CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > Community > CrossPit
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

CrossPit For discussing MMA, UFC, Pride fighting, and other martial arts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-2010, 08:38 AM   #71
Eric A. Brown
Member Eric A. Brown is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York  NY
Posts: 226
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stone View Post
Dana White is not a mixed martial artist, so your point is ... well, pointless.

Compare Georges St. Pierre and anyone.
I was comparing the leader of the UFC vs. the founders of other styles. I could have picked one of their successors, I suppose, but thought the parallel (public face of an organization) was obvious.


Interesting enough, quite a few of the fighters who came up under traditional styles have popped positive, including Royce Gracie, after his fight with Sakuraba.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 09:03 AM   #72
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Cowie View Post
1 - You cannot expect people to believe your claims to 'fighting expertise' (they key point of martial arts - if you're all about inner peace etc then you can do other stuff that doesn't describe itself as a self defence) if you do not prove it in some form of competitive combat

2a- The more rules within a specific fight (tournament, franchise, discipline, style or whatever) the less 'realistic' it will be
2b- I accept rules are there to make competitions safer, but they also lessen the realism so the 'champs' (or whatever) claims to be the best in the world become more like best in the world under those rules
2c- Finding the best in the world, from all the best in the world's under each ruleset leads to new competitions/franchises/styles to find the 'best of the best' (not the films). Each with slightly different rulesets, and not inclusive of all disciplines/styles etc. Media pressure & sporting administrations force more rules to lessen the risks and maximise the popularity
Real fights don't have rules. The founders of the traditional styles proved their expertise by winning real fights --often with live weapons -- against serious opponents. The emphasis on self-improvement and inner peace came much later. (And was in part an accomodation to social changes.) No, that expertise is not necessarily shared by their successors, but it absolutely is inherent in the arts.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:07 AM   #73
Thomas Green
Member Thomas Green is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York  NY
Posts: 1,156
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire View Post
Real fights don't have rules. The founders of the traditional styles proved their expertise by winning real fights --often with live weapons -- against serious opponents. The emphasis on self-improvement and inner peace came much later. (And was in part an accomodation to social changes.) No, that expertise is not necessarily shared by their successors, but it absolutely is inherent in the arts.

Katherine

I know very little on the history of traditional martial arts, so I can only speak from my perspective.

When I took Karate/Tae Kwan Do, the emphasis was always on the mind - it was a way to teach self discipline, self-confidence, restraint from temptations, better performance in school. etc. As far as the fighting aspect, self defense was the objective, not starting fights.

Like you said, social change probably brought this about. Today's world doesn't work the way it did during Tang-dynasty China where people settled political conflicts via hand to hand combat with the weapons you referred to. In today's world, unless you do it competitively or for money (UFC/MMA), only bad things can happen when you get into a fight, which is why the traditional school teaches students to avoid fighting at all costs.

The whole purpose of the UFC is to make money - it wouldn't exist if they didn't. And nobody would watch it if it were about humbleness/inner peace of mind/self-restraint etc.. So in my opinion, UFC/traditional martial arts never can and never will be compatible at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:28 AM   #74
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Green View Post
Like you said, social change probably brought this about. Today's world doesn't work the way it did during Tang-dynasty China where people settled political conflicts via hand to hand combat with the weapons you referred to. In today's world, unless you do it competitively or for money (UFC/MMA), only bad things can happen when you get into a fight, which is why the traditional school teaches students to avoid fighting at all costs.
Agreed. I'm simply attacking the perception that the traditional styles are "not good for fighting" or "have no understanding of what works." If Kano, Funakoshi, et. al. hadn't been supremely bada**, no one would have cared what they had to say. The claim that traditional styles don't know anything about fighting is just plain wrong.

However, one of the things that the traditional styles know about fighting is that it's really dangerous. No matter how good you are, you might lose. In a real fight, that means you might die or be seriously injured. Or someone else might die and you might go to jail. And so the emphasis has moved to personal development, rather than martial effectiveness. I'll be the first to concede that many modern teachers would be completely lost if actually forced to use their skills, and I think that's a shame.

I just don't think MMA is necessarily the answer. The stakes are both too high (lots of money) and too low (there are rules, no one is likely to die) to create anything resembling a true martial situation. I don't think a top MMA fighter would be helpless outside the ring, but I think he might be pretty surprised when that random street thug pulls a knife, or when the thug's friends jump in to help. A traditionally trained martial artist would *expect* both of those things, which is why he'd cross the street to avoid the thug. (Note that not all students of traditional martial arts are traditionally trained. I'm not defending the McDojos here.)

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:39 AM   #75
Thomas Green
Member Thomas Green is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York  NY
Posts: 1,156
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire View Post
Agreed. I'm simply attacking the perception that the traditional styles are "not good for fighting" or "have no understanding of what works." If Kano, Funakoshi, et. al. hadn't been supremely bada**, no one would have cared what they had to say. The claim that traditional styles don't know anything about fighting is just plain wrong.

However, one of the things that the traditional styles know about fighting is that it's really dangerous. No matter how good you are, you might lose. In a real fight, that means you might die or be seriously injured. Or someone else might die and you might go to jail. And so the emphasis has moved to personal development, rather than martial effectiveness. I'll be the first to concede that many modern teachers would be completely lost if actually forced to use their skills, and I think that's a shame.

I just don't think MMA is necessarily the answer. The stakes are both too high (lots of money) and too low (there are rules, no one is likely to die) to create anything resembling a true martial situation. I don't think a top MMA fighter would be helpless outside the ring, but I think he might be pretty surprised when that random street thug pulls a knife, or when the thug's friends jump in to help. A traditionally trained martial artist would *expect* both of those things, which is why he'd cross the street to avoid the thug. (Note that not all students of traditional martial arts are traditionally trained. I'm not defending the McDojos here.)

Katherine

Exactly. That's what I meant when I said nothing good can come out of a fight.

Now, when you combine all the things you said with the LITIGIOUS possibilities. Then you have a recipe for disaster. Even if end up in a fight and none of the things you mentioned happened, the legal/pc society we live in has created all sorts of other consequences.

I have no idea what they teach in BJJ/MMA style classes, but I'd still think that that traditional martial arts is closer to the answer you're looking for than MMA just because of the student's inclination to AVOID fights like you said. True martial situations like you describe rarely occur in today's world (in this country at least), and usually having the mental inclination not to go out alone late at night, spending time in dangerous areas etc, is enough to avoid something like that.

From a functional standpoint, there's really no good that can come out of fighting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:54 AM   #76
Jon Cowie
Member Jon Cowie is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Portsmouth  Hampshire UK
Posts: 99
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

this is again just my opinion, but i will agree with all the above. The best (and only proper) way to test usefulness of combat styles would be life-or-death combat. I imagine that whatever the russians (spetznaz or whoever) did/do would probably be founded on usefulness, ditto the Israeli army (IDF? no idea!) with their krav. I heard that the US marines have made their own system, which i magine must have a basis in 'something' and be focused towards real combat situations, ie. lives at stake, unknown enemy numbers, concealed weapons and the like - i would imagine that the ultimate goal would be to dispatch (kill or incapacitate) the enemy with minimum effort and minimum time (so as to be able to deal with more opponents). Easy answer=guns! Also, aren't martial arts all geared towards slightly different goals to start with ie. dispatch downed cavalry knights, kill swordsmen while armed with peasants tools, disguise techniques so as to appear as dance, fight on a ship, etc. so perhaps there is no ideal style for all situations, neither for all individuals - some are naturally better at slapsies while some are geared for cuddling! MMA is the best at making money and giving every street 'gangsta' a claim to toughness (because they all say they do it don't they!)
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 10:57 AM   #77
Matt Rexin
Member Matt Rexin is offline
 
Matt Rexin's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Victoria  BC
Posts: 275
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Green View Post
Exactly. That's what I meant when I said nothing good can come out of a fight.

Now, when you combine all the things you said with the LITIGIOUS possibilities. Then you have a recipe for disaster. Even if end up in a fight and none of the things you mentioned happened, the legal/pc society we live in has created all sorts of other consequences.

I have no idea what they teach in BJJ/MMA style classes, but I'd still think that that traditional martial arts is closer to the answer you're looking for than MMA just because of the student's inclination to AVOID fights like you said. True martial situations like you describe rarely occur in today's world (in this country at least), and usually having the mental inclination not to go out alone late at night, spending time in dangerous areas etc, is enough to avoid something like that.

From a functional standpoint, there's really no good that can come out of fighting.
While I agree with the majority of your points, I hope that the majority of instructors of BJJ, Muay Thai, wrestling, boxing, etc are devoting time to the mental aspect of martial arts as well as the physical. I'm sure some schools that have the multiple discipline approach are less likely to teach the mental aspect that comes with proficiency in violence: the ability to react at lower levels, the ability to recognize threats and how to neutralize them without resorting to violence and how to go from calm to violence without going over the top. Most high level practitioners are reluctant to engage in combat and with good reason. The problem lies with those who have a low level of knowledge without the mental safeguards to prevent using it.

Fighting is an essential part of the martial arts, and while students and masters should never actively look for a fight, they should be able to respond when neccessary. A controlled fighting environment allows willing students to test their skills and determine what works and what doesn't during a fight. MMA allows for a certain amount of realism in fighting and showcases many different martial arts styles, so I don't see it as a bad thing for traditional martial arts.

MMA is a sport, though, and not preparation for "real fighting". In order to prepare for a street fight or a combat situations, firearms, knives, assorted objects and multiple combatants must be employed in order to try to replicate reality. There are schools that teach these training methods, but to watch it as a sport would be impractical.

The "good" that comes out of fighting is that willing participants are allowed to test their skills against one another. But in real life, I agree with you, nothing good can come of a real fight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:20 PM   #78
Thomas Green
Member Thomas Green is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York  NY
Posts: 1,156
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

That would be a way to boost ratings/ppv buyers - let them use knives and swords LOL
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:47 PM   #79
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Ahhh, Judo is as good as it is because Kano took OUT the most dangerous aspects of ju-jitsu. THis allowed his students to practice near 100%. Same deal with BJJ/GJJ. THey added some of the more dangerous techniques back in, but nothing you would be likely to inadverntly injured a training partner with (except some ankle looks, which a fair number of school disallow for lower belts).

If you cannot practice your art at near full speed with your opponent doing the same, you cannot really practice anything. That is the biggest advantage of sport fighting. The problem with sport fighting is using the rules to win. But this really comes down to your goals. Some will train to be better at sport, some will train to be better on the street some will train to be good at both.

As far as multiple attackers, if you can't beat one guy, you can't beat five of them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 03:39 PM   #80
Morgan McGaha
Member Morgan McGaha is offline
 
Morgan McGaha's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Las Vegas  NV
Posts: 371
Re: Shane Carwin & Steroids

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Green View Post
That would be a way to boost ratings/ppv buyers - let them use knives and swords LOL
I've been saying that for years! Spice it up a little bit. Two man go in. One man come out. Welcome to the Thunderdome, b1tch.
__________________
I AM TEH FAT WIZARDS.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brock vs Carwin Matthew Payne CrossPit 59 07-08-2010 04:40 PM
Lesnar ,out, Mir vs Carwin in! Stu Christensen CrossPit 13 12-22-2009 10:36 AM
Shane Moseley's Workout Log Shane Moseley Workout Logs 30 12-10-2009 07:59 AM
Carwin vs Brock OFF! Jeffrey Crawford CrossPit 19 11-28-2009 01:19 PM
Antibiotics/Steroids & Achilles Tendonitis Florsie Amaral Injuries 9 01-25-2007 07:51 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.