Would Bruce still be on the cutting edge

[WC_Lun]

Originally Posted by Them's Fighting Words

Yup, totally agree. As for the part in bold, I believe it has to do with their Kinetic Energy Chain development. If you have ever trained to strike while lying on your back, you realise how much more important upper body strength is. You can get some rotational strength but the feet and leg power-base obviously just isn't there. In Silat, I trained a bit in isolating my Kinetic Chain, and I found all those hours bench pressing were a lot more useful than I had at first thought.

Upper body strength is definitley a positive and in certain situations where parts of your body are isolated, such as lying on your back, then it is where your power must come from. However, when you are on your feet, the power should come from the entire body, supported by your stance and structure, adding body movement to enhance the delivery of power. If this isn't how strikes are delivered then the strikes are not as efficient and powerful as they could be. That is not to say they can't be effective.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

Upper body strength is definitley a positive and in certain situations where parts of your body are isolated, such as lying on your back, then it is where your power must come from. However, when you are on your feet, the power should come from the entire body, supported by your stance and structure, adding body movement to enhance the delivery of power. If this isn't how strikes are delivered then the strikes are not as efficient and powerful as they could be. That is not to say they can't be effective.

I totally agree. Just trying to explain a possible reason MMA strikes didn't appear to properly utalise their full Kinetic Energy Chain. I guess it comes down to hours in the day vs number of techniques. MMA guys train such a wide variety of techniques including very specific skill sets dependent on the rules system they may be using and opponants they may be fighting. So something has to give.

[WC_Lun]

Yeah, that was one of my thoughts on it too. The type of striking I'm referring to takes a lot of training to make it body reaction. Most MMA guys don't have that kind of time on top of everything else they are doing. I think maybe also they see that everyone else is doing stuff similiar to what they are, so only a few really see that there is something more effecient than what is being used.

[Chapel]

I am of the thought that Bruce Lee and Royce Gracie are excellent martial artists. I hope that few would disagree with me. However, I think that what makes them stand out in the history books as excellent martial artists isn't any specific contribution of techniques to any specific art, but rather their philosophy of martial arts. From quotes I have heard from Bruce, the major core of his thought was about integrating better and better techniques into your arsenal and knowing them well enough so that the techniques worked together. Royce (and correct me if I am wrong) seems to be all about establishing control of a situation and building confidence that your techniques work in real life. Fight your opponent where you can win.

I think that if Bruce were still alive today he would probably be advocating pretty heavily for learning some ground stuff. However, a comparison between the two at their prime is simply unfair just because of the advances in the field that Bruce hasn't experienced. It would be like saying that Joe knows more Physics than Sir Issac Newton (he probably does, but it is a meaningless comparison).

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by flashlock

Excuse me, but I've trained with Royce, and my instructor is friends with all the Gracies, including Royce. I won't go into it on line here, but Royce's training is very "relaxed" compared to contemporary fighters.

He told our class how he trains, and it is surprsingly not intense.

So, sorry, but my knowledge is direct.



More personal attacks. Look, Joe Rogan himself said that MMA striking was WAY behind boxing, and there was a lot to expand there, so mnyeh!

So let me get this straight, what you're saying is that Joe Rogan is your source of information for expert analysis of MMA? Okay, argument over then.

As for Royce's training. I knew three of the 5 people who were actually involved with Royce's training for the Matt Hughes fight and it was different than the training regiments he had for other fights. Two of those three happen to be undefeated MMA fighters now as well as seasoned BJJ competitors.

I will take my second hand accounts over your third hand accounts.

Look, I am telling you guys that for an MMA fight you cannot turn the hip as stongly as you do for a straight boxing/kickboxing match unless you have a good idea that your opponent isn't timing you for a takedown.

Where is Tri, he would agree with me here on this.

If you turn your hips fully, as you would in boxing, then you are now centered toward me. If I time this correctly, you are going to have a harder time sprawling if I change levels under the punch. The double leg is going to be easier to get.

So if you guys want to keep thinking that your traditional way of striking is all you need to know, please keep ptracticing it that way so that it makes it easier for me to take you down. I really don't mind.

Originally Posted by Chapel

I am of the thought that Bruce Lee and Royce Gracie are excellent martial artists. I hope that few would disagree with me. However, I think that what makes them stand out in the history books as excellent martial artists isn't any specific contribution of techniques to any specific art, but rather their philosophy of martial arts. From quotes I have heard from Bruce, the major core of his thought was about integrating better and better techniques into your arsenal and knowing them well enough so that the techniques worked together. Royce (and correct me if I am wrong) seems to be all about establishing control of a situation and building confidence that your techniques work in real life. Fight your opponent where you can win.

I think that if Bruce were still alive today he would probably be advocating pretty heavily for learning some ground stuff. However, a comparison between the two at their prime is simply unfair just because of the advances in the field that Bruce hasn't experienced. It would be like saying that Joe knows more Physics than Sir Issac Newton (he probably does, but it is a meaningless comparison).

I agree, if Bruce was still alive his concepts would have evolved and he would be doing things differently than he was at the time of his death. His training methodologies would have been very different as a result of what has been widely accepted as a change in the way people view fighting as a result of the UFCs.

[TRIANGLEFROMGUARD]

Here is the truth, Bruce Lee would be awesome at MMA if he found a reputable trainer and worked very hard at it. As far as the striking in MMA goes spar an MMA fighter a real life pro MMA fighter and tell me again how inferior it is to the knife wielding kinetic energy theories you have.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD

Here is the truth, Bruce Lee would be awesome at MMA if he found a reputable trainer and worked very hard at it. As far as the striking in MMA goes spar an MMA fighter a real life pro MMA fighter and tell me again how inferior it is to the knife wielding kinetic energy theories you have.

Thank you, experience means more to me than theory and you got more experience than just about everyone on here.

[souldrum71]

Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD

Here is the truth, Bruce Lee would be awesome at MMA if he found a reputable trainer and worked very hard at it. As far as the striking in MMA goes spar an MMA fighter a real life pro MMA fighter and tell me again how inferior it is to the knife wielding kinetic energy theories you have.

If you've ever read any of the first-hand accounts or watched any of the video interviews of people who knew and trained with Bruce Lee you'd know the man was fanatical about physical fitness and training. If, hypothetically, he could have trained in MMA, he would have been intense with it.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by souldrum71

If you've ever read any of the first-hand accounts or watched any of the video interviews of people who knew and trained with Bruce Lee you'd know the man was fanatical about physical fitness and training. If, hypothetically, he could have trained in MMA, he would have been intense with it.

Agreed. He definitely would have been too old to get into it when it first hit the US, but had he had the opportunity he would have probably trained.

[TRIANGLEFROMGUARD]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

Look, I am telling you guys that for an MMA fight you cannot turn the hip as stongly as you do for a straight boxing/kickboxing match unless you have a good idea that your opponent isn't timing you for a takedown.

Where is Tri, he would agree with me here on this.

If you turn your hips fully, as you would in boxing, then you are now centered toward me. If I time this correctly, you are going to have a harder time sprawling if I change levels under the punch. The double leg is going to be easier to get.

So if you guys want to keep thinking that your traditional way of striking is all you need to know, please keep ptracticing it that way so that it makes it easier for me to take you down. I really don't mind.

This is absolutely correct. In boxing when you throw a hook punch you follow through all the way so that any counter punch is directed towards your lats much better then being punched in the ribs. However doing this in MMA will only ensure that you get taken down. This is why you see many strikers in MMA that are well trained strikers seem kind of odd. Jens Pulver, Spencer Fisher, Marcus Davis, Robbie Lawler, when you see these guys throw a hook you can really notice them slam on the breaks to stop from following all the way through. The same can be said for MT and turning over a Thai kick.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD

As far as the striking in MMA goes spar an MMA fighter a real life pro MMA fighter and tell me again how inferior it is to the knife wielding kinetic energy theories you have.

Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD

...This is why you see many strikers in MMA that are well trained strikers seem kind of odd. Jens Pulver, Spencer Fisher, Marcus Davis, Robbie Lawler, when you see these guys throw a hook you can really notice them slam on the breaks to stop from following all the way through. The same can be said for MT and turning over a Thai kick.

I see the logic in not commiting to the force of a strike. I think TFW and WC_Lun were refering to the non-adherence to principles of Force and Power generation in MMA strikes. Although your second post exposes the reasoning for this, why should there be so little emphasis placed on really powerful striking? Is it down to the sophistication of the grappling?

Also, Joe, I'm still waiting for a response to my previous question...

[WC_Lun]

The striking I am refering to also does not turn the hip completley over. Other than the point already made about making it easier to be taken down, it commits your force and body mechanics to be at odds with your feet, never a good thing whether striking or grappling. Also comitting %100 percent of your power is a bad idea, kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket. Your in big trouble if you miss.

My biggest two issues with MMA striking is the lack of quality stand up guards and the lack of structure. You grappling guys know how important both of those are to your preferred game, but they are equally as important to a quality striking game.

[john55]

Originally Posted by TRIANGLEFROMGAURD

Here is the truth, Bruce Lee would be awesome at MMA if he found a reputable trainer and worked very hard at it. As far as the striking in MMA goes spar an MMA fighter a real life pro MMA fighter and tell me again how inferior it is to the knife wielding kinetic energy theories you have.

The more you guys talk about MMA the more I want to do it...train it that is

When I get my bjj blue belt in 2 years I will consider it. I keep hearing over and over again to get a good ground base in bjj (high blue or purple) or wrestling before considering MMA.

[flashlock]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

So let me get this straight, what you're saying is that Joe Rogan is your source of information for expert analysis of MMA? Okay, argument over then.

As for Royce's training. I knew three of the 5 people who were actually involved with Royce's training for the Matt Hughes fight and it was different than the training regiments he had for other fights. Two of those three happen to be undefeated MMA fighters now as well as seasoned BJJ competitors.

I will take my second hand accounts over your third hand accounts.

However he trained, 6 years can be a factor. He lost. He tried and he lost--does that equal some huge triumph of some "new athelete" vs old? No.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by Magister

Please enlighten me as to why this should not be the case, and how - with mixed martial arts and UFC being a modern combat sport - you may justify that good fighters have never existed in the history of humanity prior to the existence of the UFC and such-like.

Sorry Magister, I didn't see this question previously.

While I can't really speak for the entire history of humanity, I believe that any point in which fighting with little rules was used as a means of commerce then you had people training in a way that would have produced the best quality fighters.

There are not a lot of times when this has been true, but currently we have one so we have people who's jobs are to be the best hand to hand fighter they can be. And we have the science to back up the training methodologies to produce the best quality atheletes. So I would be willing to be that yes, the fighters of today may be some of the best hand to hand fighters that ever walked the earth.