Roy Shaw

In a hypothetical street fight between a criminal and a cage fighter, the criminal is gonna cheat like hell anyway! There´ll be weapons, sneaky tactics, other people joining in...

I think this is getting irrelevant as such .. it doesnt matter whether or not he would have beaten or been beaten etc in MMA, street
although given the dozens of street fights he DID have and never lost, then I disagree with the street fight answer

its never a waste of time or knowledge getting info from anyone whose experience is in that field

When we were devising our anti muggers stuff we asked permission to interview serving offenders in HM Prisons etc as to HOW they picked victims, WHY they chose certain ones etc etc.. this information was invaluable to our devising the methods we now use.

KNOWLEDGE in itself has no morals, its the USE (or rather ab-use) of that knowledge that determines the moral view

PaulGappyNorris wrote:The reference was to "many" cage fighters, not every cage fighter..

What he clearly doesn't lack is the ferocity and intensity mindset- something that IMHO is lacking in 'many' cage fighters - adding this to his 'limited' fighting skill base I reckon he'd hold his own quite comfortably with 'many' cage fighters.

Precisely.He has been beaten,Lenny McClean managed to do it twice but it dosen't mean to say that "many" cage fighters are going to be able to do what McCLean did.Neither of these guys has got much in the way of boxing skills but what they have got is guts,an extremely violent mindset,a determination to win at all costs by any means and a huge belief in their own abilty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnryd8gzQak

The clip shows a fight,it could be anyhwere,in the ring,in a pub or in the street,its just a fight.When I watch a lot of MMA matches I see an exercise between two technicians,more like chess with violence than an actuual representation of a street fight.I am not saying all MMA is like this but I wouldn't fancy these technicans chances against men like Shaw and McClean.

Soc,

Regarding cheating, why can't an MMA fighter cheat as well?

Sory, but with Shaw and Mclean, I see two ferocious men that would decimate the average man. They were both huge fuckers apart from anything else. But against a good MMA guy? Really?

I've seen the clips of the Mclean/shaw fights, an someone please explain to me in what way these guys could be considered to have any actual technical ability? Yes they are/were huge, and ferocious, but that's about it. Against a man of the same size, who is also well versed in standup, clinch, and ground, I think it would be goodnight for them in short order.

I also don't get why everyone is having multiple orgasms over their "mindset." If that's tha case, we may as well all stop training now no?
After all, a ferocious mindset seems to be more than enough to conpensate if your opponent has superior conditioning, superior technical skill, a much wider range of options available, and all the attributes you have beside.

Le

Soc,

Regarding cheating, why can't an MMA fighter cheat as well?

Sory, but with Shaw and Mclean, I see two ferocious men that would decimate the average man. They were both huge fuckers apart from anything else. But against a good MMA guy? Really?

I've seen the clips of the Mclean/shaw fights, an someone please explain to me in what way these guys could be considered to have any actual technical ability? Yes they are/were huge, and ferocious, but that's about it. Against a man of the same size, who is also well versed in standup, clinch, and ground, I think it would be goodnight for them in short order.

I also don't get why everyone is having multiple orgasms over their "mindset." If that's tha case, we may as well all stop training now no?
After all, a ferocious mindset seems to be more than enough to conpensate if your opponent has superior conditioning, superior technical skill, a much wider range of options available, and all the attributes you have beside.

Le

Let's make no mistake. MMA fighters are usually hard men. Lots of them come from hard backgrounds. It's tiresome when people adopt the tired old mentality of "oh, he went to prison, and is a thug, he must be unbeatable." And in the same breath right off men who train day in and day out, in what is argueably the hardest combat sport in the world, as being just "sportsmen." Lilly livered pansies, who wouldn't know a fight if it punched them in the face.

I kind of doubt that some of you guys have even watched any MMA, or if you did, understood what you were watching.

It just all comes back to the idea that we are all force fed by society, "ard men" are "the business" and are unstoppable juggernauts. If you look past the reputations of these guys, you can see that they really weren't that special. As I have said, too much for the average man, to be sure, but against a PRO athelete, with conditiong, heart, skills, experience?

Getting back to cheating for a moment. An MMA fighter would have skills, conditioning, technique, experience, mindset, and THEN could deploy a weapon. I'd rather be the superbly trained man, who then has the option to cheat. Rather than a one dimensional thug, who has to cheat right off the bat.

BN: Depends which MMA fighter we´re talking about! A cage fighter who grew up on a rough estate and has worked the doors and been in the army is one thing. A middle-class kid who´s never had a fight outside the gym is another...

Soc,

That's very true, no argument there. To be honest, I'm not so familiar with the "TUF" generation of MMA fighters. But a fair number of more established guys seem to have been around a bit.

Fedor and Crocop have pretty hardcore backgrounds. Crocop is ex-special forces, and Fedor was in the Russian military. His brother Alexander did five years for armed robbery. Bas Rutten was a bouncer. The Gracies are well known for their fights, in and out of the ring. Shonie Carter was a bouncer.

A lot of these guys have had quite rough, or hard, backgrounds.

This thread has splintered somewhat into multiple discussions.

- Initially, the point was made that someone who has utilised violence "immorally" in the past shouldn't be learned from. That's patently nonsense. You need to learn from these "deviant" types to find out what makes them tick and knowledge or information has NO inherent morality. Indeed, learning from these types of characters can be a moral action if it assists in protecting others from deviant action.

- Then the argument became that what information they have to offer is useless if they lack the intelligence to articulate their experiences and lessons. That's only partially true. All that is required is SOMEONE with the ability to analyse and interpret their actions. Very few criminals have the capacity or the self awareness to articulate their expriences and impart their lessons. What is usually required is interpretation of their actions and statements by either the person who is trying to understand the criminal or that same person gaining understanding through another party who has conducted and provided the analysis. The subject supplies the data, another person provides the conclusions. In short Roy can be thick as he likes, others will interpret his data.

- Then the argument became that criminals or deviants shouldn't be "lauded" or given undue attention. I completely agree. The whole hero-worship that has built up around criminals and thugs leaves me cold. That doesn't mean that I have no interest in learning how they think, feel and act. One is vicarious living and touching yourself when reading about "Guv'nors" and the other is research.

- Morality is subjective but influenced by the majority (to get onto the "something wrong with most fighters" point) Remember, I never said that I personally thought there was something wrong with most of the gifted fighters I have met. I said that modern society in the developed world would largely consider that there was something "wrong" with a person who has the required attributes to make them successful in a violent encounter. The propensity and willingness to do harm to others are seen as negative personality traits and generally portrayed as such. I don't hold that same view (how can I considering the time I spend developing those same traits and abilities) but I was making the point that morality is subjective and relies on action to give it life. What is acceptable to one is not acceptable to all and as a result, the decision on whether to attend an event where someone like Roy Shaw is speaking is a personal one. I go or do not depending on my own convictions.

- Whether Roy Shaw would handle a professional MMA fighter is another ridiculous argument really. It's no more practical than asking if Superman can beat up Spiderman. Conjecture and speculation. Roy Shaw is just another person with another set of skills, experiences and abilities. Those skills, experiences and abilites have carried him through a very violent life so chances are he has something to offer in the way of understanding the best way to operate in a fight. Considering he is still alive and kicking at his age it's a fair bet! That's nothing to do with whether he'd muller Frank Mir in a back-alley.

- There are a number of very violent and convicted criminals involved in MMA in the UK. Some of which have taught or been part of numerous seminars. Does that mean that they have nothing to offer the people who attend? Or should people not attend on moral grounds? I make no judgement and leave that to the individuals who attend as the act of putting on a seminar isn't a criminal offence (even if some of the material I have seen on seminar's was.)

oh and Nick, you can't marry my sister. Not because you've snotted more than a few but because you're South African.. a karati man and an unapologetic heightist... all of which are fundamentally immoral.

BN wrote:Soc,

That's very true, no argument there. To be honest, I'm not so familiar with the "TUF" generation of MMA fighters. But a fair number of more established guys seem to have been around a bit.

Fedor and Crocop have pretty hardcore backgrounds. Crocop is ex-special forces, and Fedor was in the Russian military. His brother Alexander did five years for armed robbery. Bas Rutten was a bouncer. The Gracies are well known for their fights, in and out of the ring. Shonie Carter was a bouncer.

A lot of these guys have had quite rough, or hard, backgrounds.

That´s all true. But I´d be careful of generalising. There are so many American kids on the internet who think MMA training is some kind of magic bullet that will turn them into Batman...

There have been a number of extremely good points made on this thread so far. Well argued, informative, not to mention interesting and well constructed. But enough about my posts.

Chris, Thanks for clarifying your earlier point, I think I misuderstood what you were saying initially.

Its' true that the "who can beat whom" argument is a bit pointless. Personally, I am arguing the point only becase I object to the same tired impliation that "ard men" who have "done a bit of bird" are somehow automatically more "effective" than men who train seriously hard to develop useable skills and attributes. Men who often have considerable experience in the rougher side of life themselves.

As to whether we can learn from the likes of Roy Shaw; it is possible to learn sonething from everyone we meet, so we could all take something away fr

from Shaw. But I stand by my assertion that anylessons would be incidental. I wouldn't attend a seminar with him. He most certainly can be "as thick as he likes," but being thick would hinder him from transmitting his material in an effective manner. I would think. I doubt he knows how/why he was able to do the things he's done. Mostly, I believe he has survived due to the attributes he possess, and the life experiences he's acquired. I doubt he can teach those.

Regarding the importance of intelligence; all the best instructors ARE intelligent. I see no value in attending lessons with someone who can barely grunt out his/her own language.

Certainly the decision to attend a seminar put on by an unsavoury character is a personnal decision. Lee Murray was involved in a bank robbery come years ago, and is now hiding out in Morocco.

If he were to one day return to the UK to do a seminar, I for one, would boycott him. That would be my decision. Obviously we are all free to do as we wish, and I wouldn't judge anyone else's decision.

I just don't see the point of listening to violent, thick, morally bankrupt people, when we have ligitimate instructors who can teach us the same lessons, in a better way, without being sociopathic.

p.s. I whole heartedly agree with the refusal on the part of Chris to betroth his sister to Nick. Nick doesn't fall into the Golden Height Range of 5'8-9. Therefore I don't see how he could possibly be considered sound husband material for any sensible gal.

How very dare you sir? Besides, my new girlfriend is only 5'3 - she makes you look - dare I say it - tall!!!

Nick

BN, I'm with you mate. I hold exactly the same views when it comes to glorifying the nations "deadliest men" and all that bunch of bollards. Not my cup of tea at all. It's violence porn for non-thinkers and I don't see the value in it.

A situation where I can ask my own questions or observe close-hand how certain types of violent criminal operate is a different thing, I see that as good research. There's a world of difference between books like, "The Guv'nor" and something like "How dangerous men think."

Depends whether you want titilation or education I suppose. We are responsible for our own education at the end of the day so the benefit or the loss following engaging with someone like Shaw will be down to the individual.

I can't see me wanting to receive "instruction" from the guy but I can see myself wanting to observe him and his actions (from a safe distance) as Steve Morris says, the fight is the teacher. You can learn a lot from observing and you can do that without taking a "student" position with the individual. Just my own personal view though.

Lee Murray is just one dodgy geezer. There's a whole raft of criminals operating within the UK MMA scene and doing very nicely in their chosen profession. In the same way as a lot of criminals in the past were either attending or participating in boxing bouts. It's a violent sport which suits and attracts violent people. If Shaw was twenty years old today, have no doubt he would be down at a London MMA gym, sweating his bollocks off and training hard. He is just one of that percentage of people who have the will and the capacity to inflict violence on other people in whatever format they choose. He combines that capacity with simple, hard and focused training.

He's definitely not unique by any stretch of the imagination. No doubt there are decent sized fighters out there who would stretch him out but to BEAT him I think you'd have to make him acquire room temperature and that makes him somewhat interesting as a personality. He's not just a street fighter, he's a killer. Makes him a bit of a different proposition I suppose.

Nick,

You have a girlfriend AND you're hitting on my sister. Now I KNOW you are lacking in the necessary moral fibre! 5 ft 3inches.. bet she's 5 foot 6 when fully inflated.

I wasn't hitting on her...I proposed...entirely different matter altogether

Well I hope she kicked you in the bollocks anyway. By the way, what's it like lumbering through life like an extra from "Jack in the beanstalk?"

No need to answer. Rhetorical question and all that. We all know you wish you were between 5'8/9.

*Fends off sexy groupies, accepts modelling contract, puts on skimpy bathing suit and walks down beach driving all the young ladies crazy*

what's it like lumbering through life like an extra from "Jack in the beanstalk?"

Is one to assume you are talking about "Jack 'AND' the Beanstalk" or were short people like yourself weaned on an entirely different set of children's classics.

Yes kids...get mum and dad to order now...this complete set of children's classics is available today. Read stories like...

"The Cat in the Fiddle"

"Hansel in Gretel"

"Snow White in the Seven Dwarfs"

...but wait, that's not all...if you're really short for your age you'll absolutely love...

"Alice's Adventures and Wonderland"

"The Cat in the Hat"

and more...

This collection of short stories can be yours for only 12 pounds and postage. Don't delay...order today.

Nick

PS: Is your bathing suit skimpy because you were "short" of material?

I see that one of the side effects of being unecessarily tall, is the compulsion to nit pick.

I did love "Puss and boots" when I was a kid though. I also learned to read with the "Dick In Jane" series. Oooh er!

Nick Hughes wrote:

"Hansel in Gretel"

I saw a film with that exact title once

...but that's all i'm saying