeeper? Come on! Tito Ortiz? Good competition, but now we're already back to 1999.
Yeah, six fights since 2000. Nothing notable. Saying Frank Shamrock has not been a top middleweight in over 8 years is quite reasonable and such an argument has nothing to do with Cung Le.
Cung Le is not a major player in MMA. |
More great observations, Nathan.
| Quote: | | Chris Fields wrote: | | So Cung Le's kicks, that break arms, are only effective if he learns how to fight on the ground?... Absolutely False,... yes, he also knows BJJ for ground work, and he can do it, he just chooses to stay on his feet, because thats what he's best at. Just because he hasn't shown his ground work in UFC, (though he's shown it other MMA events), doesn't make what he has shown "ineffective". |
Cung Le has never fought for the UFC and his BJJ skills are not developed. He's just started BJJ training a short few years ago and one could not expect them to be at any substantial level. At this point in his game, he'll never develop BJJ to any significant level. |
This, however, I have to disagree with. We should not dismiss what Le may learn BJJ-wise, in the future. Georges St. Pierre didn't start out with a BJJ game either, and now his BJJ is extremely good. St. Pierre may be considered an exception due to his super-human athleticism, but I think it's still worth considering. Le doesn't appear to be a slouch in the athletic department either.
Then again, I'll confess that I don't know how old Le is...
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | Your right, I was under the impression strikeforce was apart of UFC, not sure why I thought that. This is honesly beside the point. The point is Cung Le's Kung Fu techniques are effective. Would you say they are not? How many times does some one have to win to show that a technique is effective? |
You're right, this is totally beside the point.  But since you guys are using MMA to talk here and I'm into it, I'm adding to that part of it. I'm actually ignoring most of this other discussion as I find it tiring. No offense.
| Quote: | | Edit: Just checking Le's record, he's a champion in at least 15 other fight circuits and tournaments all over the world... again, I have to say his techniqes are effective. |
Not in MMA he's not. He's new to MMA. His MMA career is against complete cans, as I've mentioned already. His only good competition was Shamrock, who for the reasons I've stated isn't really a good measuring stick either. It is hard to know for sure if his techniques are effective in high-level MMA competition since he's not really had any.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: | | This, however, I have to disagree with. We should not dismiss what Le may learn BJJ-wise, in the future. Georges St. Pierre didn't start out with a BJJ game either, and now his BJJ is extremely good. St. Pierre may be considered an exception due to his super-human athleticism, but I think it's still worth considering. Le doesn't appear to be a slouch in the athletic department either. |
Cung Le isn't actively pursing an MMA career. He's focused on movies currently. He's publicly stated that MMA will not be his main focus.
I'm a big fan of GSP, but nobody would consider him a BJJ expert. He's well rounded to an extreme and on most everyone top pound for pound lists, but a BJJ expert he is not. Having said that, perhaps this is a much better path to use as fuel to this topic's discussions about the effectiveness of techniques: it's been shown time and time again in MMA that the most successful fighters are often the most well-rounded fights when fighting in fights against high-level competition. Is this not the case for most aspects of combat? Aren't even armies most effective when they are well rounded?
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
Not in MMA he's not. He's new to MMA. His MMA career is against complete cans, as I've mentioned already. His only good competition was Shamrock, who for the reasons I've stated isn't really a good measuring stick either. It is hard to know for sure if his techniques are effective in high-level MMA competition since he's not really had any. |
But he is undefeated thus far, 6 and 0, in MMA. Reguardless of who he has fought, no one in the MMA circuits are there because they are not good fighters, so each of Le's opponents are not just people brought in off the street that do not know anything, are they? Again, how many times does one have to win before his techniques are considered effective? I believe this is a personal point of view more than a true test of what is effective vs what is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | But he is undefeated thus far, 6 and 0, in MMA. Reguardless of who he has fought, no one in the MMA circuits are there because they are not good fighters, so each of Le's opponents are not just people brought in off the street that do not know anything, are they? Again, how many times does one have to win before his techniques are considered effective? I believe this is a personal point of view more than a true test of what is effective vs what is not. |
Chris, if you're going to use MMA as a measuring stick for any of this conversation, I urge you to choose better examples than Cung Le. The people he's fought are by and large nowhere near the top of the pack. This is not a knock at Cung Le, as he's very new to the game. I'm fine with that and would expect him to have to grow within the sport as any other fighter would.
What I'm not fine with is the using of a new fighter who is not well-versed in MMA as an example of MMA. He's not a good example and it's incredibly difficult to know what about him would be effective against good competition. We simply do not know. I know many people like to debate how Fighter X would fare against Fighter Y, but I find that stuff to be folly. There are plenty of real example of fights that have already taken place for us to consider.
Bottom line: we have no idea how Le's skillset translates into MMA because Le's exposure to the MMA game is very new and not well tested. We can only say how effective it's been against the competition he's faced already. Nobody in the game, including Le himself, considers him to be anything but a new fighter in MMA who is still learning.
The unfortunate part is that with Le not exploring MMA full-time any longer, we may never know how he measures up or how his unique skills (to MMA) translate. Oh well.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | This, however, I have to disagree with. We should not dismiss what Le may learn BJJ-wise, in the future. Georges St. Pierre didn't start out with a BJJ game either, and now his BJJ is extremely good. St. Pierre may be considered an exception due to his super-human athleticism, but I think it's still worth considering. Le doesn't appear to be a slouch in the athletic department either. |
Cung Le isn't actively pursing an MMA career. He's focused on movies currently. He's publicly stated that MMA will not be his main focus.
I'm a big fan of GSP, but nobody would consider him a BJJ expert. He's well rounded to an extreme and on most everyone top pound for pound lists, but a BJJ expert he is not. |
On the contrary, Nathan--GSP has excellent BJJ. He has trained at several excellent BJJ academies, under various top-notch teachers, including Renzo Gracie and John Danaher, in NYC. GSP received his brown belt in BJJ from Renzo back in 2006, and his black belt from Bruno Fernandes, this past October. Danaher was in GSP's corner for the hard fight against BJ Penn. In his final encounter with Matt Hughes, GSP showed both his wrestling AND BJJ prowess, and submitted Hughes by armbar.
| Quote: | | Having said that, perhaps this is a much better path to use as fuel to this topic's discussions about the effectiveness of techniques: it's been shown time and time again in MMA that the most successful fighters are often the most well-rounded fights when fighting in fights against high-level competition. Is this not the case for most aspects of combat? Aren't even armies most effective when they are well rounded? |
That's a good question...
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: | | On the contrary, Nathan--GSP has excellent BJJ. He has trained at several excellent BJJ academies, under various top-notch teachers, including Renzo Gracie and John Danaher, in NYC. GSP received his brown belt in BJJ from Renzo back in 2006, and his black belt from Bruno Fernandes, this past October. Danaher was in GSP's corner for the hard fight against BJ Penn. In his final encounter with Matt Hughes, GSP showed both his wrestling AND BJJ prowess, and submitted Hughes by armbar. |
My point is that he's not a top-level BJJ expert--ie, not at the caliber of somebody like Damien Maia. GSP's strength is that he's incredibly well rounded with high-level skills across the board. Is he a top-level expert wrestler? No, he's not, but he certainly can roll with people who are and even get the better of them at their own game. GSP out-wrestled Matt Hughs and John Fitch, as examples, and is a perfect example that a well-rounded high-level arsenal can often defeat and even dominate others even at their own game.
I've often thought that having a well-rounded high-level skill set in other types of combat would best opponents who, while experts at a single discipline, are not experienced in other aspects.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nathan - not trying to be rude or anything, but I think you are still misunderstanding what I am trying to say. What I am saying is, is that techniques of Kung Fu are effective. If someone can snap an arm in half with a kick during an actual fight, it's effective. Reguardless of what medium it takes place in. I hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic