How to Beat a UFC Fighter?

[Bhassler]

the vast majority of physically violent assaults occur suddenly and unexpectedly, oftentimes through ambush from a hidden position, from strangers unknown to the target individual. Any such assailant could potentially possess fighting abilities of equal or greater skill than their intended victim

That's kind of the whole point of why I say it's irrelevant. Everything in the video starts from breaking the opponent's guard in a face to face confrontation. An ambush is unlikely to be hands up, face to face. You either have to pre-empt the situation (by avoidance, preferably, not the hit-first 'pre-emptive strike' BS that gets bandied about in the SD community), or start from a recovery position where you're already out of position and eating punches (if you're lucky).

To assume as you apparently do that you will always be aware of an impending assault and thereby always be prepared to successfully deal with it effectively seems like an unrealistic expectation, which could result in an unfortunate outcome in the real world of street defense.

Most stuff is pretty easy to avoid-- by the time it gets physical or an attack is launched, you've already fucked up in terms of your self defense skills. 99.999% of all violence falls into predictable patterns. The idea of stuff coming out of nowhere is a myth born of ignorance and the unwillingness of people to acknowledge that they can (and probably should) recognize the possibility of violence in their safe little worlds and get some basic education by way of preparation. Everyone has bad days and can be caught off guard, etc. and there may be some horrific situation where someone chooses to intervene in a violent scenario, and in those cases having physical skills ratchets way up in importance-- but that's still a far cry from anything relevant to the video in the OP.

[ambulocetus]

Sport competitions and this idea of "in the streetz" street fighting are both consensual combat. Both parties agree to either meet in the ring or to "take it outside". Although some of the skills refined in such encounters can be useful in a self defense situation, neither scenario is a self defense scenario. Self defense is non-consensual; ie. if I'm attacked, I am not agreeing to be attacked. This is not only different in a strategic and tactical sense, it is also very different in a legal sense. The idea of getting in a fist fight because of a percieved slight or other offensive behavior is a failure of strategy and a sign of a fragile ego. Street fights are great if you want to go to jail or go to the hospital, but not so great if you just want to go home.

[Doc Stier]

Good points. Nonetheless, however, violent physical assaults on unsuspecting ordinary citizens occur daily on the busy streets of large cities everywhere. Imminent assailants go unnoticed amidst the constant noise level of moving traffic, machinery, and other distractions of normal human activities in an urban environment. Additionally, most people are mentally preoccupied with thoughts of where they just came from or where they're going, and are thus not really very aware of what's happening around them in the present moment.

Even someone with good situational awareness will be hard pressed to know who a possible attacker may be until they're suddenly too close to evade. Sucker punches and kicks generally work well against people who were targeted exactly because they appear to have no potentially dangerous physical advantage or probable fighting experience. These 'street fights' are definitely NOT initiated through consensual agreement.

While I agree that exercising caution and common sense when out and about in public can certainly help avoid unanticipated ambush scenarios, it still happens more often than many people may realize. I have personally intervened in situations like that many times in past years to defend those who clearly were unable to defend themselves against one or more aggressive assailants, and I would gladly do so again in the future whenever necessary.

[cloudz]

honestly if a person has no interest in 'the fight' or fighting, I would ask; why bother with a martial art anyway?
Is it for the pretence or what exactly?

If you can just as easily replace with some other discipline(s) not directly martial arts all you are doing is effectively devaluing the art from what it is meant to be about...

there's so many options nowadays; the days of pretence should have been over by now.
exercise, check, health, check, self cultivation, check, spirituality and esotericism, check, strength, mobility, movement, check, check. CHECK!

As well as the monkeys wanting to dance, it is also (fighting/martial arts) for those people who have to clear up after and deal with agitators and dangers. These could involve restraint, bringing into control, working in teams (eg.security, doormen). Working in prisons or with the psychologically challenged.

I recall working with my sister a little while - she's a clinical psychologist and was made to do a self defence/ restraint type course.
Tai chi is really useful in those kind of contexts. Where it's more about control than smashing faces in..

whatever you may presume about a self defence situation, i can guarantee one thing. everything you can do untrained, they can.
every bit of trained (against resistance) skill and technique you can gain is potentially useful and usable in any 'fight'. And believe me every bit of surviving a violent attack is a 'fight' for some objective or other. Options need to remain options. whether that's running, escaping or having to stand and defend yourself or loved ones.

Beyond a certain point it all becomes semantics. There's only one good reason to train martial arts and that's to be better at physical engagements with others. Scenarios may alter and change but fundamental truths and principles don't. There's an undeniable crossover and overlap where self protection, self defence, control and restraint intersect with basic fighting. It has to grow out of that base, that's the solid foundation to build on.

As for how to fight certain people; like in the clip. Let's just hypothetically assume I'm a coach of a fighter set to fight him..
Well without bothering to look at him again, I would say on the first level and what should be fairly obvious is to avoid your opponents strong area, unless you believe you are stronger there against them than anywhere else.

this guy showed he is a good stand up striker, working with elbows in that closer range.
on that basis, (sneakily) changing levels on him to use (shoot) wrestling would seem like a fair tactic to begin with.
then gaining and maintaining a dominant or advantageous position to deliver either overpowering striking or a submission.

assuming there is a competition fight to be had. otherwise we just swap out objectives and follow 'the plan'..

[marvin8]

haha- he didn't beat the MMA fighter at MMA, he beat him at 'kickboxing with elbows'. He shows a very nice technique regardless.

Yes, Leduc is 0 (wins) - 2 (losses by TKO) in MMA.

Can be a nice strategy. In demo and Lethwei fight, Leduc:

1. grabs (na) the lead hand 2. lures (yin) opponent with elbow 2. listens (ting) for opponent to roll back weight to the back foot (double weight or "post"), then shift weight to the front foot 4. weaves (hua) under opponent's rear hook (ji), transfers weight to the back foot, while landing left hook (fa)—simultaneous defense/offense.

good techniques demoed for sure. but like, he is not talking about takedown defense etc. I would say he is missing a major point there.

Right. In Leduc vs Meunier, a MMA fight, Meunier:

1. controls (na) distance without force—staying just out of reach (yin) 2. listens (ting) for Leduc to attempt to grab his lead hand 3. follows (sui) Leduc's failed grab back with jab, controlling the centerline and causing Leduc to transfer weight to back foot (double weight) 3. turns jab into head control (hua), under hooks to body lock 4. issues (fa) trip with kosoto gake (outer hook) and finishes with ground and pound.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTu3J4CbTfg&t=4m30s

[vadaga]

by their fruits ye shall know them

[Doc Stier]

by their fruits ye shall know them

Quite so indeed. And likewise for top students. Whether good or bad, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.