Point is that there is no rules to protect you when your in a mount or going for a submission. People think MMA has no rules, but in reality they just morphed all those rules together
Nice deflection. Makes it so you don't have to respond to anything I say, while making it look as if you would have had something intelligent to say in response, when in reality, you likely don't. Nice play. You can stop reading or not like it all you want...doesn't change the fact that everything we know about fighting in the overwhelming majority of scenarios, it has held true the vast majority of the time. Empirical evidence trumps your biased opinion.
You can say boxing is 1 sided, but then what makes BJJ? Bjj is purely based on ground fighting so wouldn't that make it 1 sided too? Thanks. "What if someone tries to take you down?" You need to take them down first.... look at Penn vs Edgar, lots of movement and footwork... Penn couldn't catch him and when he did he had a horrible hold. As far as 120 pound fighter vs 300 pound monster, what makes you think this? A boxer would have the range, footwork, and technique to out do a bigger man; you're basing your logic off of Gracie fighting people who never dealt with this style before.
This goes back to my long post about how if boxing were truly so effective, as you're trying to make it out to be, it'd be the only thing taught and used. Thing is, your thoughts about boxing's effectiveness in a large array (or all) of circumstances, doesn't track reality. Yes, hypothetically, all that fancy footwork and all that jive should be enough, but reality says different. And not just because Royce Gracie vs. Art Jimmerson. I'm basing it off of nearly 20 years of martial arts experience myself, and off of empirical evidence. Off of thousands of fights and even battle field scenarios where the person who can fight on the ground has survived while the other didn't. I'm not saying that boxing is ineffective. In fact, I go out of my way to say that it's not...because it's not. It's very effective. And no, BJJ isn't just ground fighting. It has to have a system of getting the fight to the ground so you learn to deal with someone struggling against you to get them there...and you can even grapple while standing up. Standing Guillotine Choke sound familiar? You can apply a RNC to someone while standing. Standing side choke? Lots and lots of things can be done while standing. Small joint manipulation, too. And they're trained in how to apply it as well. What makes me think that? I have a brain that takes reality into account when forming my worldview. Clearly yours doesn't and you like to listen to guys like Bob Arum in deciding what fighting style works best. And as for B.J. Penn vs. Frankie Edgar 1&2? You do know that Frankie is not a boxer, right? He's a wrestler. He's a fantastic wrestler with very solid ground skills. He would not, I repeat would not have been able to execute his strategy against someone like B.J. Penn if he had only trained in boxing his entire life. See where your logic fails?
I think the point is leverage fella. A 120 lbs man would do more damage with a sub than a punch. Granted its much more easier to be in a position to punch than submit someone, then again 120 lbs man could windmill to their hearts content, they aint gonna be doing much damage against 300 lbs
You say you have 20 years of martial arts experience, but I'm guessing you never took up boxing? Judging by your statements you sound a lot like a man judging by what you SEE. This "evidence" you speak of sounds like non sense. BJJ isn't "strictly ground fighting" but does it teach to defend against left hooks, straights, jabs? What happens if you can't take the guy down? Yes and I am aware that Edgar is in fact a wrestler, I am also aware that he did train with Freddy Roach prior to that fight, and focused that fight to be standing up. :hi: Nice try though.
A windmill isn't a punch, also if that 300 pound man is on top of you do you honestly think you're getting him off with his weight and gravity against you?
Im sure keeping your hands up is a difficult skill to master. Not sure why its the 1st thing they teach 10 year olds down the local gym, it's pretty advanced
Actually, you'd be wrong. But then again, you're probably used to that. Assumptions are dangerous, especially when they're groundless. I have trained in boxing. I did it the same time I did Muay Thai, probably because they were in the same gym. And yes, if you'd like to call reality nonsense, then sure. Absolutely. I've already clearly provided reasoning for my thoughts. You've provided hypotheticals that don't track with real life scenarios. So, not only do I disagree with you, but so does the military and every single elite fighting unit world-wide. But, if you know better then all of them, more power to you. Does it teach someone do defend against them? No, not like you'd find in boxing, but if you think it doesn't make aware the possiblity, then you're sorely mistaken. Now, while you made the assumption, incorrectly, that I've never done boxing, I can, without a shadow of a doubt, say that you've never, not once, done any form of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. You're trying to skirt my argument about the fact that he was a wrestler who applied boxing. If he was just a boxer, it wouldn't have worked. In fact, you really didn't respond to anything I said. Shocking...hard to argue when you just have your opinion and intuition to go off of. Care to try again? I hope not.
Ok swap 'windmill' with hooks, jabs & straights, but your still deflecting rather than adressing the point And how do you punch when your on your back? Seeing as you are only acknowledging the best case scenario in a fight for a striker, how would it be effective in the worst, weight not being an issue
