# Would a single art survive in UFC?



## jkd friend (Jan 26, 2007)

Would a single art be successful in the UFC say wu-shu or something of the sort?


----------



## Blindside (Jan 26, 2007)

What do you mean by art?  There is no reason to believe that if someone called their wrestling/jiu-jitsu/muay thai blend a fancy name and described it as a seperate art it wouldn't do just fine.

I suspect this isn't what you mean though.

Lamont


----------



## matt.m (Jan 26, 2007)

Well, I am not sure.  It would seem that if a BJJ practitioner or a wrestler do well then I don't see why a good hapkidoist wouldn't fare well.

This is all I am saying on the matter, I see this turning into a "It would never work" kind of thread.

However, I do know that judo does exceptionally well.  To my knowledge all the people who have beaten the Gracies were all fabulous Judo players.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 26, 2007)

oh please... not ANOTHER MMA vs all comers thread.. ENOUGH already :soapbox: 

And if you are going to start one of these type threads at least do a little research and pick a CMA that is not mainly for forms competition and acrobatics.  Sheeeeesh


----------



## jkd friend (Jan 26, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> oh please... not ANOTHER MMA vs all comers thread.. ENOUGH already :soapbox:
> 
> And if you are going to start one of these type threads at least do a little research and pick a CMA that is not mainly for forms competition and acrobatics. Sheeeeesh


 
:asian::asian:
OK my friend be calm it's going to be OOOOOOOOO.TTTTTTTTTTAYYY


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> :asian::asian:
> OK my friend be calm it's going to be OOOOOOOOO.TTTTTTTTTTAYYY


 
okie dokie


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> Would a single art be successful in the UFC say wu-shu or something of the sort?



If someone wants to succeed in MMA they have to become proficient in all of the skills required to succeed in MMA.  If they don't train those skills, they will not succeed.

You need to stop thinking about styles in the classical sense if you are looking at MMA.

It's kind of like asking if one style could do well in boxing, and not considering boxing to be a style.

MMA is its own style now, other styles will not do well within its playground.  Not unless there is considerable overlap, and a fair bit of cross training is done.  And even then, without actually training in MMA, you're not going to get far.


----------



## Infinite (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> Would a single art be successful in the UFC say wu-shu or something of the sort?



It is not the art it is the fighters ability to execute his art.

UFC has rules and the rules are such that grappling arts fair better than striking ones typically.

Take away the rules and other arts may suddenly become more viable. Simply put the most common way to take out a wrestler is to strike with leathal force  which you can not do in the UFC.

--Infy


----------



## jkd friend (Jan 26, 2007)

Infinite said:


> It is not the art it is the fighters ability to execute his art.
> 
> UFC has rules and the rules are such that grappling arts fair better than striking ones typically.
> 
> ...


 

O.K but what do you mean by leathal force?


----------



## Rook (Jan 26, 2007)

No, there is no single art that would survive well enough to get a practitioner up the rungs of MMA to the UFC or PRIDE.  

Modern MMA consists of the techniques, principles, etc. of the "big four" arts - Western boxing, western wrestling, muay thai and BJJ or another mix of arts that provides the same things.    

Even when we speak people as practitioners primarily of one art, like Fedor with SAMBO, or Mirko with kickboxing, they are training all the areas of MMA to some extent, even if they have a strong preferance towards a particular or a particular art.  They may even train at a training hall that proclaims that it teaches one particular style, but they will have coaches and training parteners who make sure they are proficient in the others as well.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 26, 2007)

Rook said:


> No, there is no single art that would survive well enough to get a practitioner up the rungs of MMA to the UFC or PRIDE.
> 
> Modern MMA consists of the techniques, principles, etc. of the "big four" arts - Western boxing, western wrestling, muay thai and BJJ.
> 
> Even when we speak people as practitioners primarily of one art, like Fedor with SAMBO, or Mirko with kickboxing, they are training all the areas of MMA to some extent, even if they have a strong preferance towards a particular or a particular art. They may even train at a training hall that proclaims that it teaches one particular style, but they will have coaches and training parteners who make sure they are proficient in the others as well.


 
He has a point.  I have a friend who pals with Matt Hughe's brother.  It seems that after Matt took a killing from St. Pierre he hired a great Muay Thai coach.


----------



## Infinite (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> O.K but what do you mean by leathal force?



I mean blows who's only purpose is to either break or kill the attacker.

For example a heal strike to the instep will break the foot. Break the foot the shooting wrestler can not shoot.

Also the groin is generally off limits and lots of ways to stop a grappler involve groin shots.

--Infy


----------



## jkd friend (Jan 26, 2007)

Rook said:


> No, there is no single art that would survive well enough to get a practitioner up the rungs of MMA to the UFC or PRIDE.
> 
> Modern MMA consists of the techniques, principles, etc. of the "big four" arts - Western boxing, western wrestling, muay thai and BJJ or another mix of arts that provides the same things.
> 
> Even when we speak people as practitioners primarily of one art, like Fedor with SAMBO, or Mirko with kickboxing, they are training all the areas of MMA to some extent, even if they have a strong preferance towards a particular or a particular art. They may even train at a training hall that proclaims that it teaches one particular style, but they will have coaches and training parteners who make sure they are proficient in the others as well.


 



So to you know single art can suvive a MMA practitoner?


----------



## Infinite (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> So to you know single art can suvive a MMA practitoner?




That is missleading. He said no single art could survive in an MMA ring with the rules and so forth.

He did not say that MMA was the ultimate form of self defense.

--Infy


----------



## jkd friend (Jan 26, 2007)

Infinite said:


> I mean blows who's only purpose is to either break or kill the attacker.
> 
> For example a heal strike to the instep will break the foot. Break the foot the shooting wrestler can not shoot.
> 
> ...


 

Maybe so but a good legal strike can get to the best of wrestlers.:asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 26, 2007)

Infinite said:


> For example a heal strike to the instep will break the foot. Break the foot the shooting wrestler can not shoot.



Foot stomps are legal, and used by some.  Never seem to have the effect you attribute to them though.


----------



## terryl965 (Jan 26, 2007)

Well if it is by a respective painter maybe, oh we are talking about Martial Arts I'll leave now this has been beat to death


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2007)

jkd friend said:


> Would a single art be successful in the UFC say wu-shu or something of the sort?


 
The short answer: No, a single style can't be successful.  If you look back to the first few UFC events, you will see a number of one dimensional fighters.  That was fine because thats what it was all about...style vs. style.  Now look at the fighters today.  Everyone is x-training in BJJ, Thai boxing, boxing, wrestling, etc.  If someone entered today with only striking, chances are they'd get destroyed.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Foot stomps are legal, and used by some. Never seem to have the effect you attribute to them though.


 
I first saw them used by Ruas against Varleans (sp) in UFC 7.  I dont think his foot was broke, but between those and the leg kicks, Paul was taking a beating.   It certainly wore him down pretty good.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2007)

Rook said:


> Even when we speak people as practitioners primarily of one art, like Fedor with SAMBO, or Mirko with kickboxing, they are training all the areas of MMA to some extent, even if they have a strong preferance towards a particular or a particular art. They may even train at a training hall that proclaims that it teaches one particular style, but they will have coaches and training parteners who make sure they are proficient in the others as well.


 
I agree with this.  Another good example is Chuck Liddell.  While he does train grappling, I'd say he's more a striker, but yet, hes got a great takedown defense. 

Mike


----------



## Rook (Jan 26, 2007)

MJS said:


> I agree with this. Another good example is Chuck Liddell. While he does train grappling, I'd say he's more a striker, but yet, hes got a great takedown defense.


 
I've heard unconfimed reports from his camp before his Couture fights that Liddell spends more time traing his takedown defense and groundwork to get up then he does on his striking.  His wrestling credentials outside of MMA are actually stronger than his striking ones, although clearly he is quite good at both.


----------



## Rook (Jan 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Foot stomps are legal, and used by some. Never seem to have the effect you attribute to them though.


 
Bingo.  Foot stomps rarely break the feet and it is very possible to wrestle with a broken foot.  When I was in high school, a classmate of mine wrestled several footbones broken badly and did fine.  He had actually refused to have a cast put on his foot for a couple days after he broke it so he could keep training wrestling and finish the seasons competitions before the cast was put on.


----------



## Rook (Jan 26, 2007)

matt.m said:


> However, I do know that judo does exceptionally well. To my knowledge all the people who have beaten the Gracies were all fabulous Judo players.


 
Actually, Sakuraba and Hughes are not Judoists, and they have the most prominent victories over the Gracies.  Sakuraba (the "Gracie Hunter") is a shootfighter primarily, and Hughes has BJJ and wrestling.  Several Judoists have done very well vs. BJJ - the differences between the arts lies more in emphasis than content.


----------



## Infinite (Jan 26, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Foot stomps are legal, and used by some.  Never seem to have the effect you attribute to them though.




Hmm well I've never used it on anyone for real so perhaps I am attributing more effect than is due on this.

So I may have mistyped when I Said inside step I really was meaning inside ankle. Heal stomp at the ball joint with lateral force not virticle.

The few times I've done that at speed it seemed pretty devistating.

Are those the same foot stomps or are you doing instep bridge break or toe breaks?

I think mine is more of a ankle break in reality.

--Infy.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2007)

Rook said:


> I've heard unconfimed reports from his camp before his Couture fights that Liddell spends more time traing his takedown defense and groundwork to get up then he does on his striking. His wrestling credentials outside of MMA are actually stronger than his striking ones, although clearly he is quite good at both.


 
Yes, I remember you saying this in a past discussion.  I certainly agree with you, he is good at both.  Its interesting though, because it seems that most of his wins are by T/KO rather than submission, but either way, he's a top notch fighter IMO.  

Mike


----------



## Rook (Jan 26, 2007)

MJS said:


> Yes, I remember you saying this in a past discussion. I certainly agree with you, he is good at both. Its interesting though, because it seems that most of his wins are by T/KO rather than submission, but either way, he's a top notch fighter IMO.


 
Liddell has focused on using his grappling skills to stay off the ground as much as possible... and has done so very sucessfully.  If he is ever matched with a significantly better striker, he may decide to take the fight to the ground, however that hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 26, 2007)

Infinite said:


> Are those the same foot stomps or are you doing instep bridge break or toe breaks?



All of the above, pinpoint accuracy tends to go out the window in full contact fighting, the other guy keeps trying to avoid the hits  

But, all those get hit, and I think your best bet at breaking anything is the instep.  I've had those little bones break, it sucked, but it wasn't going to stop me, especially not with that wonderful painkiller that is adrenaline.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 26, 2007)

I dunno, how well did Michael Jordon do in baseball?

When you spend all your time training for a certain set of parameters, you tend to be very good in those parameters and not very good in others.  The Bo Jacksons of the world are rare.

MMA (loosly) has a rule set and and that rule set encourages tactics and those tactics require techniques and those techniques drive training.  If that is not how you train, then you will not do well in that arena.  

Might as well ask how well an MMA practioner would do in Olympic Taekwondo sparring or how well a Karate point fighter would do in a Judo match...different set of rules, different motivations.
---- 
nothing about the art itself.  The *top* fighters in any art or any stye of fighting are the ones  that are the *best* at those fighting parameters.  The avarega guy on the street who trains one art versus another guy who trains another art; it depends on which one is better trained and more determined.  You'll never see a pure Taekwondoist win a top level MMA fight (or a top MMA fighter win the Olympics in Taekwondo sparring, for that matter) but that doens't mean much for the thousands of the rest of us who train one art or another or some combination


----------



## matt.m (Jan 26, 2007)

Rook said:


> Actually, Sakuraba and Hughes are not Judoists, and they have the most prominent victories over the Gracies. Sakuraba (the "Gracie Hunter") is a shootfighter primarily, and Hughes has BJJ and wrestling. Several Judoists have done very well vs. BJJ - the differences between the arts lies more in emphasis than content.


 

Yes I know, I was referring past Royce, in Pride FC etc. Helio loosing to Kimura etc.  I also agree that there are a ton of similiarties of "Same" techniques, emphasis is different.


----------



## Muay Thai Knee (Feb 2, 2007)

Infinite said:


> It is not the art it is the fighters ability to execute his art.
> 
> UFC has rules and the rules are such that grappling arts fair better than striking ones typically.
> 
> ...


 
Grappling arts do not dominate MMA at the elite level any longer. Learn takedown/submission defense and suddenly striking becomes viable. 

Anderson Silva - Striker current UFC middleweight Champ.
Tim Sylvia - Striker - Current UFC Heavy Weight Champion
Cro Cop  - Striker - Pride Open Weight GP Champion
Wanderlei Silva - Striker - Pride FC Middleweight Champion
George St Pierre - All rounder - Current UFC Welterweight Champion(included because of the way he beat Hughes)
Chuck Liddel - Striker - Current UFC Light HEavyweight Champion

A lot of fighters who predominantly rely on wrestling or BJJ are finding 
it hard recently to get wins against decent opposition. MMA has gone full circle. It is a strikers game now. As long as you have learned how to defend TD's, GnP and subs that is.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2007)

A single art survives very nicely thank you, it's called MMA.


----------



## zDom (Feb 2, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> A single art survives very nicely thank you, it's called MMA.



Hmmm I think I disagree, kind of.

I think MMA is BECOMING an art but at this point is still just a collection of techniques borrowed, buffet style, from other arts.

I don't think the process has solidified yet, although it is "gel-ing."


----------



## matt.m (Feb 2, 2007)

I would agree.  There is no set of techniques yet, it isn't put together like say Tae Kwon Do poomse.  I don't care about a belt ranking hierarchy either.....what I think would solidify it as an art is the fact that there would be a solidity of techniques within mma gyms.


----------



## jkd friend (Feb 2, 2007)

zDom said:


> Hmmm I think I disagree, kind of.
> 
> I think MMA is BECOMING an art but at this point is still just a collection of techniques borrowed, buffet style, from other arts.
> 
> I don't think the process has solidified yet, although it is "gel-ing."


 
I agree with that I feel to learn all ranges of fighting quickly MMA would be a very good choice.


----------



## Rook (Feb 2, 2007)

zDom said:


> Hmmm I think I disagree, kind of.
> 
> I think MMA is BECOMING an art but at this point is still just a collection of techniques borrowed, buffet style, from other arts.
> 
> I don't think the process has solidified yet, although it is "gel-ing."


 
Perhaps.  I think it could be considered an art with a very extensive syllabus, with different people specializing in different parts.  This is not entirely dissimilar to boxers being classified as outfighters, infighters, brawlers and hybrid boxers.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 2, 2007)

It was pretty muched mentioned: but the 4 main schools that make up MMA can be supplemented or replaced by similar styles as long as the particular range, or energy is not neglected. for instance: you could replace the BJJ with submission wrestling or Sambo, or the kickboxing with a freestlye form of Karate such as Shidokan. or the freestle wrestling with Judo or greco roman wrestling. but you HAVE to have at least a basic understanding and application of the 4 disciplines. there are many good fighters who are more proficient in one area, but they DO know the others and work on them. a good example is chuck liddell. known for his striking, he also a purple belt in BJJ under eddie bravo, and a 2 time division 1 all american wrestler. Renato Babalu Sobral-Da Cuinha.... apart for his amous ground game ....is a Brazilian national champion wrestler, professional muay thai fighter.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2007)

Well over here it's definitely a style, everyone who does MMA knows what it is! We don't have any of this ' different schools' of MMA. We have MMA full stop! It won Micheal Bisping TUF, it's what we all do.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2007)

Given that mma is a sport with certain rules I would say a single art that does  not practice similar disciplines to those evident in mma would struggle.  Nothing wrong with doing a single art for street defense just not for UFC or whatever. There is a massive difference between the 2.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Odin (Feb 6, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Well over here it's definitely a style, everyone who does MMA knows what it is! We don't have any of this ' different schools' of MMA. We have MMA full stop! It won Micheal Bisping TUF, it's what we all do.


 

( : well said.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 6, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Given that mma is a sport with certain rules I would say a single art that does not practice similar disciplines to those evident in mma would struggle. Nothing wrong with doing a single art for street defense just not for UFC or whatever. There is a massive difference between the 2.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
Tactics and situations change, the delivery system doesn't. Relying on a single art for self-defence is very much the act of a gambling man. Surely since self-defence would be higher risk, it would make more sense to cover all ranges rather than just training in one?


----------



## thetruth (Feb 7, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Tactics and situations change, the delivery system doesn't. Relying on a single art for self-defence is very much the act of a gambling man. Surely since self-defence would be higher risk, it would make more sense to cover all ranges rather than just training in one?



I believe many single arts cover enough of all of the ranges to cope with street self defense.  For one the chances of your attacker being as well rounded as a mma are virtually zero and you can strike and gouge and do all of the wonderful things in the street that you cannot do in the ring or octagon.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 7, 2007)

thetruth said:


> I believe many single arts cover enough of all of the ranges to cope with street self defense. For one the chances of your attacker being as well rounded as a mma are virtually zero and you can strike and gouge and do all of the wonderful things in the street that you cannot do in the ring or octagon.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
Your attacker doesn't have to be well rounded in order to be a problem. He just has to be good enough in the one range where you aren't comfortable. 
And single arts rarely cover all ranges fully, or if they do, it tends to be in a token way. 
As for gouging, have you actually practiced doing it? By which I mean, how regularly do you fully gouge an opponent?
Because if I haven't practiced and used something regularly, I'd be damn reluctant to be relying on it.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 7, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Your attacker doesn't have to be well rounded in order to be a problem. He just has to be good enough in the one range where you aren't comfortable.
> And single arts rarely cover all ranges fully, or if they do, it tends to be in a token way.
> As for gouging, have you actually practiced doing it? By which I mean, how regularly do you fully gouge an opponent?
> Because if I haven't practiced and used something regularly, I'd be damn reluctant to be relying on it.



Mixed martial artists are not perfectly well rounded.  They all have a base from which they originally trained and then they add the other disciplines.  For example Chuck Liddell is a striker who did some wrestling and I'm sure if he's ever taken down will struggle with someone well schooled in grappling.  I'm sure Sobral would have tied Chuck up if he could have taken him down but his striking and wrestling were not as good as Chucks so he got knocked out.  MMA doesn't cover all areas fully and mmartists are not fully comfortable in all ranges. 

How regularly do fully punch an opponent in the throat?  I'm guessing never but I'm damn sure it would work in the street.  Just as sticking my thumb in someones eye with full intent will hurt and in the street why wouldn't you try it if it was an option?  Why don't we just all practice mma and rely on grappling and blunt force trauma.

Just my opinions
Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 7, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Mixed martial artists are not perfectly well rounded. They all have a base from which they originally trained and then they add the other disciplines. For example Chuck Liddell is a striker who did some wrestling and I'm sure if he's ever taken down will struggle with someone well schooled in grappling. I'm sure Sobral would have tied Chuck up if he could have taken him down but his striking and wrestling were not as good as Chucks so he got knocked out. MMA doesn't cover all areas fully and mmartists are not fully comfortable in all ranges.
> 
> How regularly do fully punch an opponent in the throat? I'm guessing never but I'm damn sure it would work in the street. Just as sticking my thumb in someones eye with full intent will hurt and in the street why wouldn't you try it if it was an option? Why don't we just all practice mma and rely on grappling and blunt force trauma.
> 
> ...


 
Chuck Liddell cross-trained in grappling so he could not be taken down easily. Thus he is no longer using a single style. Thus meaning you have no point there.
And in MMA, while you may have a range you focus on, you have to be comfortable enough in all ranges that you can deal with whatever comes up in them.
So none of that is a single style, since you have to fill the gaps.

What is your basis for believing you can punch someone in the throat if attacker? Honest answer, what is your evidence you can do it?
I've personally no wish to rely on any technique I haven't used on someone before.
Key word there, RELY. You're planning around your defence around something you haven't tested.
Im not saying I wouldn't use those techniques, only that I would not plan my defence around them.

And why not use grappling and blunt force? They work.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 7, 2007)

The up and coming MMA fighters have trained for MMA therefore are well rounded fighters, they may, like myself also do traditional martial arts.
Why would someone with a single art want to compete in the UFC anyway? You only compete in that if you want to fight MMA. Why too does it always get around to MMA in self defence? I train MMA and I train for self defence, two different classes, two different subjects.One does help the other but they aren't the same.


----------



## Rook (Feb 7, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Mixed martial artists are not perfectly well rounded. They all have a base from which they originally trained and then they add the other disciplines.


 
Some yes some no.  Some of these people came to MMA very accomplished in another way of fighting, others have started from scratch. 



> For example Chuck Liddell is a striker who did some wrestling and I'm sure if he's ever taken down will struggle with someone well schooled in grappling.


 
Actually, Chuck's wrestling credentials pre_MMA were stronger than his striking ones.  Liddell was a 4-year division 1 wrestler, a California state champion, and did very well at the national level.  He also has a purple belt in BJJ.  



> I'm sure Sobral would have tied Chuck up if he could have taken him down but his striking and wrestling were not as good as Chucks so he got knocked out.


 
Very possible. He would have had to keep him there too. 



> MMA doesn't cover all areas fully and mmartists are not fully comfortable in all ranges.


 
Not really.  Having a prefered range is not incompatible with being competent in all ranges.   



> How regularly do fully punch an opponent in the throat?


 
Actually, its not that rare that people train like that. You would be suprised at how little effect it actually has. 



> I'm guessing never but I'm damn sure it would work in the street.


 
Perhaps you should test your guess in the gym before you rely on it.  



> Just as sticking my thumb in someones eye with full intent will hurt and in the street why wouldn't you try it if it was an option?


 
If you can get your thumb to his eye, and if it is legally within bounds.  If you watch the GIA tapes, you will see over and over people try and fail to use their deadly eyepokes.  It never works once.  In all of the early Vale Tudos, the AFCs, etc there were no restrictions, and yet no one managed to pull it off.  



> Why don't we just all practice mma and rely on grappling and blunt force trauma?


 
Thats a good question.  Many people have other interests than unarmed fighting.


----------



## Odin (Feb 7, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Chuck Liddell cross-trained in grappling so he could not be taken down easily. Thus he is no longer using a single style. Thus meaning you have no point there.
> And in MMA, while you may have a range you focus on, you have to be comfortable enough in all ranges that you can deal with whatever comes up in them.
> So none of that is a single style, since you have to fill the gaps.
> 
> ...


 
I'll have to agree with you there, im fed up of hearing ''i would simply do this this and this' comments when truth be told fighting is far from simple, if you havent actually practiced doing something until its  instinctive i wouldnt rely on being able to do it in a self defence situation off hand...after all your attacker is hardly going to run up to you first and say ''hey mate, when you turn the corner im going to jump out and mug you, im just letting you know know so your prepared'' the more fighting situations your in the more prepared you are for a fight.

and im my opinion MMA is very useful for self defence.


----------



## Shogun (Feb 7, 2007)

> I'm sure Sobral would have tied Chuck up if he could have taken him down but his striking and wrestling were not as good as Chucks so he got knocked out.


I've said this before, but Sobral is one of the best wrestlers in the UFC. He took down Travis Wiuff several times in their match. he is a brazilian National champ, and has put serious thought into training for the olympics. His wrestling is WAY better than chuck's. BUT, that being said, he didn't play the right game. chuck's game is to counterpunch, and sobral kept pressuring the takedown.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 7, 2007)

Odin said:


> I'll have to agree with you there, im fed up of hearing ''i would simply do this this and this' comments when truth be told fighting is far from simple, if you havent actually practiced doing something until its instinctive i wouldnt rely on being able to do it in a self defence situation off hand...after all your attacker is hardly going to run up to you first and say ''hey mate, when you turn the corner im going to jump out and mug you, im just letting you know know so your prepared'' the more fighting situations your in the more prepared you are for a fight.
> 
> and im my opinion MMA is very useful for self defence.


 
The delivery systems are, but you still have to drill it a bit for different situations. Tactics and situations change, but the delivery system remains the same. You just need to learn how to adapt them. Which doesn't take that much effort anyway. Learn how to drop them and then run very fast.
Huzzah.


----------



## Odin (Feb 7, 2007)

Shogun said:


> I've said this before, but Sobral is one of the best wrestlers in the UFC. He took down Travis Wiuff several times in their match. he is a brazilian National champ, and has put serious thought into training for the olympics. His wrestling is WAY better than chuck's. BUT, that being said, he didn't play the right game. chuck's game is to counterpunch, and sobral kept pressuring the takedown.


 
to be honest sobral made only one error in that fight, if you remember he caught chuck with a hard blow and then tried to capitilze and rush in but got caught stepping in and put to sleep...it was one of those things nothing to do with sobral's skill.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 8, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Chuck Liddell cross-trained in grappling so he could not be taken down easily. Thus he is no longer using a single style. Thus meaning you have no point there.
> And in MMA, while you may have a range you focus on, you have to be comfortable enough in all ranges that you can deal with whatever comes up in them.
> So none of that is a single style, since you have to fill the gaps.
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is that mixed martial arts is the only way to go and if you can't test something in a tournament and make it work then it won't and if a technique is too dangerous to test with full contact then it isn't worth using in the street.  That basically throws most martial arts out of the window.  Do you break peoples arms in training to know an armlock can break an arm?  If not why would you rely on such things?  Lastly Blunt force trauma is fine but then it solely comes down to the amount of power one can generate with their strikes.  The larger the person, the more power hence they have a greater chance of success.  So if I was to fight a larger attacker and defended myself with just blunt force trauma my chance of  success would be a lot less than if I employed dirtier tactics which you suggest that if I haven't tried them with full contact in training they are not worth using.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Feb 8, 2007)

Odin said:


> I'll have to agree with you there, im fed up of hearing ''i would simply do this this and this' comments when truth be told fighting is far from simple, if you havent actually practiced doing something until its  instinctive i wouldnt rely on being able to do it in a self defence situation off hand...after all your attacker is hardly going to run up to you first and say ''hey mate, when you turn the corner im going to jump out and mug you, im just letting you know know so your prepared'' the more fighting situations your in the more prepared you are for a fight.
> 
> and im my opinion MMA is very useful for self defence.



I never said mma wasn't useful for self defense, I am just defending the usefulness of other arts. The UFC has caused people to soley believe that mma is the way to go for self defense and other arts are no good just because of what they see in the controlled environment of the octagon.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## zDom (Feb 8, 2007)

Rook said:


> ...
> 
> (*in response to "How regularly do fully punch an opponent in the throat?", said
> 
> ...




Rook,

a) I've SEEN people get hit (accidently) in the throat  it DOES have an effect. Ends up stopping the match until they are able to recover and breathe again.

Study physiology much? Any anatomy? IF they are able to get the sternocleidomastoid tensed to shield the throat, the effects can be effectively mitigated... but that is a big "if."

Ask a physician about the effects of direct blunt trauma to the throat.

b) I've seen at least TWO recent news stories about how people have survived creature attacks by (drum roll please...) PUTTING THEIR THUMBS in the eye of the attacking creature!

If it can stop a Great White Shark and a Mountain Lion (don't make me google and post the evidence, because it IS out there), then I am damned sure it will stop a human attacker.

And lets not forget Tito "seeing black" from Chuck's thumb to the eye, which effectively ended THAT fight, eh?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 8, 2007)

thetruth said:


> So what you are saying is that mixed martial arts is the only way to go and if you can't test something in a tournament and make it work then it won't and if a technique is too dangerous to test with full contact then it isn't worth using in the street. That basically throws most martial arts out of the window. Do you break peoples arms in training to know an armlock can break an arm? If not why would you rely on such things? Lastly Blunt force trauma is fine but then it solely comes down to the amount of power one can generate with their strikes. The larger the person, the more power hence they have a greater chance of success. So if I was to fight a larger attacker and defended myself with just blunt force trauma my chance of success would be a lot less than if I employed dirtier tactics which you suggest that if I haven't tried them with full contact in training they are not worth using.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
You really have no interest in actually listening here do you? You're too hung up on what you THINK im saying to actually read it properly. 
Observer the simple piece of logic.
If you are attempting to create a plan, do you base that plan on a tactic you know is reliable, or a tactic you have never tested?
You obviously enough, use what is reliable as the foundation.
The unreliable, you would only use if absolutely neccessary.

I NEVER ONCE said not to use tactics that do not occur in tournaments. I said that you should not BASE your plans and tactics around something you've never tested. Instead, you use the reliable as the foundation, and then from there on use whatever the situation demands.

But if you try to start off with a foundation you don't know if you can rely on, you're tactically shooting yourself in the foot, before the first punch is even thrown.

Now, before you go and take this out of context, I'm going to make something even clearer if possible, although Ive been pretty clear on this so far.
Im not saying you should not use certain techniques, Im saying you shouldn't RELY on them.
See that word there -RELY, whole key point of this post. 

And as for fighting larger opponents, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS.
Fighting dirty doesn't negate their size and strength, unless you've had an AWFUL lot of practice at it. So rather than making a plan out of something you can't rely on, build up the abilities you can test and train, and then add the other dirty fighting skills on top of those.

I look forward to your twisting of my words.

(Sorry all if I seem irate, a customer at the call centre just made several comments regarding what he'd like to do with my mother. The joys of tech support)


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 8, 2007)

zDom said:


> Rook,
> 
> a) I've SEEN people get hit (accidently) in the throat  it DOES have an effect. Ends up stopping the match until they are able to recover and breathe again.
> 
> ...


 
Once again, this has little to do with possibilty so much as reliabilty.
A person might be able to kill a mountain lion by putting out its eye with their thumbs.
But if you had to plan how to kill one, would you plan on doing with a sniper rifle or with your thumbs?
Thats what we're doing when we train, we're making a plan.
Sorry if I seem rambling.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Tactics and situations change, the delivery system doesn't. Relying on a single art for self-defence is very much the act of a gambling man. Surely since self-defence would be higher risk, it would make more sense to cover all ranges rather than just training in one?


 
I agree with this.  I like what you said about the tactics vs the delivery.  Many arts address various aspects such as weapons, grappling, etc.  However, for myself, I take it a step further and expand on those areas.  I've always been an advocate of training for the worst case. 

Mike


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 8, 2007)

MJS said:


> I agree with this. I like what you said about the tactics vs the delivery. Many arts address various aspects such as weapons, grappling, etc. However, for myself, I take it a step further and expand on those areas. I've always been an advocate of training for the worst case.
> 
> Mike


 
Yep, I would to. Not even out of any belief or fear it will happen, but out of a love of the actual science and training.
I find it strange the way in alot of striking styles especially, there have been recent developments in "anti-grappling" which seem to leave a lot of holes.
Surely in order to understand how to defeat a grappler, you're have to understand how to grapple?


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

thetruth said:


> So what you are saying is that mixed martial arts is the only way to go and if you can't test something in a tournament and make it work then it won't and if a technique is too dangerous to test with full contact then it isn't worth using in the street. That basically throws most martial arts out of the window.
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
IMHO, one does not need to enter a MMA event to test what works and what does not.  Alot of it is going to come down to how each person trains.  I'll use eye shots, seeing that that is usually a hot topic.  If someone just stands there, training the eye shot from a static position, how are they going to apply it when its time to move?  The same thing for punches and kicks.  Everything looks fine and dandy without moving, but add in some movement and it changes things up alot.  The eye shot can be trained with protective gear and movement.  I've done it, people that I train with have done it and I'm sure we're not the only ones that do it.  

People tend to view certain shots in a negative way, usually referring to them as 'deadly shots', but what they're failing to see, is that I'm not saying its a deadly shot, anymore than I'm saying a punch to the face is.  I'm not a follower of the 1 hit, 1 kill mentality.  But, everyone has reflexes.  If I throw out a shot and it causes the person to raise their hands, move their head back, take a step back or whatever, even if I didn't make contact, I still got a reaction, which I can take advantage of with something else.  Its no different than throwing combos in boxing.  Someone may throw a jab to the head to get that reaction so they can hit the body, which was their intended target from the beginning.

Like I always say, it all comes down to how we train.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

zDom said:


> Rook,
> 
> a) I've SEEN people get hit (accidently) in the throat  it DOES have an effect. Ends up stopping the match until they are able to recover and breathe again.
> 
> ...


 
2 thumbs up for this post!!!


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Yep, I would to. Not even out of any belief or fear it will happen, but out of a love of the actual science and training.
> I find it strange the way in alot of striking styles especially, there have been recent developments in "anti-grappling" which seem to leave a lot of holes.
> Surely in order to understand how to defeat a grappler, you're have to understand how to grapple?


 
Exactly!!  Nothing wrong with taking a grappling defense, getting together with a grappler and seeing how well it works.  Perhaps the grappler can improve on the defense.  One of the Black Belts at the school I go to has a Purple belt in BJJ under Roy Harris.  Its a good resource as we can work certain defenses from the Kenpo perspective and get feedback from a grappler.


----------



## Odin (Feb 8, 2007)

thetruth said:


> I never said mma wasn't useful for self defense, I am just defending the usefulness of other arts. The UFC has caused people to soley believe that mma is the way to go for self defense and other arts are no good just because of what they see in the controlled environment of the octagon.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
I understand what your saying, but one thing  I've noticed about martialtalk is there are alot of people on this site that attack MMA's usefullness in the streets....its mentioned in almost all MMA debates i read.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2007)

Odin said:


> I understand what your saying, but one thing I've noticed about martialtalk is there are alot of people on this site that attack MMA's usefullness in the streets....its mentioned in almost all MMA debates i read.


 
I've noticed this too, it's as if people really want MMA to be seen as alright for a competition but it's not for 'real' whereas whatever style/art they study is. It's a shame.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 8, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I've noticed this too, it's as if people really want MMA to be seen as alright for a competition but it's not for 'real' whereas whatever style/art they study is. It's a shame.


 
If MMA is seen as purely for competition, then it means they don't have to care about anything to to with it. Thus its pressure testing can be safely ignored.
Its basically people being a little too wrapped up in their own style to pay attention to anything else.


----------



## zDom (Feb 8, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Once again, this has little to do with possibilty so much as reliabilty.
> A person might be able to kill a mountain lion by putting out its eye with their thumbs.
> But if you had to plan how to kill one, would you plan on doing with a sniper rifle or with your thumbs?
> Thats what we're doing when we train, we're making a plan.
> Sorry if I seem rambling.



Ahh: but there, indeed, is the rub:

Self defense isn't something you PLAN for like a cage match; it is something that just happens  like an animal attack.

If you are PLANNING to go out and kill a great white shark or mountain lion, sure: grab a sniper rifle or a harpoon.

But then to take THAT logic and then say, "Why bother training eye strikes? A sniper rifle or harpoon is proven to be MUCH more effective ..." doesn't make sense.

If you are planning to compete in a UFC match, I can see the benefit of coming up with a specific plan for dealing with a specific opponent. That makes _perfect_ sense.

But then again, to address the topic of "well rounded," if you are tailoring your responses based on what you see in the ring, you could very well be unprepared for some of the things that happen OUTside the ring.

And don't take this wrong: I'm not saying training MMA is not effective for self defense.

But one thing that has been proved over and over again is, "training is highly specific."

Experience has shown me (from newbies showing up at the dojang) that completely untrained people are very often unpredictable* it stands to reason, therefore, that having a wider range of possible responses is desirable if training for self defense is your primary goal.

And something that is reliable IN the ring  pulling guard, muay thai clinch, rear naked choke  could put you in a position to be seriously HURT outside the ring where the possibility of additional attackers is real and even in some places likely.

Sorry about the tangent; it always seems to happen in these discussions, eh?


----------



## matt.m (Feb 8, 2007)

People train to defend themselves or to compete or both.  Look in all honesty if you practice single leg takedowns enough you will be good at them.  If you practice front snap kicks enough you will be good at them.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2007)

As I've said before, we train MMA in the MMA class,self defence in the self defence class and TMA in the TMA class! Perhaps the most important class is actually the cardio class! Hard to do any of the above if you are breathing out of your backside after a few seconds! The best kick/punch/takedown in the world is no good if you can't move having no fitness! You certainly couldn't run away which is one of my favourite moves.


----------



## Rook (Feb 8, 2007)

zDom said:


> Ahh: but there, indeed, is the rub:
> 
> Self defense isn't something you PLAN for like a cage match; it is something that just happens  like an animal attack.
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand your point here.  



> If you are planning to compete in a UFC match, I can see the benefit of coming up with a specific plan for dealing with a specific opponent. That makes _perfect_ sense.


 
Agreed.  



> But then again, to address the topic of "well rounded," if you are tailoring your responses based on what you see in the ring, you could very well be unprepared for some of the things that happen OUTside the ring.


 
Before we go too far on this strain, remember that what you see in the UFC and PRIDE are the cream of crop in terms of pro fighters - at the lower rungs you will see more "street rush" style attacks and unskilled fighters.  In sparring, you will deal with that, especially when dealing with new people.  



> And don't take this wrong: I'm not saying training MMA is not effective for self defense.
> 
> But one thing that has been proved over and over again is, "training is highly specific."
> 
> Experience has shown me (from newbies showing up at the dojang) that completely untrained people are very often unpredictable* it stands to reason, therefore, that having a wider range of possible responses is desirable if training for self defense is your primary goal.


 
I think you should train against the less trained, and train with very open rulesets that allow people to use similar attacks at least within the realm of unarmed tactics.  This will allow you to figure out how you will work against whatever someone will throw at you.  

What I see alot of groups doing is deciding what a "street situation" looks like, then developing a "defense" against a parody of that scripted attack done by a compliant opponent who does not have the attributes of the attacker it is supposed to prepare you for.  RBSD is guilty of this even more than TMA.  



> And something that is reliable IN the ring  pulling guard, muay thai clinch, rear naked choke  could put you in a position to be seriously HURT outside the ring where the possibility of additional attackers is real and even in some places likely.


 
Well, anyone can be hurt from any position.  How do you propose to figure out which ones are more practical or less likely to get you hurt?  



> Sorry about the tangent; it always seems to happen in these discussions, eh?


 
Yeah.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2007)

Well, before we start to get too far off the path, here is what the original question was.



> Would a single art be successful in the UFC say wu-shu or something of the sort?


----------



## thetruth (Feb 9, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> You really have no interest in actually listening here do you? You're too hung up on what you THINK im saying to actually read it properly.
> Observer the simple piece of logic.
> If you are attempting to create a plan, do you base that plan on a tactic you know is reliable, or a tactic you have never tested?
> You obviously enough, use what is reliable as the foundation.
> ...



No worries mate, I wouldn't like a stranger suggesting things about my mum either.

Anyway back to the discussion at hand.  I know you didn't use the word tournament in your post but unless you go out and get into fights a lot then that is the only place for a mma to test their stuff hence why I mentioned it. I also don't know of any mma schools that are not sport based. By that I mean that they concentrate only on techniques that are within the rules of their sport.  Also I never said I would rely on those specific techniques but if I used this forum for a whole list of possible ways to hurt someone it would make for a long and boring post.  I totally agree on not relying on just a few techniques.  Anyway, that'll be all for now

Cheers
Sam:asian:

What the hell are you doing posting in here whe you should be working hard


----------



## thetruth (Feb 9, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, before we start to get too far off the path, here is what the original question was.



Yes but it's still an interesting debate in some sort of round about way its answering the question or at least raising more.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## MJS (Feb 9, 2007)

thetruth said:


> Yes but it's still an interesting debate in some sort of round about way its answering the question or at least raising more.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
However, we have already had a number of threads on the MMA vs. TMA debate.  I've yet to see anything 'new' come of those, and many of them have been locked, hence the reason I am trying to nudge this one back on topic. 

Mike


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2007)

To be honest I think the question is an oxymoron. People compete in the UFC using Mixed Martial Arts so why would anyone compete using a single art? Our promotions say "Mixed martial Arts Competition" so that MMA fighters only apply. You may as well ask would a Judoka win in a karate comp.Why would he/she enter in the first place?
If you are saying would a martial artist using a single art win against a mixed martial artist, leaving out the UFC part, you would probably have a different argument.


----------



## zDom (Feb 9, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> To be honest I think the question is an oxymoron. People compete in the UFC using Mixed Martial Arts so why would anyone compete using a single art? Our promotions say "Mixed martial Arts Competition" so that MMA fighters only apply. You may as well ask would a Judoka win in a karate comp.Why would he/she enter in the first place?
> If you are saying would a martial artist using a single art win against a mixed martial artist, leaving out the UFC part, you would probably have a different argument.



I agree.

Even if someone STARTED as a purist, once they decide to to compete in a UFC/Pride Fight/MMA competition, they are going to cross train to be ready for the specific situation unless they are 

a) simply trying to "prove" their art is ready to go, as is

b) stubborn to the point of risking injury

c) a moron!


But just to clarify, this "single art" question doesn't apply to a system that operates in a variety of ranges such as JKD, hapkido, etc.?

But then again, even if a hapkido-in decided to have a try at a UFC match, he or she would STILL have to re-tailor their training to address the specific situation that a UFC match IS, or, well, see a, b, and c above


----------



## thetruth (Feb 9, 2007)

zDom said:


> But just to clarify, this "single art" question doesn't apply to a system that operates in a variety of ranges such as JKD, hapkido, etc.?



Hapkido is definitely a single art and JKD is borderline as when learning one is usually at one school hence they are experiencing the jkd of that instructor only which is simply one art. I know they run on the whole take what is useful stance yada yada but that is a very individual thing.  If a mma guy actually learns separate arts at his or her gym (thai boxing, bjj, wrestling etc) or travels to separate gyms to learn then this is where the multi art training of mma comes in.   

One thing I will say is that alot of single arts regardless of how well rounded they are they usually don't cover wrestling takedowns which is what I would say are used in the UFC 95% of the time to put ones opponent on the mat.  I am not saying other arts dont have techniques to take someone down with but they are techniques rarely seen in mma.  

I simply believe that this is due to the nature of the competition  in that each fighter is trained and knows what the other persons aims are so they are trained to defend it where as in the street people who attack do not know what to expect from you so other techniques are easier to pull off.  Probably safer too as I wouldn't want to attempt some of the takedowns I have seen in the UFC on a concrete floor.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------

