# UFC vs Traditional MA Debate



## _JLC_ (May 15, 2013)

*Disclaimer:* This post is intended to generate discussion. I've made a number of big generalizations, there will be exceptions of course. My comments aren't meant to be interpreted to mean one style of MA is better then another , or to bag UFC fighters or MA etc...

After watching UFC for awhile I've made a few observations.

1) Muay Thai seems to have benefited a LOT from MMA/UFC. Muay Thai fighters are obviously great, but in the UFC it seems the "Muay Trained" fighter just does a whole lot of round kicks. TKD/Kung Fu/Karate all do round kicks. The Muay Thai one is arguably more powerful as you are kicking through the target more, but sacrificing a little speed.  Someone who practises TKD for example, should be able to interchange between a more "Muay" round kick and the more snap round kick effortlessly. Yet general UFC followers seem to disregard any other MA styles kicks? (Joe Rogan included). The knees/elbows in UFC rarely seem to be the way Muay Thai teach as well, or used in the same way. If a fighter just trained to do round kicks (any style) and boxing, they would have a good UFC striking game compared to the limited amount of Muay Thai that is used in UFC.

2) UFC fighters seem to telegraph what they are going to go a lot more then other MA's. Watch when a fighter does a spinning kick. Their back kicking leg is often across a lot more to make the kick easier, and they "wind up" before hand more obviously then MA's. Even Lyoto Machida's famous front kick KO is pretty set up, when you compare it to say Anderson Silvias front kick KO. But his opponent was leaning well forward in his stance for a easy target. Most kicking MA styles teach you to be able to kick at pull power from your normal stance without a big telegraph movement first, which slows you down and warns the opponent. 

3)Gaurds? Watching the top UFC KO's, how many times could they have prevented it if they had a guard up? Round kicks to side of head, even punches etc. More MA's are taught at the beginning to always have a guard up. All boxers would have their guard up. This happens even when fatigue shouldn't be a factor.

4) UFC fighters seem to lack ruthlessness at times. When the opponent is on the ground, on occasions there seems to be a chance to punch/pound with more intent on finishing him. Submissions pay a larger part, where the traditional MA perhaps would go after the kill more. 

5) UFC fighters normally ya LOT stronger/fitter then a typical MA. They are professionals and have really fight experience compared to many MAs.  Where their technique might not be as pure or good (examples like off balance in kicks, kick power from strength rather then technique), they make up for it with their physical attributes and fighting experience. They nearly all have a solid to great ground game.

6) Most traditional MA are technically more sound, but lack the strength and fighting experience of a UFC fighter. If they trained to a similar strength and fitness (and some would be anyway), the pure MA should have a more then good chance of winning. When you compare a MA who has studied their art for 10 years + to a typical UFC fighter, the UFC fighter looks a lot less fluid in movements and technique, and leaves a lot more openings for the opponent. 

There are however the top UFC fighters in more divisions who are a cut above the rest of the UFC, and are excluded from some of these generalizations...

Thoughts and comments


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 15, 2013)

UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also styles that have rules, like: Muay Thai, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, Wrestling. Martial Arts that have no rules won't do well in UFC, even if the practitioner trains at the same frequency as in the professional UFC fighter. It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything goes.


----------



## Never_A_Reflection (May 15, 2013)

The way you train is certainly more important than what you train in, but when it comes to MMA there is a base skillset you need to know--striking, stand-up grappling, groundwork, and submissions. Where you get those from doesn't matter, as long as they work under pressure on an opponent that is actively fighting back. Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu are currently the most common arts to pull those methods from for MMA, but that's because they have been proven to work, fight after fight, year after year. Very few traditional schools cover all four of those aspects, and very few traditional schools train in an alive manner to pressure test what they do. You can be in better shape than the other guy, but if he has decent skills in all of those areas and you are fantastic at just one of them, you are probably still going to lose.

It's easy to say that MMA fighters are less skilled, sloppier, or lack  ruthlessness--they have to worry about  a lot more than traditional stylists do, after all! When we train for  self defense, we are typically worried about some commonly used attacks from a mugger, brawler, or drunk that  has little to no training. When MMA fighters train and compete, they  have to worry about a wide variety of punches, kicks, elbows, knees,  throws, trips, sweeps, leg locks, arm locks, and chokes from someone who  has trained to be able to do all those things on someone who is  fighting back. Sure, traditional stylists might be more technically skilled, but they tend to have a narrower focus, a longer time to practice it, and a tradition of perfectionism to back it up. MMA fighters could definitely benefit from bringing in traditional martial artists as "specialist coaches" to improve certain aspects of their game, but throwing a traditional stylist in the cage with an MMA fighter almost always ends in defeat for the traditional artist.

Let's not get into the old "rules vs. no rules" argument--it's been done to death. The fact is that pressure points, groin strikes, and eye gouges all failed in the early UFC events because dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, or save you in a self defense situation, if you just don't have any fighting ability, or if you get taken out of your area of expertise in a fight.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 15, 2013)

Guards are great, in theory. They can also close you off, and turn you into a human punching bag, or just someone really easy to slam to the ground. Going all defense doesnt work so good.


----------



## rframe (May 15, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> There are however the top UFC fighters in more divisions who are a cut above the rest of the UFC, and are excluded from some of these generalizations...
> 
> Thoughts and comments



My thoughts are there are a bazillion threads comparing and contrasting MMA and other martial arts.  My other thought is I'm bored this morning and felt like clicking reply anyway 

#6 "Traditional MA are more technically sound".... let me summarize on this one because I think a lot of your other observations center on this.  Most traditional martial artists never compete at the intensity level of 3 or 5 five-minute rounds of full contact knock down fighting.  Watch someone who's never fought like this get in the octagon and they will likely be gassed within a minute and their awesome technique goes out the window.

Also, a lot of "soundness" goes out the window when you have someone really trying to beat the snot out of you, knock you out, or break your arm unless you submit.  Real pressure is an awesome reality check.

Most traditional martial artists are also locked into a particular segment of fighting (they are strikers, boxers, or grapplers), they might have fantastic technical kicking, then all the sudden someone clinches with them and throws them to the ground and all the sudden they look like a fish out of water.... or they might be a phenomenal grappler but have very basic striking skills so their stand up game is all about avoidance with the occasional sloppy kick tossed out.  The diversity of skill required in the octagon is large.  Most fighters have some specialties, some are excellent traditional martial artists and strikers.  Many hold dan grades in traditional arts... but as soon as you see them in positions they are less trained in, they are exhausted, and they are being attacked... things naturally start to look pretty sloppy.


----------



## Drose427 (May 15, 2013)

I agree. Yes, Martial Artisist's may have more technical skill or ability, but they also don't have as much they need to focus on. In MMA, they have to learn, practice, and refine various types of techniques. Logically, theyre only gonna have a few techniques from each category that they know they can get close to perfection and implement them. Just like in any other striking art, theres so many different techniques you can use in sparring, or self defense. But do you use them all? They find what works for them, for striking, grappling, and groundwork, anf run with that. Instead of learning a 100 techniques, they essetially learn 10 and try to perfect those. Whats a technique if you cant implement it? Be it for MMA or self defense. The whole "One is better than the other" argument is ridiculous, because one Traditional Martial Artisist could very well beat an MMA fighter, but a different MMA fighter could beat the martial artist and vice versa. They train for different things, under different rules, and have different amounts of time to learn. In my opinion, trying to compare these two is like trying to compare any other martial or fight system to another. It's sorta getting old because everywhere I look this debate is there


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 15, 2013)

rframe said:


> My thoughts are there are a bazillion threads comparing and contrasting MMA and other martial arts.  My other thought is I'm bored this morning and felt like clicking reply anyway
> 
> #6 "Traditional MA are more technically sound".... let me summarize on this one because I think a lot of your other observations center on this.  Most traditional martial artists never compete at the intensity level of 3 or 5 five-minute rounds of full contact knock down fighting.  Watch someone who's never fought like this get in the octagon and they will likely be gassed within a minute and their awesome technique goes out the window.
> 
> ...


This is why pressure testing is so important in a TMA school, but not everyone is into that sort of thing. Some people just want a hobby and other people want to learn an actual skill, so some will pressure test and some won't.


----------



## Kframe (May 15, 2013)

I think pressure testing is very important as well. Things are different when punches and attacks are coming at you with some speed.


----------



## Riffix (May 15, 2013)

If you watch UFC 1 - 10 you see seasoned martial artists pitted against each other in the octagon and you can see why the skill set they have now was developed. Especially after watching Royce Gracie fight


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 15, 2013)

Never_A_Reflection said:


> The fact is that pressure points, groin strikes, and eye gouges all failed in the early UFC events because dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, or save you in a self defense situation, if you just don't have any fighting ability, or if you get taken out of your area of expertise in a fight.



Dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, but on the street if a fight happens between a mid-rank UFC fighter and a Krav Maga or Wing Chun practitioner with a similar amount of training hours, my money would be on the Krav Maga or Wing Chun practitioner. 

Aside from dirty tricks, in the street there are things like wet terrain, lamp posts, parked cars, concrete, garbage bins, dog poo, banana skins, broken glasses. It's a very foreign environment for people who are used by the rules. 

In the octagon, no contest, the UFC fighter will win easily.


----------



## Blindside (May 16, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Aside from dirty tricks, in the street there are things like wet terrain, lamp posts, parked cars, concrete, garbage bins, dog poo, banana skins, broken glasses. It's a very foreign environment for people who are used by the rules.



So I'm curious, how often does a wing chun practitioner practice using parked cars, garbage bins, and dog poo?  I sometimes practice in a park and in other outdoor settings, does that get me all experienced about fighting with all these environmental variables?  I suspect most WC practitioners practice mostly in a Kwoon or other similar relatively safe setting, and not an a small irregular basalt surface floating in a sea of lava.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 16, 2013)

Blindside said:


> So I'm curious, how often does a wing chun practitioner practice using parked cars, garbage bins, and dog poo?



Not very often, but more often than a UFC fighter does. I have trained to fight in stairs, inside the restroom, in the dark, etc. Again, not very often, but still more often than an UFC fighter does.

I have also trained when I had fever. One of my instructors (not Wing Chun, but another 'no-rules' style) told me that I had to be prepared in all situations, including when I'm tired, have mild fever, minor injuries because attack can happen at anytime. 

Does a UFC fighter fight when he has fever or injuries? I think some probably do, but most don't. 



Blindside said:


> I sometimes practice in a park and in other outdoor settings, does that get me all experienced about fighting with all these environmental variables?



When you train in the outdoor settings, do you train to take the advantage of the environment? If yes, then at least you are more experienced than someone who doesn't. Of course there are many other factors beside the environment.

Styles with no rules (I was using Wing Chun and Krav Maga as examples because they are two of the most popular ones) teach you to take advantage of the environment and to go at all cost from the very start. 

In the street, would a UFC fighter throw his shoes (just an example) to distract his opponent so he can pick up a brick or a bottle and get close? Maybe, but only after he runs out of option. While the 'no-rules' style will do this as the first option. 

I'm not saying that UFC fighters aren't capable of winning street fights. What I'm saying is environment, state of mind, and dirty tricks makes a big difference in the street. 

Just because Usain Bolt is the king in running tracks, doesn't mean he can beat the other sprinters (that he beats in track) in the swimming pool. What if he has to swim against real swimmers? On the other hand, the swimmers won't stand a chance in running tracks.


----------



## Cirdan (May 16, 2013)

This thread has potential... lava, pressure points and ufc 1 have already been brought up. Feels like a blast from the past. Getting some popcorn for later just in case.  

Viking Berzerker Artz are superior to everything btw, why else would warhammers be banned in ufc? :viking2:


----------



## Cyriacus (May 16, 2013)

Cirdan said:


> This thread has potential... lava, pressure points and ufc 1 have already been brought up. Feels like a blast from the past. Getting some popcorn for later just in case.
> 
> Viking Berzerker Artz are superior to everything btw, why else would warhammers be banned in ufc? :viking2:



Plus, you have to wear those stupid shorts. You know, my buddy Ulric tried to get into the UFC once. Apparently just wearing a bear skin is 'indecent exposure', so they escorted him out. Cowards. Theyre just afraid of sending a real man into the ring.


----------



## Cirdan (May 16, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Plus, you have to wear those stupid shorts. You know, my buddy Ulric tried to get into the UFC once. Apparently just wearing a bear skin is 'indecent exposure', so they escorted him out. Cowards. Theyre just afraid of sending a real man into the ring.



Yes, all thease weakling`s rules in a fight pff. They even took my brother Dagfart`s bag of `zerking scack (red flea mushrooms) away, claiming it was on some list of illegal substances.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 16, 2013)

I didnt respond to this earlier simply because I didnthave time to address all the interesting points that could be brought up here,but I do now.



Never_A_Reflection said:


> The way you train is certainly more important than what you train in, but when it comes to MMA thereis a base skill set you need to know--striking, stand-up grappling, groundwork,and submissions. Where you get those from doesn't matter, as long as they work under pressure on an opponent that is actively fighting back. Muay Thai,boxing, wrestling, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu are currently the most common arts to pull those methods from for MMA, but that's because they have been proven towork, fight after fight, year after year.


MMA does pull from a variety of good arts, but they areall arts with sport fighting components. MT, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, and somesystems of karate have emphasis on competitive fighting each with its own rulesabout such a thing. In MMA the rules become more unified and all the various systems used in it blend together for an eclectic fighting sport. The way MMA has developed was very deliberate by those in charge of events. Rules are setup so that you can have the closest thing possible to actual combat without there likely being serious injury.
Other arts cant work in the MMA field because very specific strategies they focus on are not as useful in sport competitions asthey would be for personal self-defense or life and death combat.



Never_A_Reflection said:


> Veryfew traditional schools cover all four of those aspects, and very fewtraditional schools train in an alive manner to pressure test what they do. You can be in better shape than the other guy, but if he has decent skills in allof those areas and you are fantastic at just one of them, you are probablystill going to lose.


Some arts dont cover certain aspects because they didnt need to at the time they were created. Ground fighting for example would have been nearly useless for samurai. To deal with modern assaults though I do feelthat all the above you mentioned is important if you care about self-defense,but replace submission with subdue or break.
Personally I consider pressure testing important for aserious martial artist, but it honestly depends on what system you are studyingand why you chose to study it. But training for self-defense or non-sportcombat requires a very specific approach to pressure testing that isnt foundin sport systems as far as Im aware.
If you have mastered one skill and have to fight a jackof all trades you certainly have an shot at winning. It depends on how good aperson is at setting an opponent up for what one is good at doing. A superiorboxer could beat a person with moderate boxing, kickboxing, and judo skill aslong as he has a superior tactic.



Never_A_Reflection said:


> It's easy to say that MMA fighters are lessskilled, sloppier, or lack ruthlessness--they have to worry about a lot morethan traditional stylists do, after all!


 
I think theres a lot of misunderstanding by thiscomment.
I wouldnt say MMA fighters are less skilled, or sloppy,or lack ruthlessness (not sure what you mean there). An MMA fighter is likelyless skilled at what some TMA do, but the TMA is less skilled at what the MMA practitioner does. The environments are different so the skill set isdifferent.
Im going to take a guess at what you mean when you say theyhave to worry about a lot more than traditional stylists do, because that really depends on what the traditional stylist is training for. If hes a karateka or TKD practitioner interested in tournaments then yes, there are less things his opponents will be allowed to do to them. If the traditional stylistis concerned with self-defense then no, there is a lot more to be worried aboutoutside of the ring than inside of it if a real violent encounter occurs. If you are talking old school martial arts then they probably dont have to worry about people with spears or swords attacking them today, but the practitioners who developed it surely did!




Never_A_Reflection said:


> When we train for selfdefense, we are typically worried about some commonly used attacks from amugger, brawler, or drunk that has little to no training.


 
While I would agree that most violent offenders probably dont have formal martial arts training that doesnt necessarily mean they haveno experience with violence. They might not have any skill, but you never really know. Every person who you may encounter in life should be treated as if they are competent and dangerous because the one time you think someone is a pushover is the time you will likely be surprised. Thats my opinion, anyway.




Never_A_Reflection said:


> When MMA fighterstrain and compete, they have to worry about a wide variety of punches, kicks,elbows, knees, throws, trips, sweeps, leg locks, arm locks, and chokes fromsomeone who has trained to be able to do all those things on someone who isfighting back.


 
A couple things to consider here:
MMA fighter fight other MMA fighters who have spent time working on the same or similar skills they have in order to win a fight withvery specific pre-determined rules. More on this below though.
The other thing to consider is that in self-defense you have one attacker and one defender. Someone is focused on attack and wouldntbe attacking if they were considered for their safety, so the attacker doesnt actively resist what the defender does, he focuses on attack.
In mutual non-sport combat (different from self-defense)the goal is to eliminate the opposing threat as soon as possible with the leastamount of damage done to you so the fight will play out differently than youwould see in a ring. One a person spots the advantage they capitalize on itwith abandonment to the thought of defense (because the situation is very highrisk). In sport fighting there is a back and forth exchange because there is noimmediate risk of death or maiming. They are completely different fromcompetitive sport matches.



Never_A_Reflection said:


> Sure, traditionalstylists might be more technically skilled, but they tend to have a narrowerfocus, a longer time to practice it, and a tradition of perfectionism to backit up. MMA fighters could definitely benefit from bringing in traditionalmartial artists as "specialist coaches" to improve certain aspects oftheir game, but throwing a traditional stylist in the cage with an MMA fighter almost always ends in defeat for the traditional artist.


Like I said above a traditionalist will be more skilledat what he works on and an MMA fighter will be more skilled at what he works on.
Im a traditionalist and my focus is much broader notnarrower. 
The time of practice depends on the individual not the system. After all you could have a 10 year veteran of the octagon and a whitebelt traditionalist. Who has more time there?
Throwing a traditionalist in the cage with an mma fighterwould likely end with the defeat of the non mma fighter. Thats the mma fightersenvironment! Take him out of that environment and put him in one more suited for another person who trained for that situation and it would be reversed.



Never_A_Reflection said:


> Let's not get into the old "rules vs. no rules" argument--it's been done to death. The fact is that pressurepoints, groin strikes, and eye gouges all failed in the early UFC eventsbecause dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, or save you in a self defensesituation, if you just don't have any fighting ability, or if you get taken outof your area of expertise in a fight.


Actually we do have to get into the old rules vs no rulesargument, but maybe with a different take on it. The way the argument alwaystends to go is Well we would just break all the rules in a _real fight_! right? The problem withthat is obviously the MMA fighter would obviously not observe rules in a fightwhere is life was at stake either. That approach to the argument is stupid andflawed.
But the rules vs no rules does still apply but for a different reason. Rules of any kind whether spoken or unspoken affect different martial arts and their development and their effectiveness across other environmentsthey were not designed for. 
In MMA the rules have been established to make fights assafe and entertaining as possible. MMA is as close to mutual combat you can getwithout being barbaric or unethical (in my opinion). Rules shape and limit thepossible strategies and tactics that can be used to win in that environment.Those strategies and tactics are drilled into a martial artist until they become ingrained. An MMA fighter will naturally begin to fight in a way that helps him win competitions. His or her ability to win in a serious life ordeath situation has to do with how well he or she can adapt those trainedtactics and strategies to a new environment.
Traditional schools that have a strong and accurateapproach to self-defense will teach strategies less useful to competitivefighters that instead focus on quick and immediate neutralization of danger.Since they would all break the rules in competition, the traditionalist is often left with no usable skills that the MMA fighter doesnt expect or possess. 
Sport fights are about making things as even as possible for entertainment.
Traditional martial arts focusing on self-preservationfocus on stacking the odds as highly in your favor as possible. 
They are designed for different things and for a practitioner of either to do what is expected of the other in their area of expertise would require the individual to be able to adapt his training to new environments.


----------



## Grenadier (May 16, 2013)

To the OP:

It looks like you're comparing apples to oranges, when you're making your comparisons between traditional martial artists and mixed martial artists.  

The biggest issue here, is that the MMA practitioners you're referring to are competitors, whereas most traditional martial artists in your grouping aren't going to be competitors.  Most non-competitor traditional martial arts folks aren't going to go through intense physical conditioning, nor are they going to follow strict dietary regimens that are optimized to build lean muscle mass, whereas your "typical" MMA practitioner is going to be more interested in competition, and will be more apt to do such things.  

Furthermore, the UFC is going to attract the upper tier of athletes / competitors, making it even more skewed.  

A much more valid comparison would be to look at traditional martial artists who compete at the world level, such as those in the World Karate Do Federation (WKF), where all of those competitors go through intense physical and nutritional conditioning.


----------



## rframe (May 16, 2013)

And again... as I mentioned above, *many* MMA fighters and UFC "stars" ARE "Traditional Martial Artists" too.

GSP talks a lot about his Kyokushin training.
Anderson Silva is still very active in Tae Kwon Do.
Lyoto Machida has deep roots in Shotokan.
Even bad boy trash talking Nick Diaz talks about his roots growing up learning karate.
Vitor Belfort is ranked in Judo and Shotokan.

The list goes on and on and on...
Of course, nearly every UFC fighter is highly ranked in some flavor of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

A good martial artists knows how to take what is applicable to a particular situation and use it.  That's what these guys do.  The whole rules vs no rules stuff is nonsense.  Everyone is on the same playing field.  If I cannot rip your eyeball out and neither can you rip mine out, then it's irrelevant.


----------



## enthusiast (May 16, 2013)

Riffix said:


> If you watch UFC 1 - 10 you see seasoned martial artists pitted against each other in the octagon and you can see why the skill set they have now was developed. Especially after watching Royce Gracie fight



can you give us a link for those videos?I have seen 1 and 2 but not the later ones.thanks man


----------



## martial sparrer (May 16, 2013)

sometimes I wish ufc fighters would use more kicks....all we get to see most of the time is roundhouse....I love how jon jones uses jkd side knee kick....which stops most fighters from taking him down....I guess a lot of kicks have you turning from your opponent which means take down....


----------



## chinto (May 16, 2013)

Never_A_Reflection said:


> The way you train is certainly more important than what you train in, but when it comes to MMA there is a base skillset you need to know--striking, stand-up grappling, groundwork, and submissions. Where you get those from doesn't matter, as long as they work under pressure on an opponent that is actively fighting back. Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu are currently the most common arts to pull those methods from for MMA, but that's because they have been proven to work, fight after fight, year after year. Very few traditional schools cover all four of those aspects, and very few traditional schools train in an alive manner to pressure test what they do. You can be in better shape than the other guy, but if he has decent skills in all of those areas and you are fantastic at just one of them, you are probably still going to lose.
> 
> It's easy to say that MMA fighters are less skilled, sloppier, or lack  ruthlessness--they have to worry about  a lot more than traditional stylists do, after all! When we train for  self defense, we are typically worried about some commonly used attacks from a mugger, brawler, or drunk that  has little to no training. When MMA fighters train and compete, they  have to worry about a wide variety of punches, kicks, elbows, knees,  throws, trips, sweeps, leg locks, arm locks, and chokes from someone who  has trained to be able to do all those things on someone who is  fighting back. Sure, traditional stylists might be more technically skilled, but they tend to have a narrower focus, a longer time to practice it, and a tradition of perfectionism to back it up. MMA fighters could definitely benefit from bringing in traditional martial artists as "specialist coaches" to improve certain aspects of their game, but throwing a traditional stylist in the cage with an MMA fighter almost always ends in defeat for the traditional artist.
> 
> Let's not get into the old "rules vs. no rules" argument--it's been done to death. The fact is that pressure points, groin strikes, and eye gouges all failed in the early UFC events because dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, or save you in a self defense situation, if you just don't have any fighting ability, or if you get taken out of your area of expertise in a fight.



I have watched the early so called no rules UFC stuff. First of all there were rules, and second of all you could see the fighters themselves imposed rules on themselves. this is obvious as no one DIED!!  hint folks  in real fights people DIE!  look at that soccer ref in utah!.   so I am sick of the no rules vs rules because it is obvious that in a self defense situation its over fast and there are no rules at all... but also its obvious that UFC does not and never has wanted people dying in the ring!!! get real! no one wants to walk out of the octagon or a boxing ring or a cage with his opponent DEAD!!!  

that said, the prize fighter, weather a pro boxer or UFC trains hard and constantly to comply with the rules and win under them! they are very very competent at their sport.
Like boxers and other prize fighters the DARE NOT get into a fight out side a ring as they will be charges with serious crimes like aggravated assault minimum and ATTEMPTED MURDER often!  the burden of proof is on that fighter to PROVE he was defending himself with minimum force!!!! not the prosecution!!!


----------



## chinto (May 16, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Guards are great, in theory. They can also close you off, and turn you into a human punching bag, or just someone really easy to slam to the ground. Going all defense doesnt work so good.




in most self defense situations they do NOT come in singles! they have friends, so going to the ground is not a good idea in most cases! his friends start kicking your kidneys and ribs and head  and you will not quite provably survive the damage and live!


----------



## Cyriacus (May 16, 2013)

chinto said:


> in most self defense situations they do NOT come in singles! they have friends, so going to the ground is not a good idea in most cases! his friends start kicking your kidneys and ribs and head  and you will not quite provably survive the damage and live!


Im not sure how our two replies relate, but yeah, absolutely.


----------



## Kframe (May 16, 2013)

I think having your hands atleast in a position to afford some kind of defense is advisable. Now im not saying my boxing stance aka high and tight is perfect for all things. In fact it is weak to take downs, so have a few different guards that I use depending on how I feel at that moment.    You must remember there is no perfect anything in martial arts. No perfect stance no perfect guard no perfect blocks or deflections no perfect attacks. Every thing you do leaves a opening a weakness some were.  You just have to train to minimize that weakness. 

That said, my new gym focus's on self defense. So we do a lot of things from a normal hands down non threatened just chilling out stance.  Lets face it we don't walk around en guard.   Now I don't think Cyriacus was suggesting that you don't need a guard, I think he was trying to say that each guard has there advantages and disadvantages. If im wrong Cyriacus i do apologize. I was just going on what my gut was feeling about what you were saying. 

Ill tell you this about my own training. My new coach has a heavy traditional martial arts back ground before switching to a mma style of teaching. So on top of the usual mma mix of skills he throws in TMA techniques as well. Most notable I am learning traditional deflections and interceptions(aka blocks). On top of that, we are also learning some movement principles that have roots in the various TMA he has studied.  I found out quite early on that my High and Tight boxing guard is not favorable to using interceptions and deflections. So i had to experiment with different guards to see what worked for me. I am still working on finding a set of guards that fits me  well. Im taking advice from coach and from some TMA guys on another forum.  I am now leaning towards a high but looser guard. I have much experimentation to go but im close.  Im finding lots of inspiration for my ideas for a guard in the TMA world.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 16, 2013)

Kframe said:


> That said, my new gym focus's on self defense. So we do a lot of things from a normal hands down non threatened just chilling out stance.  Lets face it we don't walk around en guard.   Now I don't think Cyriacus was suggesting that you don't need a guard, I think he was trying to say that each guard has there advantages and disadvantages. If im wrong Cyriacus i do apologize. I was just going on what my gut was feeling about what you were saying.



Youd be correct. A guard isnt going to save you if the other guy just ignores it - It just closes off a few options.
Kinda like 'the fence'.


----------



## _JLC_ (May 17, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Youd be correct. A guard isnt going to save you if the other guy just ignores it - It just closes off a few options.
> Kinda like 'the fence'.



If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued. 

Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading


----------



## Cyriacus (May 17, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued.
> 
> Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading



Oh, no doubt. Their hands would be up, their heads would be 'safe', and theyd be taken down or clinched in a fraction of a second.
Also, fist by the ear is a great way to leave yourself open for a collar tie or a bearhug. That doesnt mean the guard doesnt work - It means that if you got kicked in the hand by the ear, your own hand would still hit your head, and the follow up strikes would still hurt.


----------



## frank raud (May 17, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued.
> 
> Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading


Because a boxer doesn't have to concern himself with head kicks or takedowns, the guard you describe works for him. Because a wrestler does not worry about head kicks(or punches) his crouched stance with hands low to shoot for a takedown, works for him. Both these arts are common bases for a MMA fighter,yet neither stance works well in MMA because of the additional elements that MMA involves. As Cyricaus said, keep your hands up too high, you're open for a takedown, keep them too low, you're open for a head kick. Face someone square on like most boxers do, hard to get off a round house kick, while making a presentation of your own thighs to be kicked at whim. Crouch low with your head leading is a good way to loose teeth when punches and kicks are allowed. The MMA stance is a hybrid, a compromise between the multiple arts that they can reasonably expect to face in the ring.


----------



## frank raud (May 17, 2013)

chinto said:


> I have watched the early so called no rules UFC stuff. First of all there were rules, and second of all you could see the fighters themselves imposed rules on themselves. this is obvious as no one DIED!!  hint folks  in real fights people DIE!  look at that soccer ref in utah!.   so I am sick of the no rules vs rules because it is obvious that in a self defense situation its over fast and there are no rules at all...


Killed alot of people in your self defense training, or while defending yourself?


----------



## Drose427 (May 17, 2013)

At my Mdk school, the advised guard is to always have at least one arm up, and one a little low ( midsection area.) Typically, front hand stays up, back hand stays around the chest, and with a failry sideways stance, you have the set up to block most techniques, given you don't move your guard. But, it doesn't always stay that way when I spar someone who is better with their hands, so they try to box me. I guess my point would be that in any martial art, but especially in MMA you have to sorta be able to change guards, or strive to find whatever works best for you. You'd think fighters would learn that people are getting K.O'd because they do poor jobs of blocking their heads. But just as other people have posted, when they have a wrestling or boxing background for so long, at that level, it'd be an extremely hard, and annoying habit to get used to. They'd be essentially relearning how they do it, which is hard in absolutely anything. But that's what I see, I could be wrong, I havent watched live or new UFC in a long time, and the last TUF episode I watched was the one with Uriah's knockout so it's been a while.


----------



## Steve (May 17, 2013)

I like to pull guard in street fights so that my friends can kick my opponent in the head while I control his posture from guard.


----------



## rframe (May 17, 2013)

Steve said:


> I like to pull guard in street fights so that my friends can kick my opponent in the head while I control his posture from guard.



This is why I always wear a helmet when I'm out and about in town.  I like pull guard in street fights, but get so tired of them dropping me on my head in a very unsportsman-like fashion.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2013)

chinto said:


> Like boxers and other prize fighters the DARE NOT get into a fight out side a ring as they will be charges with serious crimes like aggravated assault minimum and ATTEMPTED MURDER often! the burden of proof is on that fighter to PROVE he was defending himself with minimum force!!!! not the prosecution!!!



burden of proof is always on the prosecution.  Only an idiot would sit back and not rigorously defend himself at trial, but the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.


----------



## Kframe (May 17, 2013)

I do want to add that not all boxing guards are high and tight. Some are lower and looser.. For instance my friend is a old school boxer, and very good.  He has a very loose guard almost like a higher version of the classical en guard stance that you see from old timey boxing  photos.  His stance is actually pretty good for a general defense.  Couple that with the fact he is a extremely mobile type fighter, preferring movement over blocking and you have a good recipe. 

I don't think you should stay in one guard for the entire duration of a altercation be it mma or other wise.  You need to adapt your guard based on what is going on.     

Now if your going to practice mma and use a high and tight guard, you had better make sure you put in the time learning how to effect your take down defense from that guard.  It is harder to effect some defenses from a high and tight guard.


----------



## chinto (May 17, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Killed alot of people in your self defense training, or while defending yourself?



 actually I have been where it was life and death. so you figure it out.


----------



## frank raud (May 17, 2013)

chinto said:


> actually I have been where it was life and death. so you figure it out.


  Perhaps I'm a little dim this evening. Are you implying you have killed someone in self defense, or you have been in a situation were the potential of death was there? I'm having a little trouble with your cryptic answer.


----------



## jks9199 (May 17, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> burden of proof is always on the prosecution.  Only an idiot would sit back and not rigorously defend himself at trial, but the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.



Wrong!  If you're claiming self defense, it's an affirmative defense.  In other words -- you are ADMITTING that you committed a crime, but that you were justified or excused from criminal liability because you were defending yourself.  The burden of proof shifts to the defense to show that you were indeed justified.


----------



## jks9199 (May 17, 2013)

Kframe said:


> I do want to add that not all boxing guards are high and tight. Some are lower and looser.. For instance my friend is a old school boxer, and very good.  He has a very loose guard almost like a higher version of the classical en guard stance that you see from old timey boxing  photos.  His stance is actually pretty good for a general defense.  Couple that with the fact he is a extremely mobile type fighter, preferring movement over blocking and you have a good recipe.
> 
> I don't think you should stay in one guard for the entire duration of a altercation be it mma or other wise.  You need to adapt your guard based on what is going on.
> 
> Now if your going to practice mma and use a high and tight guard, you had better make sure you put in the time learning how to effect your take down defense from that guard.  It is harder to effect some defenses from a high and tight guard.



Look at your old school boxing guards (bare knuckle, London Prize Ring, etc), and it's not surprising that they resemble the more effective guards in MMA or martial arts.  When the rules allowed throws and lots of other stuff that's not legal under current rules, the guard had to take that into account.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 18, 2013)

rframe said:


> The whole rules vs no rules stuff is nonsense.  Everyone is on the same playing field.  If I cannot rip your eyeball out and neither can you rip mine out, then it's irrelevant.



It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.

Let's say Fighter A, who is street oriented, spends 70% of his training time on dirty tricks and 30% on 'clean' techniques. Fighter B, who is an athlete, spends 100% of his time training on all the things allowed in the competition rule. Let's say they both spend similar amount of training hours, same age, and same weight. In a competition with rules, Fighter A would be severely disadvantaged as he can only apply 30% of his training, while Fighter B would be able to apply 100% of his training. In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.
> 
> Let's say Fighter A, who is street oriented, spends 70% of his training time on dirty tricks and 30% on 'clean' techniques. Fighter B, who is an athlete, spends 100% of his time training on all the things allowed in the competition rule. Let's say they both spend similar amount of training hours, same age, and same weight. In a competition with rules, Fighter A would be severely disadvantaged as he can only apply 30% of his training, while Fighter B would be able to apply 100% of his training. In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged.



Unless Fighter B decides to become Attacker B Who Doesnt Like To Fight.


----------



## frank raud (May 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.
> 
> Let's say Fighter A, who is street oriented, spends 70% of his training time on dirty tricks and 30% on 'clean' techniques. Fighter B, who is an athlete, spends 100% of his time training on all the things allowed in the competition rule. Let's say they both spend similar amount of training hours, same age, and same weight. In a competition with rules, Fighter A would be severely disadvantaged as he can only apply 30% of his training, while Fighter B would be able to apply 100% of his training. In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged.


 Nice theory. However, it is also highly possible that fighter B, who has spent his time training on effective techniques(constricted by those nasty limiting rules) also has vastly more experience in getting, maintaining and exploiting positional dominance against a resisting opponent. If fighter A bag of dirty tricks include things that can't be practiced at either full speed or full contact, he won't have practical experience of attempting to apply them against a resisting opponent. Ergo, the "advantage" of his "street" training is nullified. So, as an example, after fighter B swoops in for a double leg takedown(having spent 70% more of his training time on techniques that fit within the confines of those restricting rules), and fighter A has been bodyslammed into the pavement and mounted, how effective will the upward eye gouge attempts be, while fighter A is trying to defend against those rule restricted ground and pound techniques? Those vicious pressure point techniques, how awesome are they going to be without a base to work from? In BJJ, there is a saying "position before submission", the same applies to dirty tricks. Cant do an eye gouge if you are not in range, or opponent is on your back. Groin strikes are very difficult when other guy has you in double underhooks, which can easily be transitioned to an armbar, a duckunder, or a throw. All perfectly legal techniques under those restricting rules, yet they negate much of the dirty trick repetoire.  Explain again how Fighter B is at an extreme disadvantage?


----------



## rframe (May 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.



It's not relevant because if fighter A who trains in his elite killer uber street lethal (yeah right) style decides to enter the competition, he's a moron if he doesn't learn the rules.

I am a pretty good with a pistol or revolver, you dont see me saying I'm disadvantaged because I cannot shoot someone in the octagon.  It's idiotic.

It's not like fighter B jumps fighter A in the street and beats on him and then tells him he cannot use his uber lethal street fu skills.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Wrong!  If you're claiming self defense, it's an affirmative defense.  In other words -- you are ADMITTING that you committed a crime, but that you were justified or excused from criminal liability because you were defending yourself.  The burden of proof shifts to the defense to show that you were indeed justified.



sure, if you claim self defense then you need to support your case because you are admitting involvement and that takes away the need for the prosecution to prove it.  But that's true for anyone.  Prizefighters are not singled out on that issue.

You could simply deny involvement, and then force the prosecution to prove their case.  Depending on the circumstance, that may or may not be a wise choice of action.  The proof may be pretty clear.  And if you are found guilty, I don't know if you can then turn around and claim self defense if you had been denying involvement from the beginning.  I'm not an attorney but my wife is, and her practice is in criminal defense so I'm familiar with some of it thru osmosis.  But yeah, if you are essentially admitting something, then the prosecution doesn't need to prove it.

Simply being involved in a fight doesn't mean you will be prosecuted.  The prosecutors won't waste their time and resources if they don't feel there is a good case, or it's not worth going after for some reason.  It might be clear to them that it IS a case of self-defense, so there's no reason to try and prosecute you.  A lot of things go into this determination.  It's not automatic nor guaranteed.


----------



## chinto (May 18, 2013)

the burden of proof is higher for that prize fighter. I think the laws like that are a thing carried over from the late 1800's to 1920's  time frame. the thought was that a 'normal person' was at such a disadvantage in knowledge, technique and ability that a prize fighter could easily literally kill  joe smith with out any effort.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 18, 2013)

It all comes down to pressure testing. MMA fighters spar astheir pressure test and practice against resisting opponents but there are safetyconsiderations to worry about there as well, hence why they use rules in sparring.Most traditional martial arts schools I've come across don't do any sort ofpressure testing and I feel that is a crucial aspect of training for realism.If your tactics as a TMA involve targeting areas like the knee for example youalso must take safety into consideration when pressure testing, so speed needsto be reduced some and the opponent needs to realize when what you've donewould have caused harm or if it could be ignored. That' why it is important tohave training partners who respect you enough to not let you get away withsomething that wouldn't work but have control over their ego to not resistsomething that would injure them if you actually did it.



From my experience, MMA fighters have a better time gettingconnected to their opponent than traditional stylists who dont have actualfighting experience (whether its been a need to use self-defense or in competition).This connection needs to be established in training. Training has to feel realand must replicate what you believe you are training for to thebest of yourability.


Among the black belts in our dojo we have an rule we self-imposebut dont discuss with lower ranks. Occasionally during training we willpurposefully do nothing and allow ourselves to be hit. It may seem odd, but ina self-preservation scenario, you are going to get hit and you need to know youcan maintain control of your composure after getting knocked around for a bit.



Its important to know you can take a hit and that youcan pull off your skill under pressure. MMA practitioners do this more thanmost TMA schools do nowadays, but if you are serious about martial arts andthink of it more than just a hobby youll probably spend at least some of yourtraining time pressure testing.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 18, 2013)

chinto said:


> the burden of proof is higher for that prize fighter. I think the laws like that are a thing carried over from the late 1800's to 1920's  time frame. the thought was that a 'normal person' was at such a disadvantage in knowledge, technique and ability that a prize fighter could easily literally kill  joe smith with out any effort.



that may be true to some extent.  The training that the fighter has gone thru may be weighed on some level in determining what would be reasonable for him in a self defense situation.


----------



## KydeX (May 18, 2013)

I hear about this pressure testing a lot, but what does it actually mean? I have tried searching the forum, but I've been unable to find some information on how these pressuretesting, adrenalinedumping exercises actually are conducted. Does anyone with experience care to elaborate?


----------



## frank raud (May 18, 2013)

KydeX said:


> I hear about this pressure testing a lot, but what does it actually mean? I have tried searching the forum, but I've been unable to find some information on how these pressuretesting, adrenalinedumping exercises actually are conducted. Does anyone with experience care to elaborate?


Some arts pressure test as a matter of course(judo, wrestling, boxing), others do not and consist of either shadowboxing,kata or compliant partner drills. Pressure testing is attempting to use your skills against a resisting opponent. This video is one example. Although I am not in this video, I have done these drills with this instructor for several years.


----------



## frank raud (May 18, 2013)

What is pressure testing? Words of wisdom from Geoof Thompson


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 18, 2013)

To add to what frank said,

Pressure testing can be different depending on the systemstudied and even on the instructor preference.

In the art I practice we start off with a basic randoriwhere you have a committed attacker who attacks realistically at a slower speedto determine if you are moving to the proper angles and using proper timing toemploy techniques. As students grow in experience, speed and ferocity increasesand some padded equipment like helmets, gloves and chest protectors are used.Once a student can be trusted to not let his ego get in the way of learningthen the attacker and defender are no longer pre-pricked before the exercise.This means both students try to win, but must be aware that they cant fully resisteverything done to them or they will get injured. Only when a student isexperienced enough to know that hey, they caught me. I need to receive thetechnique, are they allowed to do this.

It can be hard sometimes to draw the line between realismand safety so there are always some accommodations being made because afterall, doing the techniques correctly should result in injury in a realconfrontation.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 18, 2013)

rframe said:


> It's not relevant because if fighter A who trains in his elite killer uber street lethal (yeah right) style decides to enter the competition, he's a moron if he doesn't learn the rules.
> 
> I am a pretty good with a pistol or revolver, you dont see me saying I'm disadvantaged because I cannot shoot someone in the octagon.  It's idiotic.
> 
> It's not like fighter B jumps fighter A in the street and beats on him and then tells him he cannot use his uber lethal street fu skills.



What I meant by no-rules is NO RULES. In the street, you can use your revolver. No rules. 

If it's in the octagon, aside from rules, the environment is not random. No parked cars, uneven terrain, concrete, dog poo, lamp post. No weapons. Fighter A can't use broken bottles or pull concealed knife to strike Fighter B in the octagon. Chicken? Coward? Unfair? Who cares? It's no rules. 

If I'm attacked in the street, my primary instinct is to find a weapon that I can use. My training has pre-conditioned me to do this. I don't care if I'm not being a gentleman by using weapons while my attacker may not use one. It's the street. No rules. 

I think people that pre-conditioned to think that octagon fighters are better than non-octagon-fighters because they see octagon fighters on TV, and they don't see non-octagon-fighters on TV. And most non-octagon fighters don't train 40 hours a week. Yes, I agree that a non-octagon fighters that train 8 hours a week is no match against an octagon fighter that trains 40 hours a week. But what I used as an example on my previous post is both fighters train the same amount of hours a week, of same age and same weight.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 18, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Nice theory. However, it is also highly possible that fighter B, who has spent his time training on effective techniques(constricted by those nasty limiting rules) also has vastly more experience in getting, maintaining and exploiting positional dominance against a resisting opponent. If fighter A bag of dirty tricks include things that can't be practiced at either full speed or full contact, he won't have practical experience of attempting to apply them against a resisting opponent. Ergo, the "advantage" of his "street" training is nullified. So, as an example, after fighter B swoops in for a double leg takedown(having spent 70% more of his training time on techniques that fit within the confines of those restricting rules), and fighter A has been bodyslammed into the pavement and mounted, how effective will the upward eye gouge attempts be, while fighter A is trying to defend against those rule restricted ground and pound techniques? Those vicious pressure point techniques, how awesome are they going to be without a base to work from? In BJJ, there is a saying "position before submission", the same applies to dirty tricks. Cant do an eye gouge if you are not in range, or opponent is on your back. Groin strikes are very difficult when other guy has you in double underhooks, which can easily be transitioned to an armbar, a duckunder, or a throw. All perfectly legal techniques under those restricting rules, yet they negate much of the dirty trick repetoire.  Explain again how Fighter B is at an extreme disadvantage?



In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons.

The example you mentioned is based on Fighter A reacting to Fighter B's first move. Most street styles actually heavily emphasize pre-emptive strikes. If anything, Fighter A is more likely to attack first. 

You can practice groin strikes full speed. There are groin protectors. Throat strikes maybe not full speed, but if you're in range, it's not that hard to use it against someone who's not conditioned with protecting his throat. 

I've never done MMA before, but I did Judo (with rules, of course) before. When I was training Judo solely, I developed a 'bad habit': not protecting my face and groin. It's not a bad habit for judo tournaments, but it's a bad habit that may cause serious injury in the street. I think MMA pro fighters may develop a bad habit of not protecting their groin because they're conditioned to fight against techniques that are legal in the octagon. 

Let's just say UFC is like Usain Bolt running on a proper Olympic track. Street is like Usain Bolt running bare feet on uneven ground with dog poo, someone's vomit, broken bottles, and in the rain. He's still a fast runner, but the terrain is definitely different. Don't you think he'd be disadvantaged to this kind of environment?

Assuming all other things being equal (hours of training, same body   size, same weight, same age), Fighter B would be disadvantaged in the   street. In my opinion, people form the thought that UFC/MMA fighters can fight anywhere because the average UFC/MMA fighter train 30-50 hours a week, while the average non-MMA-fighter probably train 4-10 hours a week. If the non-MMA-fighter spend equal amount of training time, I don't see why they can't be at least as good in the street.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 18, 2013)

"In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons."

Unless Fighter B wants to win. If Fighter B is planning on killing Fighter A, he will more often than not arm himself.
Other way of putting it: When did you last hear about someone going out and committing premeditated murder with their fists? It happens, but not nearly as often as someone taking a weapon. Of any sort.


----------



## frank raud (May 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons. *So, in your first scenario, all things being equal, both fighters same age, same size, same weight, equal training time, fighter A is using weapons? Or are you adding another dimension to improve the odds for your chosen fighter?
> *
> The example you mentioned is based on Fighter A reacting to Fighter B's first move. Most street styles actually heavily emphasize pre-emptive strikes. If anything, Fighter A is more likely to attack first. * Hmm, let's see, in judo have you never done Morote Gari against a lapel grab? Unless the pre-emptive strike is a one shot knockout(can't have it be a punch, because that is within those restrictive rules, so it can't be effective on the streetz)what's to stop aat.ave thn exchange of blows leading into an effective technique that the MMA fighter has practiced more against resisting opponents resulting in a takedown? Or is this not a possible scenario as it would mean the "Streetz" fighter would be at a disadvantage?*
> 
> ...


 *The difficulty in training 30-50 hours in the deadly streetz is the recovery time from the stitches you get from rolling around in broken glass and dog poo. It is hard to consistently train at the level necessary to maintain your street cred when you are being regularly stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by your training partners(gots to keep it real,yo! Word.) So sometimes you compromise. You practice in a safe environment, without broken glass on the ground, without burning barrels of garbage with winos huddled around them for warmth as a backdrop. You train in a room with a padded floor, with no stripped out car beside you for enviromental challenges. You take Wing Chun, and practice your techniques on the Mook Jong, without a resisting opponent, so you can get more training time in. When you do judo(You list Wing Chun and Judo as your primary arts,right?) you do randori and uchi-komi to get better at your art prior to doing shiai. Guess what? Most of your training is not in the streets, it's in a dojo or kwoon.  By the way, I doubt the average UFC fighter trains anywhere near 30-50 hours a week.*


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 20, 2013)

frank raud said:


> *So, in your first scenario, all things being equal, both fighters same  age, same size, same weight, equal training time, fighter A is using  weapons? Or are you adding another dimension to improve the odds for  your chosen fighter? *



Fighters that are trained for street self defense will be very likely to grab any available weapons that he/she can grab. Fighters with rules normally leave this as a last resort. 





frank raud said:


> *Unless the pre-emptive strike is a one shot knockout(can't have it be  a punch, because that is within those restrictive rules, so it can't be  effective on the streetz) *


I never said it can't be a punch. It can be a punch to the throat, which I don't think is allowed in a competition with rules.





frank raud said:


> *what's to stop aat.ave  thn exchange of blows leading into an effective technique that the MMA  fighter has practiced more against resisting opponents resulting in a  takedown? Or is this not a possible scenario as it would mean the  "Streetz" fighter would be at a disadvantage?*


Of course the MMA fighter can still try applying his techniques, but if the MMA fighter only train for competition inside the octagon, he won't be too accustomed to protect himself against strikes that aren't allowed in the competition. His attacks probably won't be disadvantaged, but his defense will. 





frank raud said:


> *What I said was double underhooks negates groin strikes. **How does one protect his throat? By dropping his chin and hunching  his shoulders? You know,like a boxer? Once again, those pesky  restrictive rules don't seem to be a big problem.*


Would somebody who train exclusively for competition and only fight for competition develop a habit of protecting himself against strikes that are illegal in competitions? It's all reflex and muscle memoryin a street fight.





frank raud said:


> *The difficulty in training 30-50 hours in the deadly streetz is the recovery time from the stitches you get from rolling around in broken glass and dog poo. It is hard to consistently train at the level necessary to maintain your street cred when you are being regularly stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by your training partners(gots to keep it real,yo! Word.) So sometimes you compromise. You practice in a safe environment, without broken glass on the ground, without burning barrels of garbage with winos huddled around them for warmth as a backdrop. You train in a room with a padded floor, with no stripped out car beside you for enviromental challenges. You take Wing Chun, and practice your techniques on the Mook Jong, without a resisting opponent, so you can get more training time in. When you do judo(You list Wing Chun and Judo as your primary arts,right?) you do randori and uchi-komi to get better at your art prior to doing shiai. Guess what? Most of your training is not in the streets, it's in a dojo or kwoon. *



Ok, you got a point here. I do train on different environments but not that often. However, I need to add that with styles with no rules, there's the mentality factor to inflict as much damage as possible because your life is threatened. There's also the thought that fight can happen at anytime anywhere even when you're tired, injured or sick. While for style with rules, what's ingrained to the fighter's mind is to knock their opponents out or to submit them, and these people fight when they're in tip top condition, not when they're tired or injured.


----------



## frank raud (May 20, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> MMA fighters never fight when they're tired or injured? Seriously? Have you never watched MMA? Broken hands or forearms, shattered eye sockets, profuse bleeding and the sheer exhaustion that comes from all out physical activity for 3 to 5 rounds of fighting? Do I need to post post fight pictures of Shane Carwin, Josh Koscheck, GSP or others? I do have a suggestion for you. Go into a local MMA club, offer to demonstrate the superiority of your technique and determination, either on the mat, or out back in the alley(you may have to sweep away the broken bottles so the MMA fighter will have the courage to engage you under such difficult conditions)and report back on your triumphant results. Be sure to clarify you want a no rules fight. Apparently there is no question of a MMA fighter having the slightest chance because of all those restrictive rules, so you should have no problem with this little experiment. Otherwise, what you are saying amounts to a nocturnal emission.


----------



## Mr Mojo Lane (May 20, 2013)

I train both.  I am sorry but the vast majority of TMA are just extremely arrogant idiots.  The last TMA place I went to is a perfect example of what is wrong with TMA.  I dealt with a really arrogant guy who was making comments about this and that being a half an inch out of place and he actually punch me on top of the ear thinking that would hurt me.  He was like &#8220;Are you OK&#8221; and I just laughed and said &#8220;Yeah&#8221;.  Anyways, the instructor used him for an uke and started throwing 1-2&#8217;s at him fast.  The guy knew what was coming and still got hit in the nose.  He just simply gets beat to the punch and he couldn&#8217;t take a punch either.  Knowing a billion techniques at half-speed doesn&#8217;t necessarily make someone a better fighter.  
Dirty moves are very easy to learn.  Yes, if I get side body or the mount in a life in death situation, I will eye gouge and punch the guy in the throar and then get up.  It takes time, however, to not quickly be submitted and defend yourself on the ground.


----------



## lklawson (May 20, 2013)

This thread makes me miss the '90s.  <sniff>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## frank raud (May 20, 2013)

lklawson said:


> This thread makes me miss the '90s.  <sniff>
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Just missing the lava.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 20, 2013)

frank raud said:


> MMA fighters never fight when they're tired or injured? Seriously? Have you never watched MMA? Broken hands or forearms, shattered eye sockets, profuse bleeding and the sheer exhaustion that comes from all out physical activity for 3 to 5 rounds of fighting? Do I need to post post fight pictures of Shane Carwin, Josh Koscheck, GSP or others?



Were they injured from BEFORE the fight? In the street, you can be attacked by 3 people while you have some injuries. 



frank raud said:


> I do have a suggestion for you. Go into a local MMA club, offer to demonstrate the superiority of your technique and determination, either on the mat, or out back in the alley(you may have to sweep away the broken bottles so the MMA fighter will have the courage to engage you under such difficult conditions)and report back on your triumphant results. Be sure to clarify you want a no rules fight. Apparently there is no question of a MMA fighter having the slightest chance because of all those restrictive rules, so you should have no problem with this little experiment. Otherwise, what you are saying amounts to a nocturnal emission.



First of all, what I said was 'disadvantaged', which is a big difference from 'not having a slightest chance'. 

Second of all, if there's no rules, that means I can attack this person on a dark alley with a baseball bat without any warning when he's not ready for such attack. Again, No Rules means No Rules. 

Third of all, I didn't mention that it was me specifically, but yes I am confident enough that I'll be able to take on an MMA fighter of same age, same size, same amount of training on the street. And no, I wouldn't fight the gentleman way. This can mean a sneak attack with weapon when he's not ready. Again, No Rules. 

Lastly, I think you worship MMA too much to get offended on someone else posting a different opinion. Fighting in the street is not all techniques. There's mentality involved too. I would be a lot more worried fighting against some street punk who has nothing to lose, rather than an MMA fighter (of same age, size and same amount of hours of training), who has a lot to lose. But anyway, I'm not here to convince you. I just stated my thoughts and opinions.


----------



## Kframe (May 20, 2013)

Nocturnal you have proven to me with your ignorance that you have likely not done any real martial arts training.. I am a mma student, and I can tell you for a fact we are not disadvantaged on the street. For the first, most of the guys in my gym have CCW. Secondly, surprise we actually train to defend against illegal attacks such as groin and neck attacks.. Oddly you know neck attacks are common in mma(/sarcasm).   Guess what, in a lot of mma promotions it is illegal to kick to the front of the knee. GUESS WHAT THAT LEAVES?? The entire 3 facing sides of the knees are legal targets for destruction.  Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a chasse bas to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore savate rules(I am in mma and not savate, I just like that kick and learned it) and use it below the knee to the upper shin area, and have the same effect of dislocating your knee..   Or I could do another tech to the knee im taught, that comes straight out of karate and from close range do a downward stomp kick to the side of your knee. 

Honestly go and actually do some thing, and you'll see you actually know very little.  Just because there are rules, don't mean we don't consider the illegal moves, stuff happens regardless of rules. 

One thing many here understand but you seam to not have a clue on is pressure. More specifically keeping your cool while under pressure. MMA fighters tend to experience a heck of a lot of it during there training and as I can attest to you we spar way more then is really called for imho and at some serious speeds.  All of this sparring and drilling and pressure helps us keep our heads better(not perfectly as I found out but I did ok considering the circumstances) then those who have no real training and pressure testing. 

Each art, when taught properly has a way of pressure testing there students. At least that is the conclusion I have come to.   You really need to open  your mind and think. If you don't believe a word im saying fine, don't take my word go to a forum populated almost exclusively by mma fighters. WWW.sherdog.net.  Make your statements and ask your silly questions there and see what they say. There are a great many good mma and boxing and Muay Thai and other coaches and even professional fighters there. Im sure they can educate you far better then I or anyone else here for that matter.


----------



## K-man (May 20, 2013)

Without qualification I don't see how you can compare UFC with TMA.  The only practical way would be to match fighters, height and weight and put them in the ring. That is what MMA was initially about, one practitioner of one style against one from another.  Then along came the Gracies and it didn't take long before everyone is cross training. 

In real life a thug on the street, who may or may not have TMA or MMA training, is 35 kilos heavier than the TMA trained person he attacks on the street. Who will win? A 120 kg karate guy meets a 72 kg MMA guy on the street, same question.

OK, true confession.  I am TMA pure and simple. I have many years of experience and reckon I'm reasonably capable of giving a good account of myself in a bad situation. A couple of weeks ago I had the absolute privilege of attending an MMA training session run by Bas Rutten. He is now carrying a few bad injuries but he is still a big strong guy. Basically his style of attack was like using a bulldozer. He just moved in swinging huge punches. I would defy anyone to block his attack. Of course there was more to it than just that, but it showed me quite clearly ... from where I was standing, MMA can beat TMA hands down, rules or no rules. (BTW, Bas is one of my all time favourites.  ) A side benefit of watching Bas was also seeing the futility of trying to block the strikes of a man like that. You might stop one punch or kick but the next two will take you out. 

But does that mean UFC is *always* going to beat TMA?   No, no, no! It will always come down to the size, skill and experience of the combatants.   :asian:


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 21, 2013)

It all comes down to who has the better strategy and if they can implement that strategy.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 21, 2013)

K-man said:


> Without qualification I don't see how you can compare UFC with TMA.  The only practical way would be to match fighters, height and weight and put them in the ring. That is what MMA was initially about, one practitioner of one style against one from another.  Then along came the Gracies and it didn't take long before everyone is cross training.



Sorry, mate, gotta pull you up there... 

The early UFC was about pitting one art against another, MMA came later. The first UFC were very much Gracie affairs, so they weren't "Johnny-come-latelys" to the idea... and, for the record, Royce himself is fairly anti MMA and the cross-training for that end. He considers that if someone does MMA, it means they couldn't do a single thing well enough, and had to do a range of them. The way the cross-training and MMA ideas came about was that strikers, who had considered themselves skilled, were being taken down by grapplers (most notably the Gracies and those like them), and started learning just enough to get up and away... that lead to more focus, and essentially an arms race for supremacy within the context of MMA competition (only).


----------



## lklawson (May 21, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a *chasse bas* to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore *savate* rules


These references make me very happy.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 21, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Lastly, I think you worship MMA too much


This is awesome!  Quick, now write, "Lava and HIV infected needles!" and my nostalgic trip down memory lane will be complete.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 21, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> However, I need to add that with styles with no rules, there's the mentality factor to inflict as much damage as possible because your life is threatened.


You keep writing "no rules, no rules" as if that's some sort of incantation and "on the street" as if it was some sort of mantra.  Om padme mani om...   It doesn't negate actual evidence.

Here's the facts that even mantras and magic incantations can't resolve.  There are great numbers of actual incidents where MMA (and BJJ, etc.) fighters actually got in to real fights "on the street" and not only weren't crushed by the deadly "street fighters" they actually did quite well, winning the fight.  I've known some of these guys.  One friend of mine was attacked while coming out of a convenience store.  He took the guys back, choked him out, and left him laying on the asphalt (Lava, needles, and all).  Same guy was assaulted by some idiot at a traffic stop (thought my friend was tailgating him or something so he blocked my friends car with his).  He got out of his car and attempted to assault my friend.  Same drill.  Took his back, choked him out, and then he threw the idiot's car keys into the bushes for good measure.

Multiples?  I know another guy who was assaulted literally in the middle of the freaking road (asphalt, rocks, broken glass, etc.) by two men.  He grappled them and won.  He wasn't kicked in the head.  He didn't suffer life altering abrasions from the asphalt.  He won.

And there are plenty of other actual examples to check on.  My favorite was a couple of MMA guys dressing in drag for a costume party.  They were assaulted and the handed attackers' butts back to them.  Someone caught it on video and it went viral a few years back.

So the fact is that we're not talking in hypothetical terms here.  We don't have to guess whether or not a MMA fighter can succeed in a "no rules" "on the street" fight.  They can.  Case closed.

Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street."  Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree.  Apparently there frequently *ARE* "rules" when fighting "on the street."  Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street."  It's actually pretty common.  I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply.  That is, I concur, a valid concern.  But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true.  Sometimes there are.  And you know what?  The Law agrees.  You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street."  The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party.  The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly."  I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death.  I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## K-man (May 21, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Sorry, mate, gotta pull you up there...
> 
> The early UFC was about pitting one art against another, MMA came later. The first UFC were very much Gracie affairs, so they weren't "Johnny-come-latelys" to the idea... and, for the record, Royce himself is fairly anti MMA and the cross-training for that end. He considers that if someone does MMA, it means they couldn't do a single thing well enough, and had to do a range of them. The way the cross-training and MMA ideas came about was that strikers, who had considered themselves skilled, were being taken down by grapplers (most notably the Gracies and those like them), and started learning just enough to get up and away... that lead to more focus, and essentially an arms race for supremacy within the context of MMA competition (only).


True! I was using the terms loosely and interchangeably. I read it, thought about it and left it just to see if you were paying attention.


----------



## Zero (May 21, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Lastly, I think you worship MMA too much to get offended on someone else posting a different opinion. Fighting in the street is not all techniques. *There's mentality involved too*. I would be a lot more worried fighting against some street punk who has nothing to lose, rather than an MMA fighter (of same age, size and same amount of hours of training), who has a lot to lose. But anyway, I'm not here to convince you. I just stated my thoughts and opinions.



Really??  Are you saying that "mentality" is not involved or does not factor in MMA or other tournament/competition fighting? It is all just technique?? If so you have probably never competed in your life! Mentality, not always, but sometimes can count more than physical prowess or skill.  In bouts between opponents of similair ability/size the fight is often won due to "mentality" - if I am understanding correctly what you are referencing here, i.e. the mental fortitude or conviction of the individual and not him being "mental" (ie crazy) - although this can sometimes help too : )

I have beaten competitors in the ring which had better and wider ranging technique than me but lesser drive to win (it is odd but many MA practitioners simply do not (or are not interested in (and credit to them maybe)) have that level of desire/aggression/call it what you will).  I have also been defeated on a mental level, ie scared/awed/unerved of the opponent because he happened to be in my same club and senior to me and coached me a lot (I was actually stronger, fitter and could execute technique as clean and almost as fast as him).  I would like to think with my level of experience that would not happen now but I am not sure even many top professional fighters always enter the ring thinking, "yeah, I got this guy licked".


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 21, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street."  Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree.  Apparently there frequently *ARE* "rules" when fighting "on the street."  Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street."  It's actually pretty common.  I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply.  That is, I concur, a valid concern.  But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true.  Sometimes there are.  And you know what?  The Law agrees.  You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street."  The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party.  The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly."  I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death.  I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Thank you!

The fact is, there are always rules.

What distinguishes a violent encounter outside of competition is that the rules, the enforcers of the rules, and the penalties for violations are highly variable from situation to situation.  They aren't written down, so the participants may not know exactly what they are.  The rules may even be different for the various participants in a given situation.  Knowing how to quickly assess the rules that apply to a given encounter is a valuable martial skill in and of itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2013)

K-man said:


> I am TMA pure and simple. I have many years of experience and reckon I'm reasonably capable of giving a good account of myself in a bad situation.
> ...
> 
> Basically his style of attack was like using a bulldozer. He just moved in swinging huge punches. I would defy anyone to block his attack. Of course there was more to it than just that, but it showed me quite clearly ... from where I was standing, MMA can beat TMA hands down, rules or no rules. (BTW, Bas is one of my all time favourites.  ) A side benefit of watching Bas was also seeing the futility of trying to block the strikes of a man like that. You might stop one punch or kick but the next two will take you out.



does your TMA system NOT teach you to do this? This is fundamental to the strategy used in mine.
All he is doing is applying his training in a very aggressive way. Anybody can do that with the training they've received. It's a choice to be made in how you want to approach combat, and it simply takes a vision for what is possible with what you've learned. That's not an MMA skill vs a TMA skill.  It's simply a skill that anyone can develop, whether you've trained MMA or TMA.


----------



## K-man (May 21, 2013)

Flying Crane said:


> does your TMA system NOT teach you to do this? This is fundamental to the strategy used in mine.
> All he is doing is applying his training in a very aggressive way. Anybody can do that with the training they've received. It's a choice to be made in how you want to approach combat, and it simply takes a vision for what is possible with what you've learned. That's not an MMA skill vs a TMA skill.  It's simply a skill that anyone can develop, whether you've trained MMA or TMA.


Not quite sure of what you are saying here or whether my description of Bas' style was not complete. Yes, my TMA system is almost opposite of what Bas was doing.  Unless you are built like a bull, and most people are not, fighting like that against someone like Bas would see you demolished. His training is such that he is prepared to take your best shot as he closes in and he is big enough and strong enough to do that and that is one of his qualities that made him heavyweight champion.

If I had to tackle someone like Bas there is no way I could absorb the power of his strike. I reckon someone from a style that tries to dominate the centreline such as WC would be swamped. That leaves the outside and that is where I would try to be. In a way this is hypothetical. I, as an amateur with no claims to being a great fighter am trying to work out how I would tackle a former world heavyweight champion. It just is extremely improbable and without decrying TMA I was conceding that Bas (MMA) was better than me (TMA).  Apart from any thing else he is a couple of inches taller, about 25 kilos heavier and 15 years younger. 

But, having said that, in a sporting context, someone from a TMA, physically matched to Bas, might engage and choose to tackle him head on. Without extremely good ground skills, they still wouldn't match him.  

Fortunately Bas is not your typical MMA fighter. Most typical MMA guys are training for the fun and fitness which is the same as most TMA practitioners. Put one up against the other and it could go either way, depending on the person. I have no dog in this fight. TMA ... MMA, who cares as long as we are up off the couch and training?  :asian:


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 21, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Nocturnal you have proven to me with your ignorance that you have likely not done any real martial arts training.. I am a mma student, and I can tell you for a fact we are not disadvantaged on the street. For the first, most of the guys in my gym have CCW. Secondly, surprise we actually train to defend against illegal attacks such as groin and neck attacks.. Oddly you know neck attacks are common in mma(/sarcasm).   Guess what, in a lot of mma promotions it is illegal to kick to the front of the knee. GUESS WHAT THAT LEAVES?? The entire 3 facing sides of the knees are legal targets for destruction.  Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a chasse bas to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore savate rules(I am in mma and not savate, I just like that kick and learned it) and use it below the knee to the upper shin area, and have the same effect of dislocating your knee..   Or I could do another tech to the knee im taught, that comes straight out of karate and from close range do a downward stomp kick to the side of your knee.
> 
> Honestly go and actually do some thing, and you'll see you actually know very little.  Just because there are rules, don't mean we don't consider the illegal moves, stuff happens regardless of rules.
> 
> ...



An MMA guy defending MMA. What's new? The sun rises from the East? 

You seem to ignore the mental factor (that I mentioned) on street fights. I had a lot of them when I was a teenager (before I moved to Australia, which is a generally safe country).


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 21, 2013)

lklawson said:


> You keep writing "no rules, no rules" as if that's some sort of incantation and "on the street" as if it was some sort of mantra.  Om padme mani om...   It doesn't negate actual evidence.
> 
> Here's the facts that even mantras and magic incantations can't resolve.  There are great numbers of actual incidents where MMA (and BJJ, etc.) fighters actually got in to real fights "on the street" and not only weren't crushed by the deadly "street fighters" they actually did quite well, winning the fight.  I've known some of these guys.  One friend of mine was attacked while coming out of a convenience store.  He took the guys back, choked him out, and left him laying on the asphalt (Lava, needles, and all).  Same guy was assaulted by some idiot at a traffic stop (thought my friend was tailgating him or something so he blocked my friends car with his).  He got out of his car and attempted to assault my friend.  Same drill.  Took his back, choked him out, and then he threw the idiot's car keys into the bushes for good measure.
> 
> ...



I never said they can't. I said they're 'disadvantaged'.



lklawson said:


> Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street."  Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree.  Apparently there frequently *ARE* "rules" when fighting "on the street."  Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street."  It's actually pretty common.  I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply.  That is, I concur, a valid concern.  But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true.  Sometimes there are.  And you know what?  The Law agrees.  You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street."  The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party.  The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly."  I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death.  I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



There are plenty of unsolved murder cases and unsolved (and/or unreported) assault cases. If the assault is by someone you don't know, it's very hard to identify the person in the first place, let alone going to the "he said I said" stage, which is dubious, especially if the assault happens in a quiet area at night. And many cities in the world don't have CCTV.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 21, 2013)

Zero said:


> Really??  Are you saying that "mentality" is not involved or does not factor in MMA or other tournament/competition fighting? It is all just technique?? If so you have probably never competed in your life! Mentality, not always, but sometimes can count more than physical prowess or skill.  In bouts between opponents of similair ability/size the fight is often won due to "mentality" - if I am understanding correctly what you are referencing here, i.e. the mental fortitude or conviction of the individual and not him being "mental" (ie crazy) - although this can sometimes help too : )
> 
> I have beaten competitors in the ring which had better and wider ranging technique than me but lesser drive to win (it is odd but many MA practitioners simply do not (or are not interested in (and credit to them maybe)) have that level of desire/aggression/call it what you will).  I have also been defeated on a mental level, ie scared/awed/unerved of the opponent because he happened to be in my same club and senior to me and coached me a lot (I was actually stronger, fitter and could execute technique as clean and almost as fast as him).  I would like to think with my level of experience that would not happen now but I am not sure even many top professional fighters always enter the ring thinking, "yeah, I got this guy licked".



In a competition, you know that 99.99% chance you won't die. It's a different mental factor when a few guys with sticks and knives chasing you in the street. I spent most of my teenage years in a third world country. Unlike the safe first world country I live now, there were (possibly still are) many unsolved murder cases there.


----------



## frank raud (May 21, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Were they injured from BEFORE the fight? In the street, you can be attacked by 3 people while you have some injuries. * Well, duh, let's see if we can figure this out. In UFC 124, Josh Koschek had his orbital bone broken, probably in the first round. So for at least 20 minutes of continuos fighting, yes he was fighting with a severe injury from before the break.  Many fighters continue to fight after a broken bone. But I guess that doesn't count as fighting while injured, cuz you know, they were injured while fighting, then took a rest and fought another round. Hardly the same as walking down a dark alley with a limp and being attacked.
> *
> 
> 
> ...


Now this is curious. An untrained street punk is of more concern than a trained fighter because of he has nothing to lose. So would not your hypothetical street oriented martial artist, capable of training(and one would assume paying) for 30-50 hours of training a week, have something to lose? Making him less of a threat than the street punk who has nothing to lose? My, this is quite the quandary.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 21, 2013)

I love how yall are argueing about whos opinion of their own goal/s is better. Its pretty fantastic to listen to.
Summary of my response, although ive said it already. Your training doesnt condition you to do anything. If you choose to use something youve practiced, itll be easier than something youve never done before. That doesnt mean youre not going to think of things you havent done before, and it doesnt mean you will think of things you have. Something youve done before can just mean those ten minutes you spent shaking the air in preparation for sticking that jerk whos been giving you a hard time.


----------



## Zero (May 22, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> In a competition, you know that 99.99% chance you won't die. It's a different mental factor when a few guys with sticks and knives chasing you in the street. I spent most of my teenage years in a third world country. Unlike the safe first world country I live now, there were (possibly still are) many unsolved murder cases there.



Thanks, that clarifies for me somewhat what you had meant by "mentality".  Undeniably there are huge differences between a street fight scenario a SD scenario and a sanctioned tournament.  However (and conceeding and acknowledging the benefits of pressure/RBSD training) I would hope mental fortitude and experience obtained from high level competition and training can go a long way to how a person acquits themself in a "real"/street fight also.  I say "hope" as I only go on my own experience and those few others I am aware of who have been faced with "real" events.  That said from my own observations even the best tournament fighters are often lacking in basic SD/awareness/avoidance skills - that is just not something they have focused on - but this is different to how they go when in an actual fight itself.

I think if I had the choice of trying to jump someone like Bas Rutten or the late great Andy Hug or a street punk his size (I am heavyweight division myself) I would take the street punk.  That said, I have been a hunter for many years and in different environments so would like to think my rifle/marksmanship skills can line up against or above your average soldier and I would put my outdoor/survival skills above many also but I think I would be at a marked disadvantage if I was placed in a firefight alongside and against combat soldiers, the skills would be different and the "experience" and mindset also, so I acknowledge that the environment you "live" and train is of great importance.  However, if you are simply talking about how a skilled MMAist or high level fighter would go against a similair sized "street fighter", I would still back the pro fighter in most cases!!  To my knowledge, your average thug and street fighter does not spend hours per week training in fighting and conditioning.  And when faced with four drug fuelled guys weilding chains and steel bars in the back street of some thrid world country I think the reaction of a pro fighter or a street hood would the same - run like s"*t!!

Also, I am glad you live in a safe first world country now, I have lived in a few first world countries myself were there are regular severe beatings and worse when you go down the wrong streets and killings are common-place, some of the under developed countries I have been in have seemed the safest to me.


----------



## Zero (May 22, 2013)

frank raud said:


> Now this is curious. An untrained street punk is of more concern than a trained fighter because of he has nothing to lose. So would not your hypothetical street oriented martial artist, capable of training(and one would assume paying) for 30-50 hours of training a week, have something to lose? Making him less of a threat than the street punk who has nothing to lose? My, this is quite the quandary.



Nocturnal, I gotta admit I am with Frankie here, I am struggling to follow you or see how a street punk with noting to loose would be more of a threat than a trained MMAist who has something or everyting to loose?  I have a career, life aspirations and goals and plenty to loose and I am going to fight like hell (and have done) if required when faced with a low life street punk with noting to loose but bent on doing me harm.


----------



## lklawson (May 22, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I never said they can't. I said they're 'disadvantaged'.


And actual evidence disapproves your thesis.



> There are plenty of unsolved murder cases and unsolved (and/or unreported) assault cases. If the assault is by someone you don't know, it's very hard to identify the person in the first place, let alone going to the "he said I said" stage, which is dubious, especially if the assault happens in a quiet area at night. And many cities in the world don't have CCTV.


So now you are positing that unsolved murder cases are actually cases of self defense where the victim didn't feel it was safe to come forward and testify? That is simply a bridge too far. Give up you're silly thesis; it has been proven false.

"There are no rules on the street" is contrary to actual law, research by sociologists, and actual evidence.

Peace favor your sword, 
Kirk (mobile)


----------



## Zero (May 22, 2013)

lklawson said:


> And actual evidence disapproves your thesis.
> 
> So now you are positing _*that unsolved murder cases are actually cases of self defense where the victim didn't feel it was safe to come forward and testify*_? That is simply a bridge too far. Give up you're silly thesis; it has been proven false.
> 
> ...


Hehe, yeah I would say it's going a bridge too far saying unsolved "murder" cases are those where the victim didn't feel safe to come forward, generally victims of murder cases aren't in much of a positon to come forward or testify.


----------



## RTKDCMB (May 22, 2013)

Zero said:


> Hehe, yeah I would say it's going a bridge too far saying unsolved "murder" cases are those where the victim didn't feel safe to come forward, generally victims of murder cases aren't in much of a positon to come forward or testify.



Unless it's from beyond the grave.


----------



## Zero (May 22, 2013)

Hehe! Hey, anything's possible, particularly on this forum where members are able to block their own kicks


----------



## Mauthos (May 22, 2013)

Hey we all know the true question is MMA vs TMA vs Ameri-do-te...

Hang on...

We also all know the answer to that one


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2013)

K-man said:


> Not quite sure of what you are saying here or whether my description of Bas' style was not complete. Yes, my TMA system is almost opposite of what Bas was doing. Unless you are built like a bull, and most people are not, fighting like that against someone like Bas would see you demolished. His training is such that he is prepared to take your best shot as he closes in and he is big enough and strong enough to do that and that is one of his qualities that made him heavyweight champion.
> 
> If I had to tackle someone like Bas there is no way I could absorb the power of his strike. I reckon someone from a style that tries to dominate the centreline such as WC would be swamped. That leaves the outside and that is where I would try to be. In a way this is hypothetical. I, as an amateur with no claims to being a great fighter am trying to work out how I would tackle a former world heavyweight champion. It just is extremely improbable and without decrying TMA I was conceding that Bas (MMA) was better than me (TMA). Apart from any thing else he is a couple of inches taller, about 25 kilos heavier and 15 years younger.
> 
> ...



OK, if the comparison is against Bas specifically, then I don't see much to disagree with.  I actually put in a lot of hours of training each week, but I also won't pretend to be up to the level of an elite MMA athlete.  I don't know much about Bas, I don't follow MMA at all, but I am comfortable recognizing that I would probabaly be outclassed by him in a face-off.  So there's a difference between recognizing when you are outclassed by an individual, vs. a difference between training methods (MMA vs TMA) or how one uses the skills acquired in such training.

The approach to combat that your system tends to take is one thing.  However, I believe you can step outside of what is "typical" and use your skills in any way that you have a vision for, for what is possible.  Perhaps your experience with Bas can be a catalyst to help you explore this kind of approach.  You can also use those skills very aggressively, you can just charge in swinging, learn to do it quickly, explosively, with authority, and you'll find that it can be extremely effective.  Even against people who are bigger, who you might otherwise think would have the advantage over you.  If you get the jump and start hitting, and keep on hitting, most people have a very difficult time dealing with that and they will go down.  You can take your skills and figure out how to do this.  That's what I was getting at.  That's not a specifically MMA skill.  That's just a skill, plain and simple, and you can use your TMA training to figure out how to do that as well.


----------



## rframe (May 22, 2013)

My art rules!  Your art drools!


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2013)

Zero said:


> Nocturnal, I gotta admit I am with Frankie here, I am struggling to follow you or see how a street punk with noting to loose would be more of a threat than a trained MMAist who has something or everyting to loose?  I have a career, life aspirations and goals and plenty to loose and I am going to fight like hell (and have done) if required when faced with a low life street punk with noting to loose but bent on doing me harm.


Frankie?


----------



## frank raud (May 22, 2013)

Steve said:


> Frankie?


Yo, me and Zero, we buds, homies, like bros, capiche?


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 22, 2013)

lklawson said:


> And actual evidence disapproves your thesis.
> 
> So now you are positing that unsolved murder cases are actually cases of self defense where the victim didn't feel it was safe to come forward and testify? That is simply a bridge too far. Give up you're silly thesis; it has been proven false.
> 
> ...



Where did I mention about self defense in this thread? It's a case of fighting, not self defense.

Just to reiterate the point that Zero made, murder victims can't come forward.

Most assault victims (especially in third world countries where there are no CCTVs in the street) can't identify their attackers. How are they supposed to report somebody they can't identify to the police? All they can say it's a medium size dark-haired man about 6 feet tall. And you suppose the police are able to find the suspects from this kind of information? Even in places with CCTV, sometimes the face is unclear.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 22, 2013)

Zero said:


> Thanks, that clarifies for me somewhat what you had meant by "mentality".  Undeniably there are huge differences between a street fight scenario a SD scenario and a sanctioned tournament.  However (and conceeding and acknowledging the benefits of pressure/RBSD training) I would hope mental fortitude and experience obtained from high level competition and training can go a long way to how a person acquits themself in a "real"/street fight also.  I say "hope" as I only go on my own experience and those few others I am aware of who have been faced with "real" events.  That said from my own observations even the best tournament fighters are often lacking in basic SD/awareness/avoidance skills - that is just not something they have focused on - but this is different to how they go when in an actual fight itself.
> 
> I think if I had the choice of trying to jump someone like Bas Rutten or the late great Andy Hug or a street punk his size (I am heavyweight division myself) I would take the street punk.  That said, I have been a hunter for many years and in different environments so would like to think my rifle/marksmanship skills can line up against or above your average soldier and I would put my outdoor/survival skills above many also but I think I would be at a marked disadvantage if I was placed in a firefight alongside and against combat soldiers, the skills would be different and the "experience" and mindset also, so I acknowledge that the environment you "live" and train is of great importance.  However, if you are simply talking about how a skilled MMAist or high level fighter would go against a similair sized "street fighter", I would still back the pro fighter in most cases!!  To my knowledge, your average thug and street fighter does not spend hours per week training in fighting and conditioning.  And when faced with four drug fuelled guys weilding chains and steel bars in the back street of some thrid world country I think the reaction of a pro fighter or a street hood would the same - run like s"*t!!
> 
> Also, I am glad you live in a safe first world country now, I have lived in a few first world countries myself were there are regular severe beatings and worse when you go down the wrong streets and killings are common-place, some of the under developed countries I have been in have seemed the safest to me.



Zero, I found you the most open-minded and reasonable person in this discussion. You're able to see different point of views and state your argument with reasons. I respect you for that.

Yes, I had the experience of running away from people with sticks and knives chasing me. Not something that I would like to experience again. And yes, I think a UFC fighter would also run from this situation. 

Things like murder and assault in third world country are normally not solved. Most aren't even reported. And only a fraction of the ones reported to the police make it to the media. The police and the media don't care unless if the victim is a famous celebrity, a high profile politician or a foreigner from a first world country. 

I did mention (in one of the earliest post) that if both fighters are of the same age, same size/weight and have same amount of training, the ones trained for competition will be disadvantaged in the street. Of course, I agree that if the competition fighter has significantly more training, it's a different scenario. 

My point is: People have been praising UFC fighters being the best fighters even in the street because *the amount of training* they have. Let's say a street thug (of the same size and age) has the same amount of training hours per week as the UFC fighter, don't you think the street thug has some advantages?


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 22, 2013)

frank raud said:


> So, behaving as a sociopathic thug is acceptable to your training? Your instructor must be so proud of you. Interesting, as in another thread, you wrote such things as "Right amount of discipline & philosophy stuff (not too much, just enough)" regarding Shotokan and Shaolin Kung fu and "Too much time spent on the philosophical & ritual stuff" regarding Aikido. Nowhere do you point out where you were taught that extreme unprovoked violence is acceptable because, afterall, it is "the streetz". What school of martial arts teaches that?



One of my Wing Chun instructors taught me (and some other students as well) about pretending to be scared and not wanting to fight, and then suddenly launch a sneaky pre-emptive strike. While you see this as a negative thing, I see this as a very positive thing. If you want to act gentlemanly in a street fight, then it's your choice. I would never act gentlemanly in a street fight. 

I've launched a pre-emptive strike against a mugger that threatened me with a beer bottle. So I find this teaching about pre-emptive strikes very useful.


----------



## lklawson (May 22, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Where did I mention about self defense in this thread? It's a case of fighting, not self defense.


I'm sorry, you seem to think there's a debate here.  There isn't.  Actual evidence has crushed your thesis.  In the classical Scientific Method you should abandon your Thesis and create a new one which fits the known facts.

But we both know that won't happen.

Which still means that there's not going to be a "debate."



> Just to reiterate the point that Zero made, murder victims can't come forward.


You're going to try to make hay from what was obviously an abbreviated sentence due to posting from my phone?  Seriously?  I mistakenly assumed that it would be obvious to anyone reading that the "victim" being referred to was the one who was the target of the assault which you apparently seemed to be claiming was the survivor and the attacker being labeled as a "murderer."  In any case, I'm not going to argue it either.  The point still stands; it's an absurd suggestion.



> Most assault victims (especially in third world countries where there  are no CCTVs in the street) can't identify their attackers. How are they  supposed to report somebody they can't identify to the police? All they  can say it's a medium size dark-haired man about 6 feet tall. And you  suppose the police are able to find the suspects from this kind of  information? Even in places with CCTV, sometimes the face is unclear.


Which has less than jack-squat to do with your now disproven thesis that there are "no rules" on "the street."

Thanks for playing.  "Tell him about his parting gifts, Johnny."


----------



## lklawson (May 22, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Let's say a street thug (of the same size and age) has the same amount of training hours per week as the UFC fighter


While you're at it, posit that the "street thug" also has a ray gun and rides a flying pink unicorn.

Seriously, you are, again, stretching far beyond the bounds of reasonableness to try to support what is unsupportable.  To whit:

There actually are usually "rules" while "on the street" 
Actual evidence shows that a MMA trained fighter doesn't have any significant disadvantage "on the street" 
Distracting with irrelevancies such as CCTV and witness reliability doesn't change the above. 

Why do you insist on arguing this?  Are you so insecure in your "Traditional" martial art?  No one is asking you to concede that any given TMA is incapable of producing "on the street" results; only to abandon your claim that MMA produces "disadvantaged" fighters because it is contrary to all available evidence.

Few (if any) are arguing a reason why this may be true.  It is irrelevant if one single element of MMA training is responsible or not; technique selection, training methodology, raw number of hours training, physical fitness, etc.  It's irrelevant to this point.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 22, 2013)

lklawson said:


> Which has less than jack-squat to do with your now disproven thesis that there are "no rules" on "the street."



Please explain the existence/usefulness of the rules on the street if the victim can't identify the attacker. How is the 'law-offender' going to be prosecuted (thus being subjected to the law/rules) if he/she can't be identified?


----------



## _JLC_ (May 23, 2013)

K-man said:


> Not quite sure of what you are saying here or whether my description of Bas' style was not complete. Yes, my TMA system is almost opposite of what Bas was doing.  Unless you are built like a bull, and most people are not, fighting like that against someone like Bas would see you demolished. His training is such that he is prepared to take your best shot as he closes in and he is big enough and strong enough to do that and that is one of his qualities that made him heavyweight champion.
> 
> *If I had to tackle someone like Bas there is no way I could absorb the power of his strike. I reckon someone from a style that tries to dominate the centreline such as WC would be swamped.* That leaves the outside and that is where I would try to be. In a way this is hypothetical.
> 
> ...



Big PUNCHES seem to be the easiest to block...





 (3minutes onward).

Obviously Bas can and would also kick if someone blocked his punch but still! Food for thought. The guy in the video is no fighter (the weight lifter), but someone his strength and size would punch pretty darn hard regardless!


----------



## lklawson (May 23, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Please explain the existence/usefulness of the rules on the street if the victim can't identify the attacker. How is the 'law-offender' going to be prosecuted (thus being subjected to the law/rules) if he/she can't be identified?


"Rules" govern what is and is not acceptable behavior.


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> Big PUNCHES seem to be the easiest to block...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the difference is getting hit by a car or hit by a bus. Both are likely to hurt. 
But in reality, that deflection would be pushing to even deflect Bas' first punch. Then you have the second and the third in short succession. 
There is also a huge difference in the way the power lifter was hitting compared with Bas' hitting. The first guy wasn't using his body at all. He was just punching using the shoulder. I would estimate the power of his punch at about half, at most, Bas'. He uses his whole body. Take a look at this video and tell me if you would take a chance on using Bong Sau (if that is the correct term).
[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2JhhzYqaB8 [/video]


----------



## Cyriacus (May 23, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> Big PUNCHES seem to be the easiest to block...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I feel the need to mention that theyre a little bit too far away from each other. Unless the big guy likes hitting stuff by leaning in at the waist in order to be able to reach.


----------



## Grenadier (May 23, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> My point is: People have been praising UFC fighters being the best fighters even in the street because *the amount of training* they have. Let's say a street thug (of the same size and age) has the same amount of training hours per week as the UFC fighter, don't you think the street thug has some advantages?



If a street thug has had that kind of intensive training, then what is he doing wasting his time being a street thug?  For that matter, how many street thugs have black belts in various martial arts styles?  Golden Gloves awards?  Hmm...

For that matter, if a street thug has had the same amount of education as someone who holds a PhD in mechanical engineering, would he have an advantage in the "real world?"  If he has that much education, what is he doing wasting his time being a street thug?  For that matter, how many street thugs have PhD's in science or engineering?  Law degrees?  Medical degrees?  Hmm...


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 23, 2013)

Grenadier said:


> If a street thug has had that kind of intensive training, then what is he doing wasting his time being a street thug?  For that matter, how many street thugs have black belts in various martial arts styles?  Golden Gloves awards?  Hmm...



They wouldn't train any proper styles that reward belts or golden gloves. But many of them, especially in poor countries/cities/areas, fight almost every day. And those fights are no-rules fights/brawls with other thugs, often with weapons involved. This can be categorized as training. 



Grenadier said:


> For that matter, if a street thug has had the same amount of education as someone who holds a PhD in mechanical engineering, would he have an advantage in the "real world?"  If he has that much education, what is he doing wasting his time being a street thug?  For that matter, how many street thugs have PhD's in science or engineering?  Law degrees?  Medical degrees?  Hmm...



In poor areas of third world countries, many uneducated young men just looking for  fights/brawls to release their aggression and frustration. It's like drugs to them. Of  course, when they get older, most of them stop fighting as they come to a  realization that there's nothing rewarding with brawling every day. But the new  batches of aggressive young men will replace them. It's a continuous  cycle.

I'm not saying that every single one of them are top notch fighters. I do believe that some of them (the ones that really fight almost everyday & survive) have the advantage in a street fight against the average UFC fighter of same size, weight, age when the fight is in the street with no rules. Of course, the UFC fighter will beat them easily in the octagon with all the rules.


----------



## Zero (May 24, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> Big PUNCHES seem to be the easiest to block...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not having a go at you JLC and others have already responded but there is so much BS out there and so many demos displaying an art's capabilities which are rigged so that the art will only succeed and the "opponent" can only fail.  Yeah the guy is strong and big but he has no skill as a boxer or fighter of any sort or at least is not displaying any, his mechanics are a joke.  I am not saying the blocks shown would not work (actually I do noth think the palm directly arresting the fist would work at all!) but why can they not be used against a heavyweight skilled boxer or the like in the demo, someone who knows what they are doing and how to hurt someone/hit correctly?  Demos like this should leave one feeling less than impressed and provide Imperical evidence as to nothing.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Jun 7, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> *Disclaimer:* This post is intended to generate discussion. I've made a number of big generalizations, there will be exceptions of course. My comments aren't meant to be interpreted to mean one style of MA is better then another , or to bag UFC fighters or MA etc...
> 
> After watching UFC for awhile I've made a few observations.
> 
> ...



1. I believe the kick in Muay thai is call a roundhouse kick since it is taught to be thrown in a 360 degree circle (rear leg and switch kick) and they are taught to kick throw an object and not at the object. 
Karate and most TKD use a round kick which is thrown at the target and only (if hit) go into target about an inch and snap off. If it misses it will only land in front of you. You can throw the round kick from the from or rear but it will always land in front. Knees and elbows are different because some of the are not taught from Muay thai camps. More of a kickboxing with elbow strikes. I would say the elbows strikes you don't see from muay thai is the cutting elbow which comes down in an angle. 

2. Most of them havn't done a spin kick in a while and a lot of them don't know how to set up a spin kick. It is all in the stance. In order to do a spin kick you must be side ways for one and even then don't wind up for the spin (begnner stuff). Also a set up would be better than just spinning (which warns the next guy) and missing. Throwing a round kick and just stepping over to spend would be better than from a front stance which seems to be the stance most use to sprawl. 

3.Guards vary but the ufc tend if I may say use the wrong blocks for the defending with a 4 oz glove. If you notice they block with a boxer cover which in training have large 12-16oz gloves on but with the acutural fight they have small gloves which tend to leave them open for small fist to fit in. Forget about a parry or anything. Just duck and roll and cover. 

4.While your back is on the ground seems like a easy go for the kill shot some are very well bjj black belts and if they give you an arm they give you a arm bar or triangle choke. Plus if he/she do get the chance to finish they may want to do it by submission. Fighter personal choice. 

5. Yes they do train to fight and not to hopefully not fight someone like most martial artist. I guess it is like buying a gun for hunting and using it and someone else buys a gun just for home protect.

6. I think we martial artist look for the technical side of fighting and not just strength. Even when someone train for self-defense, I don't see them wanting to go three rounds. They want it over quickly and run away. Even if the ma workout like the ufc fighter, and get big muscles some ma will lose because of the lack of training in ground or close quarter grappling.

But this just my opnion.


----------



## superkizuna (Jun 7, 2013)

Many of you are missing the point.  MMA is traditional martial arts.  This debate should read formal vs informal combat.  Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.


----------



## frank raud (Jun 7, 2013)

superkizuna said:


> Many of you are missing the point.  MMA is traditional martial arts.  This debate should read formal vs informal combat.  Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.[/QUOTE, the MMA uniform has evolved to being board shorts and small gloves, as opposed to the early days when people fought in judo gis, karate gis, silat uniforms, wrestling shorts, wore boxing gloves, no gloves, etc. So now they are dressed for the multi-faceted art that they will compete in and face. So are they not dressed for the part. Is there no etiquette in MMA? Do they not touch gloves(generally) when they start a round, do they not break contact when instructed to, or when the round ends, if a fight goes to a draw, do the fighters generally not hug each other and congratulate each other of a well fought fight?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 8, 2013)

lklawson said:


> There actually are usually "rules" while "on the street"



If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 8, 2013)

superkizuna said:


> Many of you are missing the point.  MMA is traditional martial arts.  This debate should read formal vs informal combat.  Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.



Er.... no.



RTKDCMB said:


> If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.



Kinda missing the point there...


----------



## Josealb (Jun 8, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> After watching UFC for awhile I've made a few observations.



Thats where you lost the argument, mate. You dont just sit on a couch, watch a sporting event and have epiphanies, specially about something as subjective and practical as martial arts. You would have been better saying that in your "years of traditional and mma training, according to my experience, i observed the following..". A bit late for that angle.

Which led you to your second mistake. You are comparing martial arts. You do realize that a martial art by itself doesnt really exist, right? its a concept, an idea, only when put into movement by a martial artist does it makes sense. Said artist, that puts his own personal vision into it, his own understanding of it, and preferences, and hard work or lack thereof. A thousand practitioners of the same martial art will all be different. Every man is a world, and "methods and skills" are personal, and measured only by individual experience. The only true comparison of martial skill can only be made in person, and usually takes about 5 to 10 seconds to make and understand. 

Good luck understanding and comparing something like that from a couch, you're gonna need it.


----------



## Steve (Jun 8, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.


What if we ban rules?  Then only the street thugs would have them.  Wait... that's guns...


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 8, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Kinda missing the point there...


In what way?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 9, 2013)

Really? Nocturnal makes a comment grounded in as much reality as the episode of Grimm I'm watching, lklawson calls it out, including pointing out that there are actually "rules" on the "street", and you reply that "if there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them", which completely misses the point of lklawson's comments (namely that nocturnal's comments were baseless when looked at realistically). Additionally, the idea that "many street thugs aren't following them" is just following the same flawed logic nocturnal was using, and denying the reality. There are rules, which doesn't just mean laws, but can be social rules, and can change from group to group. The lack of concern for one or more laws doesn't mean that a "street thug" therefore ignores all laws, and certainly doesn't mean that they just don't follow any rules at all.

In other words, you missed the point of what lklawson was saying (to nocturnal), and have continued with the overblown paranoia response, which is just not reality.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 9, 2013)

Id like to add to Chris's and Lawsons point, that rules also relates to 'lines'. A criminal is taking a risk by committing a crime, in the name of a reward. A stable minded criminal generally wont risk too much for too little in return. Those are 'rules'.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 9, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Id like to add to Chris's and Lawsons point, that rules also relates to 'lines'. A criminal is taking a risk by committing a crime, in the name of a reward. A stable minded criminal generally wont risk too much for too little in return. Those are 'rules'.



And you have no way of knowing what 'rules' he has or if he will follow any at any given time.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 9, 2013)

OK - you want reality. When a friend of mine was attacked in his home by two guys who then threw him off the second floor balcony and then went down and repeatedly stomped on his groin - what rules were they following exactly? People and societies have codes of behavior that governs what is acceptable and what is not, however those pesky thugs don't always do what is acceptable. If someone threatens or attacks you you can only guess what 'rules' they have or what they might find acceptable.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 9, 2013)

Oh dear lord....

Without context, it's not something that can be said. It could be anything from a dominance display (for other gang members, other "thugs"), a "message" to your friend, retaliatory for some slight, or anything. The point is that the idea of "thugs don't follow rules!" is unrealistic... I'm not saying you know, or understand the rules (when it comes to social rules), but they're there. As far as laws (as rules), some are willing to break some, but not others... the idea that "I'm being attacked, for all I know they're going to cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag, so I should do everything I can to damage them first!" is where the line from self defence turns into assault, as well as being a rather paranoid way to look at self defence and your life.

So while that incident is a more extreme one, it doesn't make your point, or make you correct.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 9, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> And you have no way of knowing what 'rules' he has or if he will follow any at any given time.



Nor do you. And youre more likely to get yourself in trouble by pretending they dont exist and looking at thugs as vicious killers rather than seeing them as people who do things that arent societally acceptable.



RTKDCMB said:


> OK - you want reality. When a friend of mine was  attacked in his home by two guys who then threw him off the second floor  balcony and then went down and repeatedly stomped on his groin - what  rules were they following exactly? People and societies have codes of  behavior that governs what is acceptable and what is not, however those  pesky thugs don't always do what is acceptable. If someone threatens or  attacks you you can only guess what 'rules' they have or what they might  find acceptable.



Friend of mine gets into a fight outside a pub, runs away, catches a flying brick to the back of the head.
Heres a tip. He stomped on his groin, not his head. Get it? If he wasnt following any rules, i guess he was just really stupid because he didnt kill him.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 9, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord....


For crying out loud...



Chris Parker said:


> As far as laws (as rules), some are willing to break some, but not others...


That was the point I was making. The point Nocturnal was making was that martial arts competitions have rules that the street does not, such as not striking the back of the head -  a point you and Lawsons missed entirely.




Chris Parker said:


> the idea that "I'm being attacked, for all I know they're going to cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag, so I should do everything I can to damage them first!" is where the line from self defence turns into assault, as well as being a rather paranoid way to look at self defence and your life.




Any reasonable, sane person that learns a self defence art knows that you must use reasonable force for self defence. Do you honestly think that I would snap someones neck for poking me with their finger just because I don't know if they are cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag - that was a ridiculous statement.




Chris Parker said:


> Without context, it's not something that can be said. It could be  anything from a dominance display (for other gang members, other  "thugs"), a "message" to your friend, retaliatory for some slight, or  anything.


 One of the guys thought he had a fling with his girlfriend.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 9, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Heres a tip. He stomped on his groin, not his head. Get it? If he wasnt following any rules, i guess he was just really stupid because he didnt kill him.



They threw off the second floor balcony remember! they obviously did not give a flying monkey fart about his life.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 9, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> They threw off the second floor balcony remember! they obviously did not give a flying monkey fart about his life.



Sure he did. He stomped on his groin rather than his head.
The lines are blurry. That we can agree on. But theres also a line between not knowing the other persons intentions and assuming the worst.

_"If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them."_

They are. Thats the point being made here. They are following rules.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 9, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> But theres also a line between not knowing the other persons intentions and assuming the worst.



We can agree on that too.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> That was the point I was making. The point Nocturnal was making was that martial arts competitions have rules that the street does not, such as not striking the back of the head -  a point you and Lawsons missed entirely.


We didn't "miss" that "point," we said it's wrong.

Just because their "rules" don't match your "rules" doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means you don't know what they are.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> They threw off the second floor balcony remember! they obviously did not give a flying monkey fart about his life.


They didn't use a knife, club, chain, or some other weapon.  Even when inside the victims residence, where, presumably, there were at least steak-knives, they still didn't use knives (from your brief description).  Obviously, they had some sort of "rules."  Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean they're not there.  If you ran in those sort of circles, you'd have a better idea of what they were.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 10, 2013)

lklawson said:


> They didn't use a knife, club, chain, or some other weapon.  Even when inside the victims residence, where, presumably, there were at least steak-knives, they still didn't use knives (from your brief description). Kirk



There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.



Weapons are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Hell, just this year some guy was stabbed with a screwdriver at a party. If i remember right, he didnt survive the singular stab.

Noone here has even mentioned competition rules. Weve been trying to tell you that they are following rules in general. Noone has said that competitive rules apply at any point.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 10, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Noone here has even mentioned competition rules.



They were mentioned in Post number 2 - *UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also  styles that have rules  It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything  goes.* and several others if you look close enough.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.


I'm sorry friend, but that's just a weak argument.  They didn't use weapons because they chose not to.  It's really that simple.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Zero (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> One of the guys thought he had a fling with his girlfriend.



There's the rule: "you cheat with my girl, you get tossed out the window and your genitals stomped".  The nexus between (alleged) cheating and groin stomping is a perfect fit and fits with why they did not then stomp his head in resulting in death or cut his throat (though they could have taken a pair of scissors to the nether-regions, ouch). It was a message to your mate and to all and comes in at about rule number three in the Hodlum's Handbook (you can't get this book online).


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 10, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> They were mentioned in Post number 2 - *UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also  styles that have rules  It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything  goes.* and several others if you look close enough.



That isnt what i was talking about, though. Or Lawson and Chris, as far as i can tell.
As far as COMPETITIVE rules go, yeah, there are none. Go figure, since its not a competition. Except when it is a competition. Then are are 'rules', but once again, rules of a different context.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 11, 2013)

lklawson said:


> They didn't use weapons because they chose not to.  It's really that simple.



The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway. 



Cyriacus said:


> Weapons are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Hell, just this year some guy was stabbed with a screwdriver at a party. If i remember right, he didnt survive the singular stab.



Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim. 



Cyriacus said:


> That isnt what i was talking about, though. Or Lawson and Chris, as far as i can tell.
> As far as COMPETITIVE rules go, yeah, there are none. Go figure, since its not a competition. Except when it is a competition. Then are are 'rules', but once again, rules of a different context.



This argument stemmed from Competitive Rules vs No Rules in the earlier posts. 



Zero said:


> There's the rule: "you cheat with my girl, you get tossed out the window and your genitals stomped". The nexus between (alleged) cheating and groin stomping is a perfect fit and fits with why they did not then stomp his head in resulting in death or cut his throat (though they could have taken a pair of scissors to the nether-regions, ouch). It was a message to your mate and to all and comes in at about rule number three in the Hodlum's Handbook (you can't get this book online).



In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc. 

I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway.



Clearly, they werent.



> Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim.



I repeat: The stomped on his groin. Not. His. Head. They did not want to kill him. How can you not see that?



> This argument stemmed from Competitive Rules vs No Rules in the earlier posts.



Yes. Then we clearly explained what kind of rules we were talking about. Several times. Go back and read.



> In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc.
> 
> I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.



If thats what you read us saying, go back and read it again. Because shortly after explaining that, each of us explained what kind of rules ARE being followed. They arent invented rules, theyre really quite predictable.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway.


The facts do not support that conclusion.



> Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim.


Depends on the goal.  If you want to kill someone, then you use killing tools.  If you want stomp on his nuts to "send a message" then you don't need knives.



> In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc.
> 
> I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.


No.  They weren't "creating their own rules" they were operating by a set of rules that you don't know.  There's a difference.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 11, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I'm sorry friend, but that's just a weak argument.  They didn't use weapons because they chose not to.  It's really that simple.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Since none of us were there at the time there's no way to know why they did not use weapons either way so the whole argument (I am discussing not arguing) is moot.


----------



## Ryker Wells (Jun 11, 2013)

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 11, 2013)

Ryker Wells said:


> Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts


Yeah.  Him or Edward William Barton-Wright, who proceeded said Mr. Lee by a half-century.

Or any of a bunch of other folks who mixed arts together into a martial casserole.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Jun 11, 2013)

Ryker Wells said:


> Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.


What makes you think that modern day mixed martial artists are less honorable or respectful than any other modern day martial artists?


----------



## frank raud (Jun 11, 2013)

Ryker Wells said:


> Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.


As long as we ignore the history of most martial arts and how they were developed, then sure, some guy in the 1960's was the first person to come up with the innovative idea of combing several arts together. Other than that, your statement is pretty accurate.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 11, 2013)

Ryker Wells said:


> Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.



Who was it that first said "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."?

While I am pretty sure that most everybody here can appreciate the contributions of Bruce Lee to the world of martial arts, what you've posted here really could not be any farther from the truth.

The earliest mixing of martial arts probably involved rocks and the eternal argument about which grip is best for throwing them.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 11, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Who was it that first said "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."?
> 
> While I am pretty sure that most everybody here can appreciate the contributions of Bruce Lee to the world of martial arts, what you've posted here really could not be any farther from the truth.
> 
> The earliest mixing of martial arts probably involved rocks and the eternal argument about which grip is best for throwing them.



Mixed Martial Arts: Tieing a sharpened rock to the end of a pointy stick. *salutes*


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 12, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> I repeat: The stomped on his groin. Not. His. Head. They did not want to kill him. How can you not see that?



So? I didn't write anything about killing. Probably someone else in the thread did, but it wasn't me for sure.
There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule. 

When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food (not others), was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules?

Life is about choices, not rules.



lklawson said:


> Depends on the goal. If you want to kill someone, then you use killing tools. If you want stomp on his nuts to "send a message" then you don't need knives.



There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules? 



lklawson said:


> No. They weren't "creating their own rules" they were operating by a set of rules that you don't know. There's a difference



Hahaha.... this is funny.
I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that the rules weren't created by them? 
If you do know, tell us their rules then.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 12, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> So? I didn't write anything about killing. Probably someone else in the thread did, but it wasn't me for sure.
> There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule.
> 
> Life is about choices, not rules.



Rules govern your choices. Internal or external.

Now, you said the following:

"Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used  steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the  victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they  didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim."

Your reasoning is flawed. Why would they use steak knives if they werent trying to kill him? The rule was that they didnt want him to die. How hard is it for you to understand that?

You also said,
"then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from  second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a  car that they own to hit the victim."

No, we wouldnt. THAT my good man is irrelevant as well as it is baseless. I didnt say anything because i was being polite, but since this is going nowhere.



> When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to  do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided  on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because  you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food  (not others), was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you  were following some rules?



I was following my rules. Those same rules are why i stopped training in martial arts. If you are a vegetarian, that is a RULE as defined by your intent and purposes. If vegetarianism was a crime, i would regulate if and when i perpetrated it based on elements of risk and reward.

As. We. Have. Already. Explained. Go back and read.



nocturnal_ said:


> There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules?



The rules define why they didnt stomp on his head. Go back and read.


----------



## _JLC_ (Jun 12, 2013)

Josealb said:


> Thats where you lost the argument, mate. You dont just sit on a couch, watch a sporting event and have epiphanies, specially about something as subjective and practical as martial arts. You would have been better saying that in your "years of traditional and mma training, according to my experience, i observed the following..". A bit late for that angle.
> 
> Which led you to your second mistake. You are comparing martial arts. You do realize that a martial art by itself doesnt really exist, right? its a concept, an idea, only when put into movement by a martial artist does it makes sense. Said artist, that puts his own personal vision into it, his own understanding of it, and preferences, and hard work or lack thereof. A thousand practitioners of the same martial art will all be different. Every man is a world, and "methods and skills" are personal, and measured only by individual experience. The only true comparison of martial skill can only be made in person, and usually takes about 5 to 10 seconds to make and understand.
> 
> Good luck understanding and comparing something like that from a couch, you're gonna need it.



If you had of taken the time to properly read my post, you would have seen it was worded very neutral. In your post you are clearly attacking my comments. Also, since I live in New Zealand I cannot actually goto a UFC event. Therefore, in my opening line I mentioned I have watched UFC on TV. I didn't want my post to make me sound like a "big headed know it all", but clearly you do by your post.

Thank you to the many other forum members who have taken the time to comment/debate in a civil manner.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 12, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules?


I can't believe you are actually this naive.  No, really, I don't.  I think you're just arguing for fun and "points."



> Hahaha.... this is funny.
> I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that the rules weren't created by them?
> If you do know, tell us their rules then.


*THEIR* rules?  No.  I'm not part of *their* peer group.  But I've been part of other peer groups.  Every group, often defined by location and/or social strata, has "rules."  Usually, they're not written down.  Often they're not well articulated.  But there *ARE* certainly "rules" which govern how they interact with each other, those outside of their group, and what actions/reactions are acceptable.  Very frequently, those actions that are acceptable are far more violent then what most of "civilized" (i.e.: "Middle Class") society thinks should be acceptable.  Why?  Because they're in a *different *peer group in a *different *social strata and usually in a *different *geographic location.  That doesn't mean that the "violent class" doesn't have rules.  It just means that *YOU* don't know what they are.

I'm, frankly, tired of writing the exact same thing over and over again.  Either you are incapable of reading, incapable or understanding what you've read, or deliberately arguing for the sake of argument.  I suspect the latter.  Further, my suspicion, based upon what you've written thus far, is that you are fairly young (probably early to mid 20's) and are most likely still deeply controlled by atavistic male-dominance ritual and that this argument has become a way to express your dominance.

This has been explained to you at least 5 times by 3 different posters.  You persist in ignoring it.  You are not going to impress any females into having sex with you, nor are you going to climb the male social hierarchy here, by your repeated refusal to acknowledge what Socialists have known for a generation or two.  You can put away your peacock feathers now.  <sigh>


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 14, 2013)

lklawson said:


> I can't believe you are actually this naive.  No, really, I don't.  I think you're just arguing for fun and "points."



It was previously a discussion about MA with rules vs MA with no rules. You're the one that started to define the definition of rules, etc, which deviates from the original discussion. When you responded to my post, of course I had to respond back. 



lklawson said:


> *THEIR* rules?  No.  I'm not part of *their* peer group.



Then what qualification do you have to tell me and everyone else that they follow certain rules? How could you prove that their rules exist, while you don't even know their rules? 



lklawson said:


> But I've been part of other peer groups.  Every group, often defined by location and/or social strata, has "rules." Usually, they're not written down. Often they're not well articulated. But there *ARE* certainly "rules" which govern how they interact with each other, those outside of their group, and what actions/reactions are acceptable. Very frequently, those actions that are acceptable are far more violent then what most of "civilized" (i.e.: "Middle Class") society thinks should be acceptable. Why? Because they're in a *different *peer group in a *different *social strata and usually in a *different *geographic location. That doesn't mean that the "violent class" doesn't have rules. It just means that *YOU* don't know what they are.



Ok. You've been a part of other peer groups that have rules. But you can't make the same assumptions to other peer groups that you are not a part of. They are just your assumptions. 



lklawson said:


> I'm, frankly, tired of writing the exact same thing over and over again.  Either you are incapable of reading, incapable or understanding what you've read, or deliberately arguing for the sake of argument.  I suspect the latter.



That's because you keep writing your assumptions about other groups that you've never been a part of. 



lklawson said:


> This has been explained to you at least 5 times by 3 different posters. You persist in ignoring it. You are not going to impress any females into having sex with you, nor are you going to climb the male social hierarchy here, by your repeated refusal to acknowledge what Socialists have known for a generation or two. You can put away your peacock feathers now. <sigh>



You're the one insisting on people to believe the existence of rules in a peer group that you are not a part of. You seem to be offended that I don't agree with your views.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 17, 2013)

Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.



nocturnal_ said:


> There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule.


I used to say there were no rules on street too, until I took some time to actually think about how people get into fights and how actual confrontations escalate. There are rules that may be broken or ignored(like laws against battery) but even then there are certain social practices that are always followed, but those practices will be different based on someone&#8217;s socio-economic-cultural background.
When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged. 
The following statements are rather irrelevant to the topic, but I will show you how rules of some kind do dictate how we approach our choices according to a psychodynamic approach.



nocturnal_ said:


> When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules?





nocturnal_ said:


> When you decided on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food (not others), was it because you chose to doso OR was it because you were following some rules?
> 
> Life is about choices, not rules.




First, legality must be considered, the most formal of rules. Martial arts training is legal in most places so choosing to train is affected by rules asmost people don&#8217;t want to be caught breaking the law. But that is beside the point here.
In the psychodynamic school of thought, human behavior rand though processes are shaped by our desire to seek things that bring us comfort and avoid discomfort and our desire to seek relationships with others. 
Rules of basic interaction that involve what you consider to be appropriate govern who you will choose to speak with and whether you willseek out a certain martial arts teacher for an instructor type relationship. Ifthe instructor fits into your &#8220;schema&#8221; (mental categories of what we think things are or should be) then you will seek training with him. If he doesn&#8217;t fit into your schema then you won&#8217;t.
It&#8217;s the same for everything including eating and selecting a home. If we accept that one has the means to live where he want sand eat what he wants, why does he select certain things?
Houses for example, does it fit my idea of what a home should be? Is it in a neighborhood that fits my schema of what a neighborhood should be? Are the people similar enough to me that I feel comfortable around them? These are examples of &#8220;rules&#8221; used to judge where you choose to be.
Food isn&#8217;t all about taste either. You may be aware that it&#8217;s not a great idea to eat onions on a first date or you may be dieting to better match your personal schema of what you think you should look like. You may have cultural taboo on food like pork. You might have personal bias against eating bugs because where you come from, that&#8217;s gross and eating bugs would be a source of stigma.


So you are right that life is about choices. But choices are made in context of who you are with, where you are, what you believe, and what will happen when norms and rules are violated.





nocturnal_ said:


> There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method.What does it have to do with rules?


Everything. They attacked your friend because he broke a rule they held. They attacked his manhood possibly because it is symbolic of what your friend did by allegedly romancing the assailant&#8217;s girlfriend. They attacked him because by their rules this response was ok. They did not kill him because that response was not appropriate to them. The rules they chose to follow at that time whether out of a personal preference or a legal one did not allow certain forms of retaliation.




nocturnal_ said:


> Hahaha.... this is funny.
> I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that therules weren't created by them?
> If you do know, tell us their rules then.


All rules are created by people, but not all rules are intentionally created. A law against assault is an obviously created rule, but the rule of personal space is informally constructed and will vary from culture to culture, person to person, and its violation will result in varied responses depending on many factors.
Gang culture is still culture and all culture has hierarchy, rules to advance in that society, stigma to be avoided, and other rules. If you study them you will know their rules.
But it isn&#8217;t a matter of knowing someone else&#8217;s rules it&#8217;s a matter of living by your own rules. You don&#8217;t know if the guy you are in a confrontation with is a gang banger who is going to try to stab you or if he is just an obnoxious loudmouth who wants to get into a fist fight so he can tellhis buddies a neat story.
All you know is what you will find acceptable in certain contexts. You must defend yourself based on how you view the situation, but how you view the situation may not be how others view it. You might think that a pre-emptive strike is warranted for example, and you may be right. But someone watching might think that you just attacked a person and you are the aggressor, now you have to defend yourself in court. So what people find appropriate and acceptable will vary. Those are the rules being discussed.



nocturnal_ said:


> It was previously a discussion about MA with rules vs MA with no rules. You're the one that started to define the definition of rules, etc, which deviates from the original discussion. When you responded to my post, of course I had to respond back.


The point, I believe, is that there are always some forms of rules being followed. The rules I choose to follow might not be the ones my opponent chooses, but we still both follow some basic concept of what is appropriate for us in our situation.




nocturnal_ said:


> Then what qualification do you have to tell me and everyone else that they follow certain rules? How could you prove that their rules exist, while youdon't even know their rules?


You cannot isolate a person&#8217;s choices from their cultural context. Because of this there are always some kind of rules in play.




nocturnal_ said:


> Ok. You've been a part of other peer groups that have rules. But you can't makethe same assumptions to other peer groups that you are not a part of. They arejust your assumptions.


We can&#8217;t make assumptions about what their rules are. We would have to study their behavior to know that. Wild apes have rules too you know. And human beings are apes. We are social creatures, therefore we follow some sort of social protocol no matter what.




nocturnal_ said:


> That's because you keep writing your assumptions about other groups that you'venever been a part of.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one insisting on people to believe the existence of rules in a peergroup that you are not a part of. You seem to be offended that I don't agreewith your views.


The only reason someone could not agree with the argument is because they do not understand the argument. This may be to poor word choice on its proponents&#8217; behalf or it may be because this thought process doesn&#8217;t fit with you schema.
Your &#8220;rule of thought&#8221; may not currently allow you to accept this as fact, but it is fact. The passion you exhibit over this topic is a result of cognitive dissonance. You experience cognitive dissonance when something that makes sense doesn&#8217;t agree with your previous thought process so the first notion is to reject it. Soon you will begin to consider it and perhaps assimilate it. That is the healthy process of learning in humans.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 17, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.
> 
> I used to say there were no rules on street too, until I took some time to actually think about how people get into fights and how actual confrontations escalate. There are rules that may be broken or ignored(like laws against battery) but even then there are certain social practices that are always followed, but those practices will be different based on someone&#8217;s socio-economic-cultural background.
> When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged.
> ...


That was well written.  Kudos.

I've kinda given up on his.  He jumped the shark when he issued the "fly out to me on your own dime and punch someone" challenge.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> Nocturnal, clearly you have little understanding of sociology and psychology of human beings. lklawson is right. He is scientifically proven to be right as every major sociologist and psychologist would agree with him on his assessment of human behavior. I&#8217;ll explain more pieceby piece if you have the patience to indulge me.



lklawson should tell it to street thugs about what every major sociologist and psychologist say. I want to see whether they would care about it. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> When these people attacked the person in your story it was ok by their rules even though it is unacceptable to society at large. Criminals of all kinds do follow some sort of social protocol. No man is an island, and interaction is necessary and in order for any interaction to occur unspoken rules must be obliged.
> The following statements are rather irrelevant to the topic, but I will show you how rules of some kind do dictate how we approach our choices according to a psychodynamic approach.



I've said it before. If there was a rule, it's a rule that they created themselves for themselves. lklawson disagreed.
And it's not my story, it was RTKDCMB who posted about the things that happened to his friend.



Himura Kenshin said:


> In the psychodynamic school of thought, human behavior rand though processes are shaped by our desire to seek things that bring us comfort and avoid discomfort and our desire to seek relationships with others.
> Rules of basic interaction that involve what you consider to be appropriate govern who you will choose to speak with and whether you willseek out a certain martial arts teacher for an instructor type relationship. Ifthe instructor fits into your &#8220;schema&#8221; (mental categories of what we think things are or should be) then you will seek training with him. If he doesn&#8217;t fit into your schema then you won&#8217;t.
> It&#8217;s the same for everything including eating and selecting a home. If we accept that one has the means to live where he want sand eat what he wants, why does he select certain things?
> Houses for example, does it fit my idea of what a home should be? Is it in a neighborhood that fits my schema of what a neighborhood should be? Are the people similar enough to me that I feel comfortable around them? These are examples of &#8220;rules&#8221; used to judge where you choose to be.
> Food isn&#8217;t all about taste either. You may be aware that it&#8217;s not a great idea to eat onions on a first date or you may be dieting to better match your personal schema of what you think you should look like. You may have cultural taboo on food like pork. You might have personal bias against eating bugs because where you come from, that&#8217;s gross and eating bugs would be a source of stigma.



These are choices, not rules.
I've eaten bugs when I visited Thailand.
What rules did I follow?




Himura Kenshin said:


> So you are right that life is about choices. But choices are made in context of who you are with, where you are, what you believe, and what will happen when norms and rules are violated.




While I chose to eat bugs during the trip in Thailand, some people chose not to. Clearly either one of us don't follow rules. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> They attacked your friend because he broke a rule they held. They attacked his manhood possibly because it is symbolic of what your friend did by allegedly romancing the assailant&#8217;s girlfriend. They attacked him because by their rules this response was ok. They did not kill him because that response was not appropriate to them. The rules they chose to follow at that time whether out of a personal preference or a legal one did not allow certain forms of retaliation.




It wasn't my friend. It was RTKDCMB's story about his friend.
 But here's my personal experience: I kneed a mugger in the groin. But I did it not because I was following rules. I did it because there was an opportunity for me to do so. It's not because the mugger romancing my girlfriend. 

My point is: people that assaulted RTKDCMB's friend may have other reasons to attack the groin. The groin itself is a weak point that's quite often being targetted in a street fight. Yes, it could be because they wanted to send a message, but that's just one of the many possible reasons. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> But it isn&#8217;t a matter of knowing someone else&#8217;s rules it&#8217;s a matter of living by your own rules.



 
That's what I've been saying. If there are rules in the street, many street thugs create their own rules. But lklawson disagrees with this. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> We can&#8217;t make assumptions about what their rules are. We would have to study their behavior to know that. Wild apes have rules too you know. And human beings are apes. We are social creatures, therefore we follow some sort of social protocol no matter what.



 
lklawson's the one making assumptions all organisation (including the ones he's not part of) has rules. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> The only reason someone could not agree with the argument is because they do not understand the argument. This may be to poor word choice on its proponents&#8217; behalf or it may be because this thought process doesn&#8217;t fit with you schema.
> Your &#8220;rule of thought&#8221; may not currently allow you to accept this as fact, but it is fact. The passion you exhibit over this topic is a result of cognitive dissonance. You experience cognitive dissonance when something that makes sense doesn&#8217;t agree with your previous thought process so the first notion is to reject it. Soon you will begin to consider it and perhaps assimilate it. That is the healthy process of learning in humans.



I appreciate you're trying to explain everything in a clear and thoughtful manner, which is something lklawson was unable to do. 



lklawson said:


> I've kinda given up on his.  He jumped the shark when he issued the "fly  out to me on your own dime and punch someone" challenge.



I was asking that person to prove his point and potentially winning money that significantly more than the airfare. It was very clear (it's a different thread), but you decided not to tell the whole story.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

"I was asking that person to prove his point and potentially winning  money that significantly more than the airfare. It was very clear (it's a  different thread), but you decided not to tell the whole story."

Especially the part about asking me to do something illegal several times, for money.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 18, 2013)

What I think is happening here is that you two are arguing two sides of different coins.



nocturnal_ said:


> UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly  used in the UFC are also styles that have rules, like: Muay Thai, BJJ,  Boxing, Judo, Wrestling. Martial Arts that have no rules won't do well  in UFC, even if the practitioner trains at the same frequency as in the  professional UFC fighter. It's a different matter when it's a street  fight where anything goes.





lklawson said:


> "There are no rules on the street" is contrary  to actual law, research by sociologists, and actual evidence.



When someone says that "there are no rules on the street" they are usually referring to the fact that martial art competitions have rules (such as no punching to the back of the head or kicking to the groin) that simply do not generally apply in the outside world. This is what I think _nocturnal _was trying to say, and he is correct. Then _lklawson_ incorrectly took it as meaning there are no rules at all. He then went on to say that there are rules on the street, meaning that societies and individuals have laws, rules and guidelines that govern their behaviour and determine what is acceptable and what is not and he is correct. This confusion of ideas and subsequent debate was probably fueled a bit my my statement;



RTKDCMB said:


> If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.


 - my bad.

This refers to the the fact that the rule-set of your average street thug is incongruent with society as a whole, inconsistent between individuals and largely unknown by the defender/victim in an assault and very little to do with competition style rules, which was my error.

When you are faced with a potential attacker you have no idea what they may find acceptable behavior or what they would be willing to do to hurt you. The only thing you can do is act according to the available information based on what you see, your instincts and intuition and what you may be able to discern from the context of the situation and the sociological setting you are in.

I hope we can now all move on.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

"Then _lklawson_ incorrectly took it as meaning there are no rules  at all. He then went on to say that there are rules on the street,  meaning that societies and individuals have laws, rules and guidelines  that govern their behaviour and determine what is acceptable and what is  not and he is correct. This confusion of ideas and subsequent debate  was probably fueled a bit my my statement;"

If you go back and read, youll find that we both clarified, several times, that we are referring to a different. Kind. Of Rules.
And not competition esque rules. 

Weve been over this.
Also, im lazy with quotes right now because my phone is weird. Dont ask.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 18, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> lklawson should tell it to street thugs about what every major sociologist and psychologist say. I want tosee whether they would care about it.


I worked with street thugs before at shelters. They certainly do recognize that their groups hold certain things sacred and meaningful and that is what their rules are based on. They know that within their peer group certain things are unacceptable. They may be wildly different from what you or I think is appropriate but they still have rules even if they do not recognize them.




nocturnal_ said:


> I've said it before. If there was a rule, it's a rule that they created themselves for themselves. lklawson disagreed.
> And it's not my story, it was RTKDCMB who posted about the things that happened to his friend.


Their society creates the rules not the individual himself. An individual might have a personal sense of how such rules apply to him and what is appropriate conduct but he judges those thoughts and actions against how he feels his society will respond to them. This is all done rather quickly and informally in the mind by everyone. Its subtle enough that people dont know they are doing it for the most part as it is built into our psychology from the beginning stages of childhood.
Oh and sorry to both you and RTKDCMB for mixing up who said what. When I responded to your statements about it, I forgot the story wasnt originally yours.




nocturnal_ said:


> These are choices, not rules.
> I've eaten bugs when I visited Thailand.
> What rules did I follow?


In Thailand it is acceptable to eat insects as part of the diet. In America it generally would be a source of stigma depending on what social context you are in. You eat bugs in Thailand because the society doesn't care.
Now you might say that Id eat bugs in America if they were prepared right no matter what society thinks. That would be an example ofyou adopting a counter culture rule set. You may live by rules that are slightly different from the norm, but you still have rules. You still consider what is or isnt appropriate for you in your current situation. You might eat bugs whenat an exotic restaurant with friends, but probably not at a formal dinner party.
Your various choices you have in every circumstance willvary depending on those circumstances. Your choices are affected by what you feel to be appropriate for the situation. Those are rules.





nocturnal_ said:


> While I chose to eat bugs during the trip in Thailand, some people chose not to. Clearly either one of us don't follow rules.


Did you eat insects as a staple of the diet of the culture or did you just pick bugs off the ground and munch on them? You both conducted yourself appropriately in the culture. You did by choosing to try something theculture offered, and your friend did by declining. If your friend freaked out at the notion of you eating bugs that would be a violation of societal rules, just like in America if someone freaked out over you eating a hamburger it would be weird and unexpected.


Informal rules are a set of expectations. When you follow expectations you follow rules.





nocturnal_ said:


> But here's my personal experience: I kneed a muggerin the groin. But I did it not because I was following rules. I did it becausethere was an opportunity for me to do so. It's not because the mugger romancingmy girlfriend.


So why didnt you kill him? Its more than you just didnt want to. Its because it wasnt appropriate.
You are following rules. Escalation of force determines what is appropriate for self-defense. You know there were certain things youcan do and not be punished for them. You wouldnt knee a random person in the groin. Its not acceptable, but it is acceptable to do that to someone who attacks you. Thats what Im getting at.
No matter who you are there will always be choices for aperson based on what is acceptable to their society at large, to their social circle, and to themselves. What is or isnt acceptable are the rules being discussed here.



nocturnal_ said:


> My point is: people that assaulted RTKDCMB's friend may have other reasons to attack the groin. The groin itself is a weak point that's quite often being targetted in a street fight. Yes, it could be because they wanted to send a message, but that's just one of the many possible reasons.


Yes I understand that but no matter what their reasons were they had actual reasons in their minds to do so. These reasons are governed by what that group considered appropriate. Even though that kind of behavior is illegal and unacceptable at large it is acceptable to that peer group. Other kinds of retaliation may have been considered over the top or not enough, There was some sort of judgment made about what to do, and that judgment is based in their perception of rules.




nocturnal_ said:


> That's what I've been saying. If there are rules in the street, many street thugscreate their own rules. But lklawson disagrees with this.


See I dont think he does. It might be misunderstanding here. Gang members for example have their own set of rules that are unique for their situation. They dont make up the rules for no reason though or just on a whim, every rule serves function (whether that function is important to you or me or not doesnt matter to the group that establishes it).
Say the guys in the story didnt attack the ladies man. Then the thug might have been ridiculed and disrespected, seen as weak by the rest of the group. There may have been serious consequences for him if he didnt commit the battery.
The rules are different and constructed by the group based off what they think is important and needed. Often the individual has little say over them.




nocturnal_ said:


> lklawson's the one making assumptions all organisation (including the ones he'snot part of) has rules.


He would be right. All organizations whether formal or informal have some kind of rules. If not then they cannot work as a group ororganization.



I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are no rulez on the street what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about being a man and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 18, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are &#8220;no rulez&#8221; on &#8220;the street&#8221; what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about &#8220;being a man&#8221; and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.


Well written.  Kudos.

Care to take any bets as to whether or not it "falls on deaf ears?"  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## mcmoon (Jun 18, 2013)

Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.  

Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?

You also claim that you will just pick up a weapon which means there is probably some break from the fight or it hasnt started yet which means (as a past mma competitor) I am either going to run or pick up a weapon too(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol).  If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon

You also can't realistically train these "dirty tricks" or you would not have any training partners because they would either be crippled or dead. Not saying they can't be pulled off just not as likely or easily.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

mcmoon said:


> Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.
> 
> Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?
> 
> ...



Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.

Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.


----------



## mcmoon (Jun 18, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.
> 
> Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.



but..............there are no rules on the street?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

mcmoon said:


> but..............there are no rules on the street?



I cant tell if youre being funny or serious. If youre making a joke, it was a pretty great joke.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 18, 2013)

mcmoon said:


> Nocturnal your getting slaughtered with science and logic, just walk away.
> 
> Also you said that since there are "no rules on the street" you could sneak up on a mixed martial artist and attack them and you think a tma is gonna be any better at taking a bat to the back head?





Cyriacus said:


> Furthermore, 'dirty tricks' dont help you if youre smacked in the back of the head.



Huh? I never said anything about anyone capable of taking a beating of a bat to the back of the head. 



mcmoon said:


> You also claim that you will just pick up a weapon which means there is probably some break from the fight or it hasnt started yet which means (as a past mma competitor) I am either going to run or pick up a weapon too(being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol).  If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon.



I was talking about the same age, same size, *same amount of training*. Before these posts became polluted with lklawson's posts about rules, sociology, etc, I did write that it's the *amount of training* that make people's perception that an MMA fighter is better than other fighter. If the amount of training is equal, the ones training with no-rules will have the advantage. So both fighters have same physical shape. 

The fighter that don't care about rules are very likely to bring weapons and launch a sneak attack. 



mcmoon said:


> You also can't realistically train these "dirty tricks" or you would not have any training partners because they would either be crippled or dead. Not saying they can't be pulled off just not as likely or easily.



Not training in the traditional (for a lack of better word) sense. If you've lived in a third world country as a teenager, you would've had many street fights. And in many third world countries, police don't spend that much time and resources to investigate murders, unless if it's a politician or a celebrity that's being murdered. In other words, people could and have died from those fights, while many murderers went unpunished by the law because of lack of police resources. I would consider fighting for survival in the street as training as well.



Cyriacus said:


> Also, being willing to grab weapons is a rule.


 
Everything's a rule to you then. Everything's a choice to me. I view my life this way.


----------



## nocturnal_ (Jun 18, 2013)

Himura Kenshin said:


> I think the crux of the issue is that when people say there are no rulez on the street what they actually mean is that there are likely no agreed upon rules. You might be working off of rule set A which coincides with the law and how you were raised. Your attacker might follow rule set B which places what he was taught about being a man and may go against what the law says and what most of society thinks. He breaks the rules of set A because they are not his rules, but follows the rules of set B because he thinks they supersede what the law or society at large says.



I can agree to this. Himura Kenshin, unlike lklawson, you've debated very well and wrote clever and thoughtful responses.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 18, 2013)

"Everything's a rule to you then. Everything's a choice to me. I view my life this way."

Choices are governed by rules.
You know how alot of people wont raise their voice in public? Thats a rule. You know how alot of people will? Thats a rule.
Maybe analogies will make sense to you


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 19, 2013)

mcmoon said:


> (being that I am probably in better condition I will be able to out run you as well lol).



No t necessarily - If you were in better condition than Usain Bolt, could you outrun him?



mcmoon said:


> If you are in the middle of the fight chances are you will not have a chance to get a weapon



No t necessarily - It does not take much time for someone to pick up a weapon that is handy or pull one out.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 19, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> No t necessarily - It does not take much time for someone to pick up a weapon that is handy or pull one out.



You cant get a weapon if youre not given a chance - Defenders disadvantage.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jun 19, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> You cant get a weapon if youre not given a chance - Defenders disadvantage.



That's why you do not give them the chance.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 19, 2013)

RTKDCMB said:


> That's why you do not give them the chance.



And that requires you to have a chance to attack them. Which also requires you to know that theyre a threat, or for you to be the antagonist.
Normally, people dont go, "hey, dude. im gonna beat you senseless. you can get your weapon out now."


----------



## mcmoon (Jun 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> Huh? I never said anything about anyone capable of taking a beating of a bat to the back of the head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The whole sneak attack thing is retarded since the original argument is about mma and traditional martial artists and a sneak attack is probably gonna have the same results regardless of which you train which was my point the bat to the back of the head.

Also if they are training the exact same way defeats the purpose of the argument.  Not saying it shouldn't be and it isn't to some but physical conditioning  most of the time isn't as big of a deal to tma and will not devote anywhere near as much time to that aspect.

Cyriacus: yes I ment it as a joke

RTKDCMB: there are ways to out run someone without being faster at straight distances(now either way I'm probably screwed anyway if someone like usain bolt is chasing me).  The cheetah is faster than a gazelle if running straight but the fact that the gazelle decides where they run it can change direction without much trouble while the cheetah will have to adjust which means slowing down and agility in changing direction is something the gazelle has over the cheetah


----------



## Aiki Lee (Jun 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> I was talking about the same age, same size, *same amount of training*. I did write that it's the *amount of training* that make people's perception that an MMA fighter is better than other fighter. If the amount of training is equal, the ones training with no-rules will have the advantage. So both fighters have same physical shape.


I dont think its the amount of training per say (though I do think it plays some part), but rather the *type of training*. I believe people tend to think MMA practitioners are more suited to fighting because they are more well known for training under pressure. Many TMA dont seem to offer much in the ways of pressure testing, but I think that has to do more with the market those schools aim for.
Personally I dont think it matters what you train in as long as you have some sort of pressure testing. If your goal is combat applicability I think its important.
If a martial arts school claims to train with no rulesthey are lying. You dont eye gouge your training partner or kick out his knee and injure him. You have to have some kind of control, so they do train with rules because to train with no rules would have injuries popping up constantly. 
When they say that the mean they train for a fight with no rules they probably refer to a situation where their life is in danger. Even in life threatening situations there are still limitations on what someone will do whether it is because of legality or personal values.
Now I do believe you will fight like you train and if youare used to sport rules you may instinctively do what you are comfortable withand end up in a situation that is less than ideal if you are used tocompetitive fighting, but that is also very dependent on the person I think.


----------

