Originally Posted by Squirrelfighter
I can see where you're coming from with competitior vs survivalist. But I think that in this situation, one where there are no rules, a survival situation, the survivalist has the advantage.
Which was my meaning with the original post on page 1. In the cage, a pure Kung Fu fighter, Karateka, Judoka, anyone not well rounded would get smacked around like a redheaded stepchild, almost no question. However in a street situation, I stand by my belief that a competition fighter, conditioned for competition (rules, limiting techniques, etc), will not be as prepared for a survival situation (now my favorite description for a no-escape situation!) in the manner a self-defense fighter would be.
In that way, I suspect a fighter who'd totally conditioned himself to strike at vital points, to damage his opponent's body to break his will so as not to die, would be able to apply the proper counter to any competition fighter's overhand.
The term regarding the elderly woman was in regard to the resiliancy of the human biology against this technique when properly performed. I have no belief that grammy can kill an MMA fighter.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I just don't understand why you feel like it's so different. As you said, skill is a gateway to dealing damage. If a self-defense artist couldn't land any meaningful non-dirty moves in a competition environment, why would he suddenly be able to land shots of a different variety?
If you can't jab Anderson Silva, how will you ever eye-gouge him?
I assume that you train, so you must have an instructor that you hold in high esteem (else you wouldn't be training under him). If he were to go against someone who he could 'beat like a redheaded stepchild (LOL @ gingers!) in sparring, do you think that your instructor would lose to that same person in a street fight if that guy could eye-gouge/throat strike/etc and your instructor couldn't? How would that fight go?