# UFC/MMA: Rigged game with bias? Thoughts wanted!



## neoinarien (May 10, 2008)

> Here is the complete listing of fouls for the UFC:
> from www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules
> 
> 1. Butting with the head.
> ...




I was just looking for a full list (or near complete) because obviously the more restrictions there are, the more styles are in effect banned while others are favored. So disallowing throat strikes, etc, may hurt particular styles of CMA for instance while therefore benefitting other styles (Muay Thai). 

Now, restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. You need restrictions to prevent a senseless bloodbath. However, this does not mean that the same restrictions don't bias/rig/alter the rules of the game and therefore change the very nature of the game itself and how it's played.

It's my postulation that the rules of UFC and other MMA in conjunction with other relevant factors in UFC bias the styles used away styles that rely heavily/employ-more-frequently (grabbing the clavicle, small joint manipulation, throat attacks, etc) and styles that require a higher level of technical sophistication.

In short, most UFC fighters these days grew up doing a particular art/practice... boxing, wrestling, ju-jitsu, etc, and others came to martial arts very late (late teens) and are seeking a competitive professional outlet. Sharing a common goal to compete in MMA, they suddenly need to either learn a full skill set or balance their existing skill set (a striker needing grappling, a grappler needing striking, etc). Most of the time, they don't have time (you need to start your career, generally, before your early to mid-20s... latest, late 20s) to spend 8-12 years (or much longer) to thoroughly study an art to gain a sufficient level of mastery in it. So, with a high skill set needed but not enough time to develop it: something has got to give.

The result: a biasing of the martial arts seen most often in MMA/UFC. The arts one sees (Muay Thai, kick boxing, boxing, ju jitsu, etc) most commonly used are therefore typically the ones that require the least amount of technical sophistication, thus making them the easier to learn, while simultaneously providing the most damage for time invested all within the UFC/MMA closed universe of fighting (see: rules). In short, fighters gravitate/rush to the systems that provide the biggest bang (damage) for the buck (least time to learn) within the MMA rules. 

Naturally this phenomenon biases the styles one sees to the those that provide the most damage for least time invest *and* that coexist with and within the MMA rules/restrictions. 

Now, is this meant to detract from the lethality of Brazilian JJ? Not at all! Is this meant to insult Muay Thai? Not in the least! Am I implying that kick boxing is weak and only applicable in MMA? Hardly! 

However, are they being helped and given extra exposure by a confluence of events, situations, and rules that almost preclude other styles while placing their own at an advantage? Absolutely (again, this is not to cast dispersions, merely an observation). 

Hence, when I hear someone say, "Hey man, Karate (or CMA, TKD, etc) suck! If they were any good, why don't you see more people (or any at all) use them in MMA?" I usually just nod and move on without bothering to answer.

But I wanted to share my thoughts and hopefully elicit feedback.

Note: I just want to reaffirm once more that NONE of the above is meant as an insult to the practitioners or arts of any of the above. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Muay thai, BJJ, etc. I am merely trying to take a detached rational approach and weigh in on a tricky and perhaps controversial issue.

Note 2: Thank you to D Dempsey for posting the rules on another thread.


----------



## paulH (May 10, 2008)

well it favours people who train mma...

but yes i train jkd and the primary strikes i would use are trachea shots and eye gouges and knee kicks... so 2 out of 3 not allowed... though possibly under rule 22 knee breaking low line side kicks might get pulled up as well... thus taking a huge amount f my training away

and although we train some groundwork we also train that the best way out of a gaurd position is to pull the other guy down n to you then try to bite his ear off or his neck... and if hes holding you snap fingers untill he lets go... 

now im not suggesting that this should be allowed in the ufc but as with any sport it has rules and thse rules do seem to favour bjj as its the best grappling art imo and as you cant gauge / bite or finger snap your way out of it you have to grapple them n the ground...

also if they stay on the ground you cant just boot them in the head again you have to get down and grapple

as with any sport it has its rules and imo if small joint manipulation was allowed you would see people standing up a bit more... but youd also see a lot of fighters out for a long time with constant finger injuries...

mma is a sport based martial art in its own right... 

jkd concepts is probably a truer mixed martial art than mma which now is basically bjj combined with muay thai... not that thats a bad thing but it has limitations in street situations...

ie you start grappling in the street and somebodys friend picks up a brick and splits your skull open while you think your looking good pulling an arm bar or something.


ive been to a few mma classes but i just preffer the efficiency of jkd for real life situations...

mma and bjj however are awsome arts esoecially when used in a 1v1 situation on a mat / in a cage


----------



## Tez3 (May 10, 2008)

The UFC is the name of _one promotion_ not the name of the sport we do. 
There are different rules depending on whether you are fighting amateur, semi pro or professional rules. Different promotions have different rules, some allow knees to the head on the ground, some don't, some allow elbows some don't.
MMA *is* a style in it's own right as paulH rightly says, it's a style of fighting evolved for competition and as I've said before, for self defence/street situations we train differently. I would have said though from experience that MMA is more than BJJ and MT, we train Judo, Aikido, karate, grappling (other than BJJ) and CMA. Many of our fighters come from a TKD background, I can think of at least four who are Dan grades.


----------



## paulH (May 10, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The UFC is the name of _one promotion_ not the name of the sport we do.
> There are different rules depending on whether you are fighting amateur, semi pro or professional rules. Different promotions have different rules, some allow knees to the head on the ground, some don't, some allow elbows some don't.
> MMA *is* a style in it's own right as paulH rightly says, it's a style of fighting evolved for competition and as I've said before, for self defence/street situations we train differently. *I would have said though from experience that MMA is more than BJJ and MT, we train Judo, Aikido, karate, grappling (other than BJJ) and CMA. Many of our fighters come from a TKD background, I can think of at least four who are Dan grades*.


 
yes... you obviousley train in a very rounded way... its just my experience of the classes that i attended that the majority of the focus was bjj and mauy thai...

but each trainer / school will have its own style...


----------



## Nolerama (May 10, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> I was just looking for a full list (or near complete) because obviously the more restrictions there are, the more styles are in effect banned while others are favored. So disallowing throat strikes, etc, may hurt particular styles of CMA for instance while therefore benefitting other styles (Muay Thai).
> 
> Now, restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. You need restrictions to prevent a senseless bloodbath. However, this does not mean that the same restrictions don't bias/rig/alter the rules of the game and therefore change the very nature of the game itself and how it's played.



I think you're touching on the sport vs. self defense question for MMA. The rules do change the nature of the game, but it's in the fighters' best interest in terms of safety. Believe it or not, MMA is much more humane than other sports like football or boxing.



neoinarien said:


> It's my postulation that the rules of UFC and other MMA in conjunction with other relevant factors in UFC bias the styles used away styles that rely heavily/employ-more-frequently (grabbing the clavicle, small joint manipulation, throat attacks, etc) and styles that require a higher level of technical sophistication.



It's an opinion of yours: grabbing the clavicle, small joint manipulation, throat attacks, etc require a "higher level of sophistication." This is a difference in fighting philosophy and shows a linear mindset when it comes to fighting. There's a lot of people out there who would rather learn to throw a decent jab than gouge someone's eye or crush their throat.

From a self defense point of view, I would still think twice about applying an eye gouge, trachea crush or any other type of destruction that could possibly send me to prison, even in a SD situation. In SD, rules change, just like in the ring.



neoinarien said:


> In short, most UFC fighters these days grew up doing a particular art/practice... boxing, wrestling, ju-jitsu, etc, and others came to martial arts very late (late teens) and are seeking a competitive professional outlet. Sharing a common goal to compete in MMA, they suddenly need to either learn a full skill set or balance their existing skill set (a striker needing grappling, a grappler needing striking, etc). Most of the time, they don't have time (you need to start your career, generally, before your early to mid-20s... latest, late 20s) to spend 8-12 years (or much longer) to thoroughly study an art to gain a sufficient level of mastery in it. So, with a high skill set needed but not enough time to develop it: something has got to give.



I know you're claiming not to insult MMA and related arts, but you seem to be insulting a person's ability to learn, and his or her focus on training. In my experience, I'd rather spend a few years in an MMA gym to make myself a better athlete and well-rounded fighter with better conditioning and training. 

Time in training is not as important as how you train, and how much you can get out of it each time you do. Give me a year's worth of MMA sparring twice a week over a decade's worth of learning how to poke an eye out with my finger any day. But in terms of respect, I am not insulting how anyone trains. This is personal choice.



neoinarien said:


> The result: a biasing of the martial arts seen most often in MMA/UFC. The arts one sees (Muay Thai, kick boxing, boxing, ju jitsu, etc) most commonly used are therefore typically the ones that require the least amount of technical sophistication, thus making them the easier to learn, while simultaneously providing the most damage for time invested all within the UFC/MMA closed universe of fighting (see: rules). In short, fighters gravitate/rush to the systems that provide the biggest bang (damage) for the buck (least time to learn) within the MMA rules.



I'm not sure what you really mean about a "closed universe of fighting." You can say that about any MA. But you are right about some MMA people gravitating towards styles/ training methods that increase performance and applicability of MMA. That's progression in performance. It's supposed to be a good thing. It's a difference in learning philosophy, but a big one. 



neoinarien said:


> Naturally this phenomenon biases the styles one sees to the those that provide the most damage for least time invest *and* that coexist with and within the MMA rules/restrictions.



Not true. Chuck Liddell and Georges St. Pierre are both karate practitioners and have been training for years, along with a long list of high school/collegiate wrestlers (that's an MA too), boxers and guys who simply call themselves "freestyle" fighters. These people show performance. Sometimes it doesn't take a fancy degree or certification from years of learning an MA to show you can fight. If you want a certificate, however, I'll make it for you on Photoshop, free of charge.

MMA on the street is different from MMA in the ring. I'll grab a clavicle, stomp on my opponent, whatever it takes to buy me time to get out of a bad situation.



neoinarien said:


> Now, is this meant to detract from the lethality of Brazilian JJ? Not at all! Is this meant to insult Muay Thai? Not in the least! Am I implying that kick boxing is weak and only applicable in MMA? Hardly!



Nice way out of a possible argument. But you're still insulting people by generalizing them.



neoinarien said:


> However, are they being helped and given extra exposure by a confluence of events, situations, and rules that almost preclude other styles while placing their own at an advantage? Absolutely (again, this is not to cast dispersions, merely an observation).



I don't see how saying that (among a laundry list of styles) muay thai has devastating strikes, boxing's accuracy, or bjj's effective ground work  is discriminatory. Fighters show what works in whatever range they've been working on.



neoinarien said:


> Hence, when I hear someone say, "Hey man, Karate (or CMA, TKD, etc) suck! If they were any good, why don't you see more people (or any at all) use them in MMA?" I usually just nod and move on without bothering to answer.



Fighters use their mother styles, just look for them. Cung Le (sanshou) is a great example, as well as any of the muay Thai people coming out to this hemisphere, who are now not allowed to throw elbows to the back of the head, but adjust and break arms with kicks. Tait Fletcher has trained with the Dog Brothers' FMA style. Surprisingly enough, there are a ton of similarities in the applied styles. Randy Coture and Matt Hughes have strong wrestling backgrounds and, shockingly, use it! 



neoinarien said:


> But I wanted to share my thoughts and hopefully elicit feedback.
> 
> Note: I just want to reaffirm once more that NONE of the above is meant as an insult to the practitioners or arts of any of the above. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Muay thai, BJJ, etc. I am merely trying to take a detached rational approach and weigh in on a tricky and perhaps controversial issue.



I don't think your "observation" is neither rational or detached. Personally, I think you're deeply bothered when someone downs your MA, that's why you wrote this and that's why I replied: because aspects of each MA works. Keep your head up. Find a way to train harder. Get better. That's why we do this, right?

If time equals skill, then this guy is an effective fighter. (borrowed from another thread)

However, I mean no disrespect.


----------



## neoinarien (May 10, 2008)

Nolerama,

First off: I will respond point by point later when I have more time. 

Off the bat, a few remarks.

Despite your bad faith interpretation of many of the things I said, I do not believe at all that I am insulting either the arts or the practitioners of what I mentioned. Some arts take a deliberately less sophisticated approach on principle because they believe that the simpler, the better. This can be an entirely valid approach. Other arts simply evolved as simpler because of the needs of their historical and native practitioners were perhaps basic/simple. Simply telling it how it is (hey, some arts are more elaborate than others) does _not_, as you allege, amount to an assault on the art unless I possessed/manifested that specific intent. However, I am doing my best to make it clear that everything I am saying is with the utmost respect. 

I have _met_ the UFC guys in real life, at malls and just walking around. I am not saying these guys are knuckle dragging idiots, or anything of the sort. However, if you read what I wrote, these athletes have a limited time to absorb a wide skill set to become an accomplished MMA fighter. As a result, they focus on certain arts that are more conducive to quick learning and maximized results.

As for the record: I have a decent body of work in TKD, and *I* *knock*/recognize its weaknesses in a practical sense (grappling, etc). It doesn't hurt me in the least when someone knocks it or points these out because I just take their remarks in the same way that I make my own: rational and detached. 

....more later...


----------



## Tez3 (May 10, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *neoinarien* 

 
_In short, most *UFC fighters* these days grew up doing a particular art/practice... boxing, wrestling, ju-jitsu, etc, and others came to martial arts very late (late teens) and are seeking a competitive professional outlet. Sharing a common goal to compete in MMA, they suddenly need to either learn a full skill set or balance their existing skill set (a striker needing grappling, a grappler needing striking, etc). Most of the time, they don't have time (you need to start your career, generally, before your early to mid-20s... latest, late 20s) to spend 8-12 years (or much longer) to thoroughly study an art to gain a sufficient level of mastery in it. So, with a high skill set needed but not enough time to develop it: something has got to give._

As I said UFC is a promotion, the sport is MMA. I would disagree with he time frame given. Ian Freeman an Englishman who has fought on UFC several times didn't start MMA until his 30s. I have to agree with Nolerama here.
Incidentally as I write Ian has just beaten Paul Cahoon in Cage Rage..at the ripe old age of 41. Yaay for Ian!!


----------



## terryl965 (May 10, 2008)

I think before anyone can pass judgement you need to seperste sport from actual fighting big difference. Remember all sports ahs rule that must be foolowed so why would anybody think anything different.


----------



## Nolerama (May 10, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> Nolerama,
> 
> First off: I will respond point by point later when I have more time.
> 
> ...



I never quoted you as saying MMA practitioners ("UFC guys" in your vocabulary) were "knuckle-dragging idiots": YOU stated that. It's okay to have your thoughts on something; just say it out loud without pinning it on me.

I've never met anyone in the UFC. Maybe you are more of an expert in these regards.



neoinarien said:


> As for the record: I have a decent body of work in TKD, and *I* *knock*/recognize its weaknesses in a practical sense (grappling, etc). It doesn't hurt me in the least when someone knocks it or points these out because I just take their remarks in the same way that I make my own: rational and detached.



*Here's my rational, detached remark:*

I repeat that I'm not downing your MA. They all have something to use. The fact that you keep saying that downing TKD doesn't hurt you, shows that it hurts you, at least to me. I, for one, am not knocking it, just calling you out for saying you're being rational and detached, when you really aren't.*

The not so rational, detached remark:*

Just because you claim it doesn't mean anyone should believe you. I felt insulted by your statements, verbiage and written exit strategies (I've been guilty of that as well, and I can identify with you). I stated my feelings because I'm calling shenanigans on your detached rationalism because it _doesn't exist. *Even Spock laughed once or twice.*_ 
*The short answers:*

-I disagree with you on your concept of "sophistication." I have a problem with it. I value performance and effectiveness of a technique. A perfectly executed jab is much more effective than an ineffective but "more sophisticated" hair pull or eye gouge.  There's no level of sophistication, just a yes/no answer of whether or not the technique works.

-I don't agree on your concept of time always equals better. I believe that everyone is different, regardless of MA history and can train to be a decent fighter in a relatively (to what I perceive as your concept of training to "master" an MA) short amount of time.

-I don't agree with you that it takes a decade to "master" a skill set. There are many avenues of training.

Those are my responses you asked for.


----------



## neoinarien (May 10, 2008)

Responding to mainly Nolerama,

When double quoting (quoting Nolerama quoting myself) the words in italics that preceed those in non-italics are my words. The non italicized words belong to Nolerama.



> I think you're touching on the sport vs. self defense question for MMA. The rules do change the nature of the game, but it's in the fighters' best interest in terms of safety. Believe it or not, MMA is much more humane than other sports like football or boxing.


 
I never said that it isn't humane. Not sure where you're getting that... but in any case, I agree. 



> It's an opinion of yours: grabbing the clavicle, small joint manipulation, throat attacks, etc require a "higher level of sophistication." This is a difference in fighting philosophy and shows a linear mindset when it comes to fighting. There's a lot of people out there who would rather learn to throw a decent jab than gouge someone's eye or crush their throat.


 
I never limited the concept of 'sophistication' to mere gouges, grabs, etc. I would measure the complexity or perhaps 'sophistication' based on the subtley of moves and counter moves engineered within the system. Some systems have a variety of counter moves, blocks, deflection, counterattacks mixed with blocks, etc. Other systems have a fairly rudimentry system of less options. Now, is this to say that one system is better than the other? No. That is not the inference to be drawn. However, it is to say that one system is more complex (needlessly? different argument) and sophisticated than another.




> From a self defense point of view, I would still think twice about applying an eye gouge, trachea crush or any other type of destruction that could possibly send me to prison, even in a SD situation. In SD, rules change, just like in the ring.


 
Agreed. Self defense must be legal. A disproportionate response to a perceived threat is not only immoral (shooting a child trying to scratch you may be one extreme example) but can be illegal. I am very aware of this fact, but it is always worth mentioning (so thank you for brining it up!).




> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> _In short, most UFC fighters these days grew up doing a particular art/practice... boxing, wrestling, ju-jitsu, etc, and others came to martial arts very late (late teens) and are seeking a competitive professional outlet. Sharing a common goal to compete in MMA, they suddenly need to either learn a full skill set or balance their existing skill set (a striker needing grappling, a grappler needing striking, etc). Most of the time, they don't have time (you need to start your career, generally, before your early to mid-20s... latest, late 20s) to spend 8-12 years (or much longer) to thoroughly study an art to gain a sufficient level of mastery in it. So, with a high skill set needed but not enough time to develop it: something has got to give._
> ...


 
Insulting a person's ability to learn? No way. 

What I am saying is that given the _huge_ ability set that a UFC fighter (remember, my quote here was referencing UFC, not MMA) must master to succeed (striking, grabbing, clinching, grappling, et al) it is no surprise that they would choose less 'sophisticated', IE, less complex systems that offer more bang (effectiveness) for the buck (time invested). The key is that they generally have very limited time to learn and build these skills.

Tez3 brought up the fighter who started his career in his 30's. But this is truly the exception. There are many highly gifted and athletic individuals who have begun sports professionally or extended their careers because of their innate skill set, dedication and work ethic, or brains (including all or combinations of the above) to continue to perform at a high level. 

So again no: you misunderstood me Nolerama. I am respecting their ability to rapidly learn and retain a _very_ broad skill set in the most efficient means possible.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> ...


 
I defined "closed universe fighting" as the parameters (rules) affecting the fighters. And no, I don't think every MA (although, again, I was talking about the UFC as relates to sports MMA, not all MMA) has parameters set on it. Different MA may express different attitudes and responses of how to best defend onself against an attacker (think Karate's striking vs. BJJ's grappling) but I don't think BJJ limit's itself. CMA in particular (read paulH's post below my original post) can be very open to gouging, groin shots, etc. Now, this would make for a failure as a sport. So I am not implying that this would be a good idea for the UFC to adopt. But sport MMA and the UFC _certainly _is operating within a "closed universe fighting" because the participants have many of their options closed to them that would be otherwise open in a street fight, etc.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Frankly, I'm not sure how your response is entirely relevant to my point that you quoted, given the context of my post. I never once claimed, as seems to be your assertion, that participants in the UFC do not practice or train in non "MMA" schools. So I'm not sure where that came from...



> Sometimes it doesn't take a fancy degree or certification from years of learning an MA to show you can fight. If you want a certificate, however, I'll make it for you on Photoshop, free of charge.
> 
> MMA on the street is different from MMA in the ring. I'll grab a clavicle, stomp on my opponent, whatever it takes to buy me time to get out of a bad situation


 
Yes, I agree 100%. Especially with the black belt mills that are out there (though the same still stands true otherwise).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Again, I don't see what you are saying. I don't think any sane person would contend that Muay Thai, BJJ, etc, are not highly lethal either in theory or practice. 

Also, I don't agree with your second sentence, 





> But you're still insulting people by generalizing them.


 at all. How did I generalize? 

I think I see a common theme of you alleging that I am insulting people when there is in fact no basis for doing so...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Once more, a remark with little relevancy. I did not say, as you allege, that BJJ, boxing, etc, are discriminatory. Frankly, that reading of what I said doesn't even make sense.

What I said, and what I will rephrase for you, is that UFC is a "closed universe" fighting system where various moves are prohibited. The result is that styles that rely on those forbidden moves, or use them extensively, are obviously biased _against._ Again, see paulH's post about how portions of JKD are simply illegal in the UFC no matter how effective they may be on the 'street.'

As a result, the fighting styles that have portions deemed 'illegal' are once again being hurt/discriminated against. Where one goes down, another goes up. The styles that have the least barred are going to be helped because their systems/styles remain much more intact and they are not losing any of their moves or ephasis.

Hence, the UFC system/"closed universe system" inherently biases the field of competition (as contrasted with 'anything-goes' street fighting) away from arts by discriminatory rules (rules that are necessary for a humane fight, IE, no eye gouging) and therefore inadvertantly promotes other arts.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neoinarien*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, you used a double negative ("don't think" "neither") so I guess you agree with me...

And as I addressed in my reply I couldn't be bothered in the least when someone attacks TKD. I would debate with them on a logical/rational level if I thought their criticisms were flawed, but if they were valid I would agree. Either way, there's point in becoming "bothered" by it.




> If time equals skill, then this guy is an effective fighter. (borrowed from another thread)


 
I never once said that time=skill. But I agree with you, time does not equal skill. 



> However, I mean no disrespect.


 
None taken. Be sure though to carefully read what someone says though before accusing them of being "insulting." Another person might get mighty angry by it. 


As for your response.....




> I never quoted you as saying MMA practitioners ("UFC guys" in your vocabulary) were "knuckle-dragging idiots": YOU stated that. It's okay to have your thoughts on something; just say it out loud without pinning it on me.


 
Actually, no. You accused me "insulting" UFC participants when you said, 

"...but you seem to be insulting a person's ability to learn, and his or her focus on training."

and

"But you're still insulting people by generalizing them."

I was simply responding to these accusations of yours.



> I've never met anyone in the UFC. Maybe you are more of an expert in these regards.


 
No: I am not claiming to be an expert in any regards. 




> *Here's my rational, detached remark:
> 
> *I repeat that I'm not downing your MA. They all have something to use. The fact that you keep saying that downing TKD doesn't hurt you, shows that it hurts you, at least to me. I, for one, am not knocking it, just calling you out for saying you're being rational and detached, when you really aren't.


 
Well, without reasons to back up your remark I don't see what I can say to counter it. I would suggest that unless you can read minds, to restrict your judgments on other's intentions.



> *The not so rational, detached remark:
> 
> *Just because you claim it doesn't mean anyone should believe you. I felt insulted by your statements, verbiage and written exit strategies (I've been guilty of that as well, and I can identify with you). I stated my feelings because I'm calling shenanigans on your detached rationalism because it _doesn't exist. *Even Spock laughed once or twice*_


 
Again with the insults. 

I never once claimed, as you allege, that everyone should agree with my opinions. If I did, then please support your accusation with citation (that's how we work in the legal world). 

I'm sorry that you interpreted by good faith clauses as "...verbiage and written exit strategies..." Again, I would recommend taking someone at their word rather than contravening and dismissing their words in prefernence for your unsubstantiated mind reading powers about what another is actually thinking. Just a thought. 



> *The short answers:
> 
> *-I disagree with you on your concept of "sophistication." I have a problem with it. I value performance and effectiveness of a technique. A perfectly executed jab is much more effective than an ineffective but "more sophisticated" hair pull or eye gouge. There's no level of sophistication, just a yes/no answer of whether or not the technique works.


 
Sophistication does not equal performance. You can have an elaborate and sophisticated combat pistol, for instance, that is simply over engineered and unnecessary for the task at hand when a simpler design would have performed just as well if not better. Once more, I would encourage a more refined and disciplined reading of another's words before reacting to a misunderstanding. 



> -I don't agree on your concept of time always equals better. I believe that everyone is different, regardless of MA history and can train to be a decent fighter in a relatively (to what I perceive as your concept of training to "master" an MA) short amount of time.


 
Again, I never once said that time=better. There are obviously many many factors to be addressed. A few off the top of my head, quality of instruction, dedication, intensity, innate athletic abilities, conditioning, discipline, etc. Once more, I would encourage a more refined and disciplined reading of another's words before reacting to a misunderstanding. 



> -I don't agree with you that it takes a decade to "master" a skill set. There are many avenues of training.


 
(broken record) I never once said it take a decade to master a skill set. Let's return to my words from the original post. I said that one must often "spend 8-12 years (or much longer) to thoroughly study an art to gain a sufficient level of mastery in it."

Now, if you feel like you can begin karate and thoroughly 'master' it within a decade, year, or month... then that is fantastic and if it's true I'll hire you now and pay for your law school degree. I would respectfully disagree that it takes less time, or even just a decade to 'master' an art... let alone a "skill set." If you think that striking can be mastered within a decade, or grappling, etc.... then I would respectfully disagree because I think we are using different definitions of mastery.


----------



## Tez3 (May 11, 2008)

Actually Ian Freeman isn't the exception I used him because I know a lot of American MMA fans know of him I could have used at least half a dozen other names that you wouldn't have known but who started  'late in life'.
The UFC for the third time is not a fighting system, they are not UFC fighters and I don't understand how you can write "UFC fighters as opposed to sports MMA"? This is nonsense. *The UFC is a company run by* *businessmen,* *it's not a sport.* MMA is a sport, it's mixed martial arts. Therefore anyone who practises this sport is a MMA fighter/practicioner.
UFC have their own rules, we at Pride & Glory have ours, Cage Rage, King of the Cage, Pride, Cagewarriors, Strike & Submit and hundreds of other promotions have their rules so please stop referring to MMAers as UFC fighters.


----------



## MJS (May 11, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> I was just looking for a full list (or near complete) because obviously the more restrictions there are, the more styles are in effect banned while others are favored. So disallowing throat strikes, etc, may hurt particular styles of CMA for instance while therefore benefitting other styles (Muay Thai).
> 
> Now, restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. You need restrictions to prevent a senseless bloodbath. However, this does not mean that the same restrictions don't bias/rig/alter the rules of the game and therefore change the very nature of the game itself and how it's played.
> 
> ...


 
Usually when debates such as these come up, I try to follow what I've said in the past.  I'll preface my comments by saying that I will agree that the 'sport' aspect does take away from a number of things the TMAist can do.  I train in Kenpo.  Looking at that list, my art pretty much violates every rule on that sheet.  Now, should I have to rely on the illegal shots to win?  I'm going to say no, because if my skill and the outcome is going to be decided by an eye jab, I need to re-evaluate my training.  But, the things on that list are tools...tools that will aid me in my defense, but again, I shouldn't always have to rely on them to win.

Let me explain further.  Lets step out of the ring mindset for a minute.  I'm walking to my car and someone comes up to me asking for money.  The person is an older male, highly intoxicated.  He is presistant and not leaving despite me saying no to giving him cash.  He reaches out to grab me.  Should I grab his arm, strike his eyes, elbow his nose, breaking it, sweep him to the ground and proceed to strike his throat?  Well, if thats all he did was reach for me and that was my response.....  see where I'm going with this?

Back to the ring.  I could and I do, study a ground art (BJJ) to supplement Kenpo.  Many of the early UFC fighters were 1 style fighters and like a fish out of water once they were off their feet.  That has changed greatly today.  Even Maurice Smith train with the Shamrocks, learning enough grappling to survive, get back to his feet and KO Mark Coleman.  

Looking at it another way...many of these fighters to come from prior backgrounds.  But, I've been a believer in the saying, "You fight like you train."  Doesnt take alot of thought to eye jab, groin kick, etc., but...is that going to be your first thought if you're just a ring fighter?  If you gear you mind to that rule list, chances are you won't be thinking about doing things on that list.  

This debate will rage on and on and on.  IMHO, there is no 'ultimate' art despite what the followers of Royce and the Gracies say.  Both can benefit from each other.  I've taken things from the MMA mindset and added them to what I do.  There are things that they could take from other arts, to make theirs more street applicable.  

In the end, I really don't care what someone thinks of my arts I train in.  I'm happy and thats all that matters to me.


----------



## neoinarien (May 11, 2008)

Yeah, the original post was not to start a "best art" flame war.

The intent to was to see if others saw the situation about sport MMA the same way I do (in regards to helping some arts and hurting other arts).


----------



## Tez3 (May 11, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> Yeah, the original post was not to start a "best art" flame war.
> 
> The intent to was to see if others saw the situation about *sport MMA* the same way I do (in regards to helping some arts and hurting other arts).


 
MMA is a sport, what other type of MMA can there be? Self defence is different, MMA is not self defence.


----------



## neoinarien (May 11, 2008)

> MMA is a sport, what other type of MMA can there be? Self defence is different, MMA is not self defence. Tez3



MMA is not self defense? 

I'm certainly no expert on MMA... but I understood it to have have a dual application of both sport and self defense (dependent on what school one attends).

But it's certainly an interesting point.


----------



## Tez3 (May 11, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> MMA is not self defense?
> 
> I'm certainly no expert on MMA... but I understood it to have have a dual application of both sport and self defense (dependent on what school one attends).
> 
> But it's certainly an interesting point.


 
No it's a sport, definately. One doesn't do self defence with rules or in a ring/cage with a referee, corners and a crowd watching nor do you charge admission for watching a self defensive fight. Self defence is self defence. It's trained differently.
A great many people have jumped on the bandwagon and declared that their schools now do MMA and some even grade in it. but it's still a sport.
Fighters don't have schools, they will have classes,gyms/clubs but not organised schools.
When you get over the difference you will see any argument about which style is best is a pointless one and that the only style which is best is the one that is best for you.
We train for MMA and we train for self defence, there are crossover techniques but fundamentally the classes are different. People who teach what they think is MMA and say it is for self defence are fooling themselves and the people they take money off. Of course MMA fighters can defend themselves in the street but as has been pointed out countless times it will be in a different way from the way they fight competitively.


----------



## MJS (May 12, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> MMA is a sport, what other type of MMA can there be? Self defence is different, MMA is not self defence.


 
This is interesting, because in other discussions of a similar nature, many other MMA folks would disagree with your above statement.  However, I am in full agreement with your above comment. 

Mike


----------



## punisher73 (May 12, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> MMA is a sport, what other type of MMA can there be? Self defence is different, MMA is not self defence.


 

I agree, you can use the physical tools that you use in MMA to defend yourself.  But to consider it self-defense you have to add in other aspects as well (this goes for TMA's that claim to teach self-defense also) such as, verbal de-escalation, previolence cues, awareness skills, etc.


----------



## paulH (May 12, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> No it's a sport, definately. One doesn't do self defence with rules or in a ring/cage with a referee, corners and a crowd watching nor do you charge admission for watching a self defensive fight. Self defence is self defence. It's trained differently.
> A great many people have jumped on the bandwagon and declared that their schools now do MMA and some even grade in it. but it's still a sport.
> Fighters don't have schools, they will have classes,gyms/clubs but not organised schools.
> When you get over the difference you will see any argument about which style is best is a pointless one and that the only style which is best is the one that is best for you.
> We train for MMA and we train for self defence, there are crossover techniques but fundamentally the classes are different. People who teach what they think is MMA and say it is for self defence are fooling themselves and the people they take money off. Of course MMA fighters can defend themselves in the street but as has been pointed out countless times it will be in a different way from the way they fight competitively.


 

exactly... just as boxing or kickboxing are sports... they have obvious applications that can be used for self defence... (nobody realy wants to get in a punch up with a boxer do they!)

just as the JKD I study would help me in a sporting contest... (boxing, mma, kickboxing) it is not the same as training in these sports... likewise training in these sports is not the same as training in self defence...

for example once a week we train on concrete and on slopes... its realistic... yes there is a good chance there will be curbs around when your fighting rather than a cage... 

mma is a fantastic sport to watch and a highly technical one to boot which the more one is trained in matial arts i believe one can appreciate more... 

however in real life somebody isnt going to stop hitting you five minutes after starting sit down for a bit and start again...

its like comparing limes and lemons... they are both fruits but that des not mean they are the same


----------



## Tez3 (May 12, 2008)

MJS said:


> This is interesting, because in other discussions of a similar nature, many other MMA folks would disagree with your above statement. However, I am in full agreement with your above comment.
> 
> Mike


 
On the whole the view taken here is that it's a sport, I think theres a lot of  MMA people are actually fans rather than people who participate in MMA which is a different situation from most MA, you tend not to get karate or judo fans who while not training nevertheless say they know all about the style.
There's no doubt that doing MMA will give you a huge advantage in defending yourself and as most fighters I know also have trained in a TMA and self defence techniques it does make it unwise to attack an MMAer lol!


----------



## MJS (May 12, 2008)

neoinarien said:


> MMA is not self defense?
> 
> I'm certainly no expert on MMA... but I understood it to have have a dual application of both sport and self defense (dependent on what school one attends).
> 
> But it's certainly an interesting point.


 
I'm no expert on it either, but I have to wonder...how many schools offer just MMA?  How many offer both a MMA class which is designed for the ring, as well as a self defense class?  For those that did offer both, if they are out there, how many students take part in the SD portion?


----------



## neoinarien (May 14, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'm no expert on it either, but I have to wonder...how many schools offer just MMA?  How many offer both a MMA class which is designed for the ring, as well as a self defense class?  For those that did offer both, if they are out there, how many students take part in the SD portion?



No clue. My wife used to train MMA, albeit, not very committed (though her school was very hardcore and has helped train several UFC fighters). She says that she was never taught groin shots, gouges, etc (again, she may have missed those classes). I'll ask my father in law who goes there quite often.


----------



## D Dempsey (May 15, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'm no expert on it either, but I have to wonder...how many schools offer just MMA?  How many offer both a MMA class which is designed for the ring, as well as a self defense class?  For those that did offer both, if they are out there, how many students take part in the SD portion?



I saw one that did.  They taught MMA ala Shooto/Pancraes and Bujinkan, there were a decent number of guys who did both.


----------



## Odin (May 16, 2008)

Whats this another 'MMA is a sport' thread?...come on people get over it.

Its a Sport.

The UFC is not the end all of MMA.

MMA is its own style.

These are Professional fighters who are paid a lot of money to do what they do, im pretty sure if there was a secret technique out there somewhere someone would have used it, we're talking $500,000 a fight here for top end fighters,  these men are not playing about, these men are also somewhat open minded, just have a look at thier training techniques, i recently saw a video of Wanderlie 'Snorkle' training, these men are open to new ideas if it makes them a better fighter, if they felt there was something missing from there arsenal that could be filled with a TMA technique then belive me they would learn it and use, does any one really believe that fighters havent thought about pressure points? or any of the techniques mentioned above? trust me they have and they have been tested..more often then not it seems they dont work.

Lets leave it as that.


----------



## Errant108 (May 16, 2008)

Will 1994 never die?


----------



## D Dempsey (May 16, 2008)

Probably not anytime soon.


----------



## Dave Leverich (May 17, 2008)

I have found that some pressure points work, head/arm fist grind into the neck etc. But it's obvious ones, no dim mak or other strange ones. Like the MT kick to the leg, is hitting a pressure point (aka, one of 3 on every muscle), although we also roll our legs to avoid/spread out that impact too.

But yeah, I'm not running in there with pokey fingertips either heh.

I think a big problem is the public still not being informed about exactly what MMA has evolved into from it's NHB forefather.


----------



## PictonMA (May 17, 2008)

Is MMA a rigged game with bias?  No - it's a sport with rules (that each promotion sets) to make as safe and spectator friendly event as can be managed with as few rules as possible to satisfy the purists and curiosity of who is the best.

If TMAists are relying of eye gouges, fish hooks, biting etc to win a SD situation then I'd argue your time would be better spent practicing gross motor movements that have a higher probability of success and can actually be trained with any real repitition to be used.

"On the streets we don't rise to our expectations, we fall back on our training" - I don't know who said it or where I first saw it but those are words I tend to live by.

------------

Now, as to the digression of this thread....

I agree with 99% of what Tez has said (as is usual) but I don't fully agree with the statement that MMA is only a sport (and not SD or anything else).

5 years ago that may have been the case when you didn't really have any fully MIXED MAists - you had people that specialized in one or maybe two TMAs and cross trained.

I don't think that is the case any more.  More and more often people are training the complete package from Standup long range, to close range to clinch to throws and take downs to ground and pound to submission.  More often than not this is now occuring in the same facility.  More and more you are also seeing clubs that don't have separate classes for each aspect of the fight game, you are seeing scheduled classes of varrying durations just on MMA - from start to finish.

In my opinion MMA has evolved from purely a sport to an art of it's own.

In my mind competitive MMA is like the contact or sport side of Karate (think Kyokushin or NSKA) or the competitve side of Judo (the clubs I've trained in the sure was a difference between what was done on the Tatami in the Dojo and what would be allowed at Provincial / National / International competition) or the sport side of BJJ, etc etc.

5 years ago or more was MMA only a sport?  I'd say yes for sure.  Nowadays, I'd say no.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2008)

I think I was arguing more that MMA shouldn't be taught purely as a self defence system, that it should't be advertised by instructors as something that will *definately* be the thing that gets you out of that deadly confrontation when what they are actually teaching is for competitions. I agree totally that we have people coming up now that train the whole package, that's how we teach it in our club. However specific SD classes are separate from the MMA classes. MMA is a style which is sport based but there are many applications that are useful for SD of course as there are ( and has been said by others) in TMAs! 
I really wanted to get away from the premise that the MMA you see in the promotions is not what you should be thinking is the ultimate system of SD/fighting which sadly some do. That's why you get the pub boast of "yeah I'm a Cage fighter me I can take anyone!" It should be seen for what it is .. a sport.
 People who really do "Cage fighting" rarely say they do btw they always say they do MMA!
I'd like to see MMA take it's place in martial arts along side MA such as Pictons mentions, accepted as an equal style.


----------



## PictonMA (May 17, 2008)

Gotcha Tez, I'm in full agreement!


----------

