Why don't we ever see 'deadly' martial arts in competition?

Because they don't work and have not been tested.



In the above video a tai chi master does a self defense demo. My issue is not with what he is doing but what he 'attacker' is doing. I will be the first to out my hands up as I bought into this propaganda and thought I was learning a properly effective martial art. After learning lots of forms and some drills I realised that nothing was being tested against non-compliant training partners. The attacks of the training partner are quite unrealistic. His double leg attempt is playground level at best.

That is the beauty of methods like BJJ, MMA, Judo, wrestling etc as you find out very quickly what does and does not work. This will be the beauty of Martin's system when sparring becomes more embedded in our training. We will find our own unique and more importantly honest way of answering the problems and questions our partners ask of us. I know my default answer is clinch, takedown and work on the ground. I am looking forward to years of frustration on my feet so that one day I will be competent on my feet and in all ranges of physical chess.

Anyway, here is a compilation of striking in the early UFC events. Bloody brutal and not much technique = most big guys on the street?



A compilation of UFC and K-1 KOs. 8.11 Cro Cop at his jaw jangling best where precision and technique are the order of the day. Along with a healthy dose of athletic prowess. I used to use a mailing list in the 90's and had all the K-1 fights on VHS. Rarely was there a boring fight.



Finally, here is a wonderfully grainy clip of the King of the Streets in action. I still squeak with nostalgia when I see the foot stomp from the clinch in modern MMA.