|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Stack Size | |||
| 25 BB for all rounds |
   
|
11 | 15.49% |
| 50 BB for all rounds |
  
|
25 | 35.21% |
| 25 BB for early rounds, 50 BB for playoffs |
  
|
35 | 49.30% |
| Other (please specify) |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
08-19-2005, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
Bruce lee would have gotten his face kicked in and its not close. He had little ground game, and his stand game wouldn't be enough to overcome what he lacked on the ground. Not to mention the good thai boxers and western boxers would smashs his face standing up.
1 argument for bruce lee... He was an amazing athlete, and a hard worker. If he was alive today, we could argue that he would have been a ju jitzu expert and worked on heavy mui thai game. Then he could have been among the top. However, using the style he used in his day, he stands no chance. This is coming from my personal experience of 3 years background in NHB combat. 
|
|
#3
08-19-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
Bruce lee would have gotten his face kicked in and its not close. He had little ground game, and his stand game wouldn't be enough to overcome what he lacked on the ground. Not to mention the good thai boxers and western boxers would smashs his face standing up. 1 argument for bruce lee... He was an amazing athlete, and a hard worker. If he was alive today, we could argue that he would have been a ju jitzu expert and worked on heavy mui thai game. Then he could have been among the top. However, using the style he used in his day, he stands no chance. This is coming from my personal experience of 3 years background in NHB combat. [/ QUOTE ] Which is equivalent to zero knowledge of what you are talking about. Muay thai fighters have been beaten. Ask Benny Urquidez. They're good, and have my immense respect, but not superhuman. Jiu-jitsu fighters have been beaten. That's how Karate, from Okinawa, somehow eventually became commonly thought of as a Japanese art. Gichin Funakoshi came over to Japan and took on all Japanese comers, and was so successful Karate dwarfed jiu-jitsu in Japan and spread elsewhere rapidly. You have really no knowledge whatsoever of Lee's stand-up game; you really shouldn't have said a thing in that regard. Hands were Bruce's specialty and the main focus of his concentration. Saying he would be out-boxed by the calibre of boxers in today's cage matches is absurd. One of Bruce's first students was a 220 lb. undefeated golden gloves boxer, and Bruce cut through him like butter when practically still a child, at 18. That boxer later became one of Bruce's first assistant instructors, after having a George Foreman-like realization that the skills he had built his whole sense of self around were useless when confronted by a skinny little guy who in America had a stature more like a boy's than a man's. Bruce wasn't a forms guy; he sparred constantly, almost always against people much bigger than he was, and dominated. With his hands. He was classically trained in a very close-range hands-oriented style, and broadened his training methods from there. Bruce's stand-up game was outstanding. American Kempo founder Ed Parker said he was "one in a billion." There aren't that many billions around. His major weakness was in ground work. He simply hadn't trained in it to anywhere near the extent he trained his hands, or even his legs. Given time, he undoubtedly would have developed a good ground game. He was certainly pursuing it long before it became popular among strikers. Whether he would be exceptional at it is anyone's guess, but considering his exceptional athleticism and enormous drive, it's very unlikely he wouldn't have eventually gotten pretty good at it. But believe it or not, all fights do not go to the ground, and the ground is not always the smartest place to take them. Bruce didn't have the size to absorb blows easily. That doesn't mean he would lose in a stand-up fight. And it certainly doesn't mean he would be forced to the ground. He wasn't superman, but his strengths were as real as his weaknesses, and far more remarkable.
|
|
#4
08-19-2005, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Bruce lee would have gotten his face kicked in and its not close. He had little ground game, and his stand game wouldn't be enough to overcome what he lacked on the ground. Not to mention the good thai boxers and western boxers would smashs his face standing up. 1 argument for bruce lee... He was an amazing athlete, and a hard worker. If he was alive today, we could argue that he would have been a ju jitzu expert and worked on heavy mui thai game. Then he could have been among the top. However, using the style he used in his day, he stands no chance. This is coming from my personal experience of 3 years background in NHB combat. [/ QUOTE ] Which is equivalent to zero knowledge of what you are talking about. Muay thai fighters have been beaten. Ask Benny Urquidez. They're good, and have my immense respect, but not superhuman. Jiu-jitsu fighters have been beaten. That's how Karate, from Okinawa, somehow eventually became commonly thought of as a Japanese art. Gichin Funakoshi came over to Japan and took on all Japanese comers, and was so successful Karate dwarfed jiu-jitsu in Japan and spread elsewhere rapidly. You have really no knowledge whatsoever of Lee's stand-up game; you really shouldn't have said a thing in that regard. Hands were Bruce's specialty and the main focus of his concentration. Saying he would be out-boxed by the calibre of boxers in today's cage matches is absurd. One of Bruce's first students was a 220 lb. undefeated golden gloves boxer, and Bruce cut through him like butter when practically still a child, at 18. That boxer later became one of Bruce's first assistant instructors, after having a George Foreman-like realization that the skills he had built his whole sense of self around were useless when confronted by a skinny little guy who in America had a stature more like a boy's than a man's. Bruce wasn't a forms guy; he sparred constantly, almost always against people much bigger than he was, and dominated. With his hands. He was classically trained in a very close-range hands-oriented style, and broadened his training methods from there. Bruce's stand-up game was outstanding. American Kempo founder Ed Parker said he was "one in a billion." There aren't that many billions around. His weaknesses were in ground work. He simply hadn't trained in it to anywhere near the extent he trained his hands, or even his legs. Given time, he undoubtedly would have developed a good ground game. He was certainly pursuing it long before it became popular among strikers. Whether he would be exceptional at it is anyone's guess, but considering his exceptional athleticism and enormous drive, it's very unlikely he wouldn't have eventually gotten pretty good at it. But believe it or not, all fights do not go to the ground, and the ground is not always the smartest place to take them. Seriously, Bruce's weaknesses were primarily that he didn't have the size to absorb blows easily, and that his groundwork wasn't up to the level of his standing game. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have improved his ground game in time -- with his orientation and ego, doing so would have been pretty much a certainty -- his ego alone would have demanded it. That doesn't mean he would be forced to the ground in a fight. And it certainly doesn't mean he would lose in a standard stand-up fight. He wasn't superman, but his strengths were as real as his weaknesses, and far more remarkable. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not positive, but I think you said karate (I pray you were at least talking about Kempo Karate) was somehow better than ju jitzu for hand to hand combat, which is not only untrue, it is simply stupid. The gracie family had an open challenge to the world for many many years and remained undefeated until just the last 10 years. Ground game is of extreme importance. You will NOT succeed as a NHB fighter without fairly strong ground game. This includes take downs and defence (wrestling or judo) and at least a competence in submission wrestling or ju jitzu. As far as bruce lee's stand up game, his style was jeet kune do. How many jeet kune do fighters excel in modern NHB combat? thats right. As far as my experience in NHB, It has shown me how the greatest fighters in the world today train. Chuck Lidell, the guys out of the lions den (shamrock etc.), Bas Ruten out at beverly hills ju jitzu. Most of these major gyms share a similar training regimen. This is because it works. What does this consist off? Ju jitzu, muy thai and western boxing. Include some wrestling take down techniques and some judo stuff. I never said thai fighters were invencible, I said the style is important to train, it is a strong mix of western boxing with deadly knees and elbows. I personally strive to do well and muy thai, but I am much stronger in western boxing. As far as stand up vs ground game. Watch Grace dominate the old UFC's before everybody starting picking up ground game. It was sick.
|
|
#5
08-19-2005, 08:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
It's history, not theory. You're way too caught up in theory. If you don't even know the most elementary history of karate, then you are very ignorant when it comes to martial arts.
Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake. The idea that you have any idea who the greatest fighters in the world are is a pretty wild one indeed.
|
|
#6
08-19-2005, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
It's history, not theory. You're way too caught up in theory. If you don't even know the most elementary history of karate, then you are very ignorant when it comes to martial arts. Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake. The idea that you have any idea who the greatest fighters in the world are is a pretty wild one indeed. [/ QUOTE ] I'm having an extremely hard time deciphering what points you are trying to make in this thread; hopefully you can clarify them for me. What exactly do you mean by "Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake." What else would they measure? They are supposed to throw two guys in a ring and see who wins with a few things outlawed (what might be called sport fighting)- and that's what they do. Also, are you suggesting that there are fighters who would be beating the top guys in Pride or the UFC, but simply don't care to? You obviously have a lot to add here but for some reason your comments seem a bit too cryptic. Or I'm dumb.
|
|
#7
08-19-2005, 09:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's history, not theory. You're way too caught up in theory. If you don't even know the most elementary history of karate, then you are very ignorant when it comes to martial arts. Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake. The idea that you have any idea who the greatest fighters in the world are is a pretty wild one indeed. [/ QUOTE ] I'm having an extremely hard time deciphering what points you are trying to make in this thread; hopefully you can clarify them for me. What exactly do you mean by "Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake." What else would they measure? They are supposed to throw two guys in a ring and see who wins with a few things outlawed (what might be called sport fighting)- and that's what they do. Also, are you suggesting that there are fighters who would be beating the top guys in Pride or the UFC, but simply don't care to? You obviously have a lot to add here but for some reason your comments seem a bit too cryptic. Or I'm dumb. [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean them to be cryptic, but considering how long so many of my posts are, don't want to cover even more things in the same post. To address some of what you noted above, I'll start by pointing out the obvious -- not everyone wants to compete in tournament matches and not everyone lives in countries where getting access to them is easy. Being willing or able to sign up for a tournament is not the ultimate determiner of who the best fighter is. Further, any rules drastically change the game, and sport fighting has quite a few of them. For instance, no finger or toe locks, no tearing, no elbows to the head, no groin shots; all of these are great techniques and many people train for them specifically over all other targets/techniques. It's not just that we don't really know how good people are who don't like those rules, but we don't even know how good the people are who DO like them -- how good in a fight without those rules against the very same opponent, that is. That doesn't take anything away from the skills and general athleticism of the people partaking; but even they're crippled by having a ring and rules, and playing at a sort of game. What a tournament shows is who the best guy is when it comes to tournaments. Change the rules a bit, and suddenly who's at the top changes. People stay away from certain tournaments so they can fight within a style they're comfortable with. It's the nature of anything artificial. Where people go really over the top I think is figuring that whatever style is dominant in UFC speaks for the whole history of combat and lays down the final word on it. What you have in NHB tourneys is first of all the outcome of a sporting event participated in by very few people, and second a short history of surprise. Surprise! Dealing with new techniques commonly confounds everyone, no matter what style you're from. I think it's hilarious that each time someone finds weaknesses in another guy it's taken as establishing the dominance of his style over another, and the endpoint of history. What we really know is that they determine is the superiority of one particular MAN, at one particular point in time, under one particular set of rules. That circumstance may never be repeated, particularly as more people cross-train and learn each other's styles. The last thing it is is definitive on either the preeminence of one style or the incompetence of another. I'll link below a good article from the Dog Brothers' Marc Denny. These are the guys who beat each other up with sticks. Note: the core of their training comes from Dan Inosanto, Bruce Lee's assistant instructor and the main inheritor of whatever could be thought of as his style at the time. He came over to Bruce when he was already a 3rd or 4th degree black belt, as I recall. Kali has some things strongly similar to both Wing Chun and Jeet Kune Do, Bruce's styles.
|
|
#8
08-20-2005, 05:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
It's history, not theory. You're way too caught up in theory. If you don't even know the most elementary history of karate, then you are very ignorant when it comes to martial arts. Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake. The idea that you have any idea who the greatest fighters in the world are is a pretty wild one indeed. [/ QUOTE ] lol dude, we are talking about theory here not history. He is asking how would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC. The ufc is a NHB tournament and thus measures NHB skill. We can talk about history if you want, but it is off topic. I do have an elementary knowlege of Karate (I respect the Shaolin monks), and I think Karate as style of fighting is a silly idea. I don't bow before I step on the mat. I don't bother wearing a Gi. Karate is not fighting. It is not relevant to this discussion.
|
|
#9
08-20-2005, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's history, not theory. You're way too caught up in theory. If you don't even know the most elementary history of karate, then you are very ignorant when it comes to martial arts. Holding NHB tournaments as the measure of anything but NHB tournaments is a big mistake. The idea that you have any idea who the greatest fighters in the world are is a pretty wild one indeed. [/ QUOTE ] lol dude, we are talking about theory here not history. He is asking how would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC. The ufc is a NHB tournament and thus measures NHB skill. We can talk about history if you want, but it is off topic. I do have an elementary knowlege of Karate (I respect the Shaolin monks), and I think Karate as style of fighting is a silly idea. I don't bow before I step on the mat. I don't bother wearing a Gi. Karate is not fighting. It is not relevant to this discussion. [/ QUOTE ] Are you drunk? The history specifically being discussed was that of karate. Don't play stupid games. Everyone else seemed to notice but you, but perhaps because they weren't playing games, talking out of their ass about things they didn't know, or trying to cover their tracks. Dude ... for shame. Truly.
|
|
#10
08-19-2005, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How would Bruce Lee have fared in the UFC?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not positive, but I think you said karate (I pray you were at least talking about Kempo Karate) was somehow better than ju jitzu for hand to hand combat, which is not only untrue, it is simply stupid. [/ QUOTE ] No, he is pointing out that the father of modern karate popularized Karate over Jujitsu in Japan. [ QUOTE ] The gracie family had an open challenge to the world for many many years and remained undefeated until just the last 10 years. Ground game is of extreme importance. You will NOT succeed as a NHB fighter without fairly strong ground game. This includes take downs and defence (wrestling or judo) and at least a competence in submission wrestling or ju jitzu. [/ QUOTE ] You DO realize that Jujitsu is a general term. Brazilian Jujitsu is just ONE specific style of jujitsu, and is unique because it emphasizes ground game. I wouldnt be surprised if you didnt even know what traditional Jujitsu is like, since you spelled jujitsu incorrectly over and over. You clearly showed your ignorance when you assumed brazilian jujitsu speaks for all styles of jujitsu. [ QUOTE ] As far as bruce lee's stand up game, his style was jeet kune do. How many jeet kune do fighters excel in modern NHB combat? [/ QUOTE ] You are pretty retarded. Jeet Kune Do is NOT a system. Its how Bruce Lee interpreted combat in general. For him, it combined western boxing, various kicking styles, wing chun close quarter trapping, and even ground work. He has plenty of examples in his book with notes and examples of western boxing techniques, jujitsu techniques, aikido takedowns, wrestling takedowns, muay thai kicks, savate kicks, etc etc etc. You could say its well rounded and adaptive. How can you even argue with that? You are pretty ignorant. [ QUOTE ] As far as my experience in NHB, It has shown me how the greatest fighters in the world today train. Chuck Lidell, the guys out of the lions den (shamrock etc.), Bas Ruten out at beverly hills ju jitzu. Most of these major gyms share a similar training regimen. [/ QUOTE ] Do you mean they place great emphasis on physical well being, quick movements, and well rounded ness in fighting styles/abilities? Do they take punching skills, kicking abilities, and grappling seriously? Are they always looking to improve themselves and find an edge in combat? Sounds like some revolutionary ideas Bruce Lee came up with 30-40 years ago! WOW! [ QUOTE ] Ju jitzu, muy thai and western boxing. Include some wrestling take down techniques and some judo stuff. [/ QUOTE ] Uhhh.. I hope you DO know that Judo is simply a derivative of Jujitsu; its Jujitsu watered down... So why mention it twice? Because you simply dont even know what you are talking about. [ QUOTE ] I never said thai fighters were invencible, I said the style is important to train, it is a strong mix of western boxing with deadly knees and elbows. I personally strive to do well and muy thai, but I am much stronger in western boxing. [/ QUOTE ] Bruce Lee gave props to Muay Thai.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
