MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - MMA vs Street Fighter
View Single Post
post #34 of (permalink) Old 12-06-2012, 02:37 PM
The 45%
ClydebankBlitz's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 14,990
Blog Entries: 2
Originally Posted by Kin View Post
So you're not very good, but your sensei and sempai are... But if you're not very good, how credible is your assessment of their abilities?

Soulja Boi is a shit rapper, Anderson Siilva is a great MMA fighter, Jesus did some good shit. I'm not a rapper, fighter or religious figure. Does that make these assessments less credible?

Wrist locks are far less effective because the lack of control they afford. They're definitely worthwhile techniques, but lower on the pecking scale than chokes in general unarmed combat. A lot of times, a fully resisting opponent can rip free or won't be in a position to catch them in a good one. That said, I do agree that they have value when someone grabs your clothes and that is where they are most viable.

Yeah well RNC is pretty much the most effective technique in anything. Again I think if you take into account that the MMA fighter has never trained resits for the holds, then it takes his advantages out. I've seen and received throws and wrist locks whilst throwing a full force and fast punch. Obviously the effects are heightened with expectancy, but there is a reason they have been passed through almost every defence martial art in history. A high level practitioner is able to gain the control, because they are taught with such, although in every area an average MMA fighter would smash an average singke style martial artist.

However, you are flat-out wrong about it evening the playing field. There's a saying that novices talk about gear, while professionals discuss tactics. The same is true about martial arts. You're trying to make an argument about how "this technique will beat these techniques." No, that's not how it works.

YOU were trying to do this. The triangle is this unbeatable death lock in street fighting. I was trying to give you a counter where a non MMA fighter will have trained just as effective, if not more effective with the more suited enviroment, techniques that can easily match up the triangle/armbar advantages.

Techniques are secondary to delivery systems. How good you are at performing techniques -- whatever they are -- against an uncooperative opponent. How do you get good at that? Live drilling and heavy, realistic sparring on a regular basis. The more frequently you do that, and the better partners you have, the better you will become.

Yeah thats what I said. MMA has a massive advantage in the sparring element. Even a real MMA fight would work as experience for a street fight. That being said, grappling is a technique where "street fighters" can train to a full degree, where stand up fighting isnt, which is where I was pointing my advantage to.

And that is why anyone who claims that they can beat a high level professional fighter because they have more street-ready techniques is an idiot, a fraud, delusional, or any combination there of.

A high level fighter who has trained weapon defences and techniques specifically tailored for self defence on the street has that advantage on a high level fighter who hasnt. I'm assuming thats pretty obvious.

Simply put, if a BJJ brown belt fought your sensei, the brown belt is more likely to land a wristlock than your sensei. Why? Because, the brown belt is already extremely accustomed to controlling and dominating COMPETENT grapplers, who are fully resisting his attempts to do so. Meanwhile, your instructor has only his underlings (who, evidently, are so bad at grappling they think they can bite their way out of triangles) to practice his moves on. Ultimately, its not about who's got the bigger payload; it is about who can deliver it.

That's VERY biased. Of course a martial art training purley submissions and grappling is more apt in submissions and grappling. And come on man. Stop this internet hard man act. "Underlings who blah blah". We're just having a conversation man you don't have to start acting like you're the UFC champ.

The sport fighter, who devotes hours upon hours to non-compliant training will be that guy 99 times out of 100.

Real martial artists, who don't specifically train for sports, also devote hours upon hours to non-compliant training. Most martial arts arent based on sports, and every other will pretty much be drawn down to street fighting depending on the techniques they learn to defend themselves on the street. Most martial arts are trained for self defence. This usually is drawn down to a lot of training for techniques that will be on the street, even down to rolling out of the way of people stomping on their heads. Just because a martial art is used for sport, doesnt mean it's all high and mighty above the rest.

The bold part is true. Combat athletes are good at fighting. Self defense martial artists are (theoretically) good at surviving dangerous scenarios.

Pretty much, but fighting is a subjective thing. People can be just good at fighting. Someone can know how to throw a punch and knock Anderson Silva out one day. Training allows them to maintain and control it, but people who dont can still have fundamentals.

A legitimate Reality Based Self Defense practitioner would survive a lot of scenarios are sport fighter would not. However, if they were to collide in unarmed combat, the sport fighter would definitely have a HUUUGE advantage. Because fighting is his domain.

I agree. If they collide in a regulated enviroment, the sports guy wins, because it's almost down to sports. A fight on the street isn't narrowed to "unarmed combat" or anything really. There was a guy who used to train a mate of mine. He worked security for business people and VIPs in England. He had to use the shit quite a lot. Try telling a fight who has to use the techniques he learns and teaches for a living that fighting isnt his domain. These people still commit their entire lives to martial arts and their techniques. Just because they dont fight for money doesnt mean it isnt their lives.

Really, the most effective thing to do would be to get good at actually fighting (via sports training) then tacking on some scenario-based drilling and 'street techniques' later.

Agreed. Pretty much what I look to do. I picked two local martial arts now just for availability, which I suppose are good for fine tuning techniques, but they dont bring with them the fitness and grit that sports training does.

The advantage in a fight would go to the guy who's better at fighting. That will be the MMA guy -- regardless of rules.

Again, why? Becuase he does it in a cage? What about special forces who have to train martial arts for life and death situations? I think it's the LA cops which cross train Gracie BJJ with street fighting. How will an MMA fighter have an advantage over that? The MMA fighter has controled fights, but this LA cop might see a new completley similar challenge every week. The MMA fighter will just be another day at the office for him.

The funny thing about this is that the only people who seem to think otherwise ARE PEOPLE WHO CANT FIGHT.

I've met plenty of people in MMA, who have tons of street fighting experience, bouncing experience, self defense experience, or something of that sort. All of these people, who have street experience, have said the exact same thing I said above.

You see every other day, some guy who did bouncing and shit enter MMA and get smashed easily. Thats really where what you're saying seems to reference. But a 20 year martial arts guy who's faught in street fighting his whole life will easily be capable to defeat an MMA fighter in a street fighter.

The LARPers, the delusional, and the phonies are the ones who try to sell you this idea of 'magic techniques' that will somehow outclass superior skill.

Superior skill will always win (with the exception of lucky punches and shit).

This whole part was retarded and again displays your gaping lack of knowledge. If you get picked up so easily on triangles, you clearly suck. I mean, it happens once in a while maybe, but most of the time it results on them falling on to their side or on the wrong end of a mounted triangle. So no. Just no.

I actually meant armbar. Yeah I've never seen someone picked up properly from a triangle either, and even if they could, it's pretty easy to keep your chin tucked and take it on your neck. But the triangle letts you so incredibly opened to the dudes mate jumping on your head. Thats stuff trained in other martial arts. The awareness that anyone around you could be a threat, and once you have a choke for example locked in, it can't be one that leaves you venurable to other attacks. Most techniques leave you in control of your opponent, but your head up to prepare to release the hold if need be to defend yet another attack.

Anyways, some thing I always bring up to people who think dirty techniques will trump actual skill and experience in dealing with resisting opponents... Do you think your revered sensei would lose to a white belt if only the white belt could use dirty techniques? Because that's pretty much what your argument is.

I never once said that a dirty technique trumps actual skill. What I'm saying is that what you consider a dirty technique, might actually be a TECHNIQUE which has depth and knoweldge put into it. There are many moves and holds that will leave a groin shot very opened. That will at least make your opponent pause or flinch which allows your to link up to something else. I'm not saying my sensei is even that good. This isn't a my dad would beat up your dad thing . I'm just using the things I've seen and done as reference, as are you. But you're twisting what I'm saying. I have at no time said dirty techniques are the way to go. I'm just saying that in a street fight, the dirty part is non existant, and you can't go out thinking it's a sports compititon because these moves are very open to many MMA techniques, so you cant just assume everything is going to work because it does in the cage..

Though almost everything you've said is dumb, I will give you credit for being very gentlemanly about it while I continue to be rude and disparaging. So props for that, if nothing else.

But really, my dad would beat up your dad Nah I like a good debate. I like to be very strong on one side because sitting on the fence is gay. For the record, I still prefer MMA over everything else, and yeah 99.9% of the guy the dude training like a machine day in day out will beat the guy who trains by his own accord. I was just defending the .1%
^^^ Voiceless, I'll reply to you in a bit man. This message has my head hurting

ClydebankBlitz is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome