MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - MMA vs Street Fighter
View Single Post
post #37 of (permalink) Old 12-08-2012, 11:55 PM
MMA fighter
Kin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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?
Uh, actually yes that does. Although whats mentioned above are pretty commonly held opinions, so not many would challenge you on it. If that wasn't the case, someone would surely ask "well why should your opinion hold any weight?"

Since you don't speak from a position of authority or knowledge on any of those topics, the answer would be "it doesn't."

Furthermore, we're not talking about something as subjective as 'good music' or if a fighter is 'good' or not. You and I are disagreeing about something that's more technical in nature. At that point, our respective merits in the topic of debate become pretty relevant.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
I am not sure if I agree with the RNC being the most effective technique in anything. I'd rate the jab over it, personally.

As for the wrist locks LOL. Yeah, the funny thing about those is that it's not remotely hard to defend. I mean, maybe they are for you, but... Again, it comes back to grappling competency. If you dangle your limbs everywhere, sure you could get wrist locked pretty easily. If not, it'll be pretty hard for the guy to get you unless he isolates the entire arm.

The most likely times to get wrist locked are when you're in an omoplata or a straight arm lock. In other scenarios, when your arm isnt isolated, its too easy to just rip out of it. That said, there are a few circumstances where you can just snatch a wrist lock up -- like if they have a grip on your lapel, for instance. Other than that, the end of someones arm is just too dynamic for you to pull that off.

As for you getting wrist locked while you're throwing a full force punch... Either you were being compliant, or you're the biggest chump ever. There's really no way a semi-decent striker will get wrist locked mid punch. Like it COULD happen, but you could also win the lottery. Gambling on such uber lower percentage moves, however, is stupid as all hell.

Again, there are contexts where wristlocks are great. The middle of a fist fight (when blows are flying) is not one of them.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.

And also no. Not only does the second sentence not make any ******* sense, but no. Just no on all fronts.

And the techniques you proposed are stupid in that context.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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."
What tf are you even trying to say?

I'm just going to repeat again that grappling (and striking) is trained most effectively when its with people who know what they're doing. A bunch of crapplers derping around isn't very effective. Its only marginally more effective than playing video games.

It has become abundantly clear (though it was pretty obvious from the start) that you are a crappler. Like almost everything you've said on the topic of grappling is just incorrect.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
Biased, maybe. Doesn't make it any less true.

See, I was once like you. I've actually been training in martial arts since I was 9. I've trained traditional martial arts long before I started training in combat sports. I used to say stupid shit like you do, based on unqualified conjecture, and would preach something similar to what you are right now.

But then I actually learned how to fight, saw the error of my ways, and hold the opinion that I do now.

As for the 'internet hard man' act, I have at no point talked about how I'm the baddest mofo ever. I'm just saying that I know what I'm talking about and that what you're preaching is dumb.

Furthermore, I feel that it is my duty to shoot martial idiocy down the second I see it. If some person who was on the fence about this subject, came across this thread, and realized that he should learn an actual triangle escape instead of thinking "oh whatever i'll just bite my way out" then I've contributed positively to martial arts. Albeit, in an incredibly minute way, but still... To stay silent in the face of bullshido is to enable it. And lord knows there's enough bullshido going around this day and age.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
lol. Don't act like you don't spend a good chunk of your class doing kata or one-step drills. I probably spar more in a week than you do in 2 + months.

Also rolling out of the way to avoid a stomp is dumb. Some pivoting followed by a technical standup will do you a lot better. (But thats stuff you learn in real grappling classes, so I understand you've gotta work with what you've got.)

Also, a martial art that has a combat sport aspect will be better for fighting than one that doesn't. Because in a combat sport your end goal is to fight. In a traditional art, you have multiple objectives. You're trying to preserve the traditions, you're trying to learn self defense, and you're trying to learn how to fight. A guy who's focused on one thing will be better than someone at that than someone who's focused on three.

That said, I'm really not trying to rag on traditional arts. There are def some badass traditional martial arts I'd never mess with. But I'm just relaying the indisputable truth that at PURE FIGHTING, a sport fighter is going to be superior almost every time. A good traditional martial artist could destroy an untrained person, and may even be able to survive situations that a combat athlete would get killed in* -- which is something I mentioned before. But in a one-on-one fight, a combat athlete is generally the top dog.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
Your understanding of the words 'subjective' and 'fundamentals' are clearly a little off.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
In any form of unarmed combat, a sport guy has an advantage. Obviously, there's no guarantee on anyone winning.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but a combat athlete will be training for fighting the most. Furthermore, steel sharpens steel. Your buddy's technique is adequate for untrained people. Awesome; that's what he encounters, so that makes sense. If he were to fight a seasoned combat athlete in an unarmed situation, he'd be at a huge disadvantage.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
Because he does it against other competitive fighters. Steel sharpens steel.

And OMFG YOU ARE RETARDED -- as is anyone who's like "derp well special forces/navy seals/marines/Spartan IIs fight in war so their martial arts must be the shit right?"

As I've mentioned time and time again, you get good at something by doing it a lot with capable partners. People only have a finite amount of time in one day, which is why no one is a world class boxer, kickboxer, wrestler, bjj, and MMA fighter all at once. You have to pick and choose.

Similarly, special forces spend most of their time doing things relevant to armed combat. If they spent enough time doing unarmed combat to be able to compete with athletes whos sole profession is to engage in armed combat, then they'd suck at the important stuff.

Obviously, a special forces guy is more dangerous overall than an MMA fighter -- but it's because of his armed training, tactics, and tools. NOT because of his H2H prowess.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
Depends. There are definitely some badass 20 year traditional martial artists... but most of them are fat delusional wannabes, who don't know the first thing about fighter. Keep up the 'good work,' and I'm sure you'll be joining their ranks one day.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
Superior skill will always win (with the exception of lucky punches and shit).
omfg, you've said some stupid stuff already, and this is high on the list. Conditioning can defeat skill. Attributes can defeat skill. Skill helps, but it is not the only factor in determining the outcome of a fight. Maybe if you actually fought, you'd know that.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
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.
The entire basis of your argument implies that dirty techniques can trump skill. Or serve as an equalizer against superior skill.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
I'm not saying my sensei is even that good. This isn't a my dad would beat up your dad thing
Well, if you're any indication of his teaching, your sensei isn't.

And don't worry, I know your dad couldn't beat up my dad.

My dad is a 6th degree Uechi Ryu black belt, who's trained in karate for almost 40 years, boxing for about 30, 6 years of aikido, 4 years of escrima, and has been in countless street fights and riots.

And funny thing is, back when I was a delusional newbie like you, me and him would have a similar argument. What I'm saying to you, he'd say to me. But I just didnt wanna believe that a good boxer would whoop on a TKD black belt, so I kept on being a retard until I actually learned a thing or two about fighting years later.

All in all, even if you're just playing devils advocate, you have done a fantastic job representing bullshido and martial idiocy. There's really nothing left to be said here...

* While there are some legitimately badass traditional martial artists, the vast majority cannot fight at all. Some are only interested in the cultural aspects, some do it just for fitness, and all too many are living in a fantasy land about what works and what doesn't.

(But the heaps of crap make the diamonds in the rough that much more precious.)

Highly opinionated but out of touch with the current MMA scene.

Support my FB athlete page!

Watch my 7th pro fight here

Watch my "Bare Knuckle" Boxing match here

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