Has MMA surpassed traditional MA in its effectiveness

[Tez3]

suicide's personal observations confirm that most fights go to the ground.

jf

Thank you! I can't decide whether he's talking 'American' or just can't articulate.
My personal experience is that it tends to be only the person being attacked that ends up on the floor if they aren't careful, with the attacker and his mates booting him. Certainly people slip when fighting on drink sodden floors or are pushed and fall over them but really no one wants to take it to the floor if you can help it.
This is what we have to deal with

 

[MJS]

When I think of MMA, I think of someone who trains all 4 ranges of unarmed combat ( let's say; sprawl and brawl, clinch and pound, ground and pound, and submission grappling) and spars those 4 ranges. It could be my ignorance but I just don't see a lot of disadvantages in the training method or techniques. When it comes to the actual competitive sport, I can't find many holes in the testing of this knowledge either.

At my place, we do that, plus we do weapon stuff with Filipino martial arts and my students have to know basic escapes from common self defense situations. That's all I could think of that the above paragraph kind of lacks.

And there is nothing wrong with any of that. As I said, it, IMO, comes down to how these things are applied. Let me give another example. If someone shoots in on me on the street, would I sprawl to defend myself? Sure. However, once thats done, I would get back to my feet and either continue the fight standing or get the hell out of there, if that was possible. I would not, once I did the sprawl, work my way around the guys back, sink my hooks in, and try for a RNC. If I don't have to prolong my ground defense, I'm not going to.

 

[MJS]

I guess maybe it's just about comfort levels. I enjoy grappling and feel comfortable there. I think if I was to get in a street fight I would definately go for a takedown ( I'm not very comfortable with my boxing) and ground and pound. That doesn't mean I would go for side control or north south. More like-get a clinch-ankle pick-kick him while he's down.

If I did a tech. from Kenpo, which resulted in me taking the other guy down, sure, I'd do some G&P as well. But, I'd make sure that I was in a good position to do it. Take down, fire off some strikes, and get out. Personally, I too like the knee and elbow range. Maybe its the FMA in me.

 

[MJS]

most street fights end up on the floor wheather you like it or not , ready or not - no matter what the case is : one on one or three on one so i doubt a mma will freeze up and not know what to do once he know hes going to the concrete.

As blindsage said, this is Gracie mentality. The 90% comment was, from what I hear, a study done regarding LEOs, taking suspects to the ground to cuff, etc. Of course this is what they're going to say, why? Because that is what they specialize in, so yes, chances are, they're intentionally going to take the person there.

And IMO, in a bar, with many people, not much light, do you really want to be rolling around? So while I'm looking for that RNC, I'm getting smashed over the head with a bottle.

 

[MJS]

yeah they do and gracie aint got nothing to do with it so leave em out of it dog ! i ve seen fights were one dude drops the other with a punch to the face and gives him a chance to get up - but you see that aint gonna happen everytime not everyone is that righteous most cats will go in for the kill and comense with the ground and pound.

Here, let me pour you another glass of Gracie Kool-Aid.:drinkbeer

 

[Tez3]

On the subject of Gracie Jujitsu I have Renzo Gracie's book (with John Danaher) called Mastering Jujitsu. The self defence section is full of common sense and none of the braggadacio of many Gracie fans. Renzo actually warns that while jujitsu gives you an advantage in weaponless combat with a single untrained attacker you shouldn't get arrogant or haughty! He even says that walking away if you can is a victory. The most important thing to him he says is control, if someone is trying to take you down he suggests guilliotines, RNC etc all from standing. The only time he mentions having to use BJJ on the floor is when you are attacked by someone much larger and stronger who will take you down then you try to get control and hopefully hang on until help comes.

He points out and I tend to agree with this, that the only attack that will always take you down is the one by the rapist.

I also have Renzo and Royler Gracie's book on BJJ, in there too it says that it should be clear that BJJ practitioners don't always advocate taking a fight to the floor. A considerable amount of their SD applications are done from standing.

 

[mwd0818]

I'll stick to my original comment. MMA techniques are ineffective in a real, self-defense situation if they engage the attacker in a manner which either:

1. Prevents situational awareness
2. Prevents a quick and hasty disengagement

Most often, going to the ground is not advisable if you are potentially in a multiple attacker situation. One-on-one, sure, if that's your speciality it can work. However, I don't like the idea of relying on that. The goal of real self-defense on the street is to Survive and then Terminate immediate future threats to your safety. Often, the easiest way to Terminate is to create distance - distance is impossible when grappling. It's also impossible while boxing, but there is often less of a change from a right cross to a full sprint than there is from being on someone's back with hooks in to a full sprint.

Do you need to train for ground work? Sure, there's a chance you'll get taken down. If you like it, and want to work out there, then go for it. But just like the Gracie's helped prove that the ground was important, they also proved that ignoring any of the fighting ranges was a critical mistake. In MMA competitions, we are even seeing a return to a more well rounded martial artist, with ground and striking skills. On the street, in a pure self-defense situation, ground fighting is not advisable as it engages you too much to a single attacker, prevents space and distance from being established, and isolates your situational awareness. If you keep those things in mind, and can safely go to the ground for a quick arm bar break, then sure . . . but I don't feel you can risk extended grappling.

I also have reviewed some of the Gracie SD rather than the sport jiu-jitsu, and they are with me on this one. And from what I gather, Rickson had some mean boxing skills, too.

 

[Tez3]

I suspect that many Gracie fans don't actually do BJJ so don't know what they are talking about! They are possibly the ones watching MMA and when one fighter is on top of the other they are shouting for the bottom one to stand up! Total lack of knowledge (though it's funny to listen to).
When police here take someone down it isn't usually a single officer, or if it is others are there very quickly.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

most street fights end up on the floor wheather you like it or not

Not in my experience, both first hand and observed. I have seen many fights go to the ground, but certainly not the majority.

ready or not - no matter what the case is : one on one or three on one so i doubt a mma will freeze up and not know what to do once he know hes going to the concrete.

The same could be said of a wrestler, a judoka, an aikidoka, a hapkidoin, or any number of other arts that incorporate grapples and ground fighting.

Once again, the techniques are not from MMA, but from their donor arts. The Gracies ground fighting prowess did not come from MMA, but from Brazillian Jiu Jitsu.

The biggest advantage that a competative MMA athlete has is hard training and regular fighting. Same with boxers and other martial athletes that train and fight with minimal protective gear, but the MMA athlete regularly fights a greater variety of opponents in multiple combat ranges (the biggest advantage MMA athletes have over stand up only or grappling only sports).

Daniel

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

I've been watching as this thread went from a non-question to a very succinct answer on the very first page through to the general wackiness we find here... been a fun ride, hasn't it? I've so far resisted posting here because I thought it was already covered, but let's see if we can sum it all up, shall we? Maybe put this one to bed? Okay, here we go....

Has MMA surpassed TMA? Yes. And no. Let's look at both.

MMA has surpassed TMA in the public mentality to a great degree with the advent of UFC-style competitions gaining mainstream popularity, hence the term being far more widespread (ask an average viewer of such events about MMA, and they'll immediately have a reference point. Ask about TMA, and expect a blank stare until you explain that you mean the disparate individual systems classed under this umbrella term). So that's one to MMA.

But if you ask those same viewers about "martial arts" without the "mixed" part, then they will reference many things being refered to here as TMA. MMA almost isn't classed as a "martial art" in many senses, as the familiar uniforms aren't used, flashy (leaping, spinning etc) style techniques aren't commonly seen, and it doesn't look like the type of things people see in movie choreography. And that is where the majority of the public get their knowledge about martial arts. Essentially, they will class MMA in the same category as boxing, wrestling, or kickboxing. Sport, yes. Martial art, no. After all, can you get a Black Belt in MMA? Or boxing? This one is a draw, as MMA is taken out of the same category as TMA systems.

MMA is limited. Very limited. In fact, it is limited to the degree that it can be a liability in self defence terms. And that comes down to it being a sport system. But first we'll cover what MMA actually is, because that has come up once or twice here as well. As we all know, MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, and has become a catch-all term for the type of training people go through in order to compete in a particular type of competition. And as such, as pointed out earlier, it is a mis-nomer.

A better term may be "Multi Range Unarmed Combat Themed Sport", but the acronym just ain't as catchy. Hmm, MRUCTS... no, doesn't work. It came out of competition between distinct systems (the original UFC), in which a number of people felt that they were lacking in one area or another (most commonly ground-based grappling, as it was set up to be very grappler friendly, and unsurprisingly, grapplers tended to have a great deal of success. More power to them, I say!), and sought ways to "tack on" these aspects to their existing training... instead of looking to the answers in what they already had. Sparing you my very definate views on this, I don't believe this was the best or healthiest approach...

So Strikers began grappling, and Grapplers developed their striking abilities. In the end, there were no real systems or styles to differentiate the competitors, just different approaches to similar skill-sets, based on the strengths and weaknesses, as well as personal preferences of the trainee and trainer (coach or gym). This non-art became the common term MMA, but as you can see, it is really not an "art" in the same way that, say, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu is. Oh, and I use the same criteria on Kendo and other sport-based systems as well, by the way, but those that have what we are calling a TMA approach keep the art side at least in part, so I consider them a hybrid. For instance, when doing the kata for Kendo, that is the art side. The tournaments are sport.

But there was a reason each of these different gyms/coaches/competitors all ended up doing basically the same thing. It is what worked/works in the environment it is designed for. And that is a competitive ring-based match fight environment. It is not a self defence environment. It is not a battlefield environment. It is not a security environment. It is not a law-enforcement environment. It is not bar environment. It is not a club environment. It is not, in fact, any type of environment other than a competitive ring-based match fight environment. And that is what it is best suited for, because that has been it's forge. But that does raise the question, what exactly is that environment, and how is it different to all the others? Well, without going into every possible environment around, let's explore this one.

A match fight is very simple to understand. It is clear, defined, monitored, and (to a real degree) predictable. By that I mean that a competitor will have a fair degree of understanding of what they might expect to encounter in the ring, what attacks they might face, what weapons they might need to defend against (swords in Kendo, fists and feet in Tae Kwon Do, throws and chokes in Judo, chokes and armbars in BJJ, fists, feet, throws, arm-bars, chokes in MMA as examples), and the rough expected timelines and conditions (3 x 5 minute rounds, what the ground surface will be, when the ref will stop it etc). The other very important thing to realise is that a competition style system will focus on attacking, as that is how you gain points and win. We'll get back to this.

A self defence environment, on the other hand, has none of the above clarity. It could happen at any time, in any location, you could be facing any number, any weapons, any attacks, and no-one is going to step in and stop it (no ref). There is no preditable condition (are you on grass, or concrete? Is it just shouting, or are there going to be punches? Is it over in a few seconds [the most common are, by the way], or are you going to have to deal with an ongoing encounter?). These are just a few ways in which MMA and self defence are very different.

To highlight that, let's look at a timeline of each next to each other. In an MMA bout, you will have any amount of time to have your general preparation. This is the time you spend working on general skill-development in your gym. Then you learn about your fight. You will then typically have 4-6 or 8 weeks specific preparation. As you will often be made aware of who you're opponent is, and you can prepare for them specifically. You will be able to study their movements, work out counters to their favourite moves, and kick up your training to be at your best for the event. The fight itself is then split into various sections. First is the pre-fight, which could last a few minutes to an hour or so. Depending on your level, it could include an interview, ring entrance, an explanation of the rules (again), your opponents ring entrance, and more. Then you get the fight itself, which may be a number of short rounds during which you get an adrenaline dump during the rounds, and an endorphin rush between. Then repeat. This may be 15 - 20 minutes. The post-fight could be again an hour or more, and is very well managed, including physios to manage injuries, trainers to tend to you, even a massage if you're lucky....

A self defence situation is a bit different. The general preparation has the same timeline (any varied amount of time), however the focus needs to cover a larger skill set than an MMA fighter would require. An MMA fighter, for instance, doesn't need to knwo how to disarm a shotgun wielding opponent, or know non-damaging security holds, but when training for real situations, these and many more skills need to be addressed. There is not really much time for specific preparation, it may be a few seconds, or a minute or so as someone yells and pushes you. Or spits in your face. Or asks you the time... As stated, the fight itself is most commonly between 3 and 10 seconds, it can last longer, but not often. And incredibly rarely the 15-20 minutes of a match fight. The post fight can be very bad. There is often no-one to help you manage injuries or any other factors, and the effects can last for years (particularly emotional and psychological factors).

So now we've gotten a better idea of the two situations, we can look at which is better suited to which. Other than the reasons mentned above, I would like to re-visit the concept of a match fighter working towards an attacking mentality. This can be very dangerous for a self defence situation on a number of levels. You can escalate a situation beyond where you could safely get away, you could stay and aggressively continue without real need, and possibly the most important, you open yourself up to legal repercussions and assault charges. If you doubt what I'm saying, check out Bas Rutens "self defence" DVDs. If you do what he suggests, you go to jail. He is very good at what he does, but he is a complete thug who thrives on the violence.

So by it's training methods, MMA training can get you prepared for a physical encounter by getting you used to physical effects of being hit and hitting, as well as handling the adrenaline dumps and endorphin hits, and can give you skills at going against a resisting opponent (oh, and that is so totally out of whack with the reality of a fight as well, by the way. A competition involves two people with the same goal of out-competing each other, a fight involves one person wanting to hurt another and one doing what they have to to not get hurt. Resistance is very different in each situation). But by it's training methodologies it is very limited, and leaves you with very few real options in a large number of situations. You don't have the option of escape trained and drilled, you don't have the option of "gentle" responce tactics (as in security holds and restraint and removal), you don't have talk-down options, you don't have multiple-person drills and training (as you won't find this in the ring), and you don't have weapon use, weapon defence, or weapon retention options as neither you nor your opponent will be carrying them. So it is good, but limited, and in that it cannot surpass anything but itself as it improves through it's own crucible.

It can certainly help, but be aware of the limitations.

There were many other things in this thread that I would like to address, but this has gotten a little long-winded as it is, and I am hoping that this will put the whole thing to bed. But I will make time for one last thing....

Suicide. Seriously, man, what is the deal? Are you just trying to get people riled up? I don't think I've seen a single thread you've started that was started with a clear premise, nor one that you have constructively contributed to. I really have to question the maturity of someone who choses the name "Suicide" to be known by, and posts in such a manner. I originally belived that you were just a kid, but looking at your profile would seem to defy that idea. Really, man, grow up. You say you learnt a lot from this thread, honestly, you haven't shown it. Let's see if we can improve in future, shall we?

I think that should about do it. I'll end with my thanks and congratulations to those who manage to get all the way through this post. You have the patience of one truly interested in having an open mind, and are exactly who should populate this forum.

 

[MJS]

On the subject of Gracie Jujitsu I have Renzo Gracie's book (with John Danaher) called Mastering Jujitsu. The self defence section is full of common sense and none of the braggadacio of many Gracie fans. Renzo actually warns that while jujitsu gives you an advantage in weaponless combat with a single untrained attacker you shouldn't get arrogant or haughty! He even says that walking away if you can is a victory. The most important thing to him he says is control, if someone is trying to take you down he suggests guilliotines, RNC etc all from standing. The only time he mentions having to use BJJ on the floor is when you are attacked by someone much larger and stronger who will take you down then you try to get control and hopefully hang on until help comes.

He points out and I tend to agree with this, that the only attack that will always take you down is the one by the rapist.

I also have Renzo and Royler Gracie's book on BJJ, in there too it says that it should be clear that BJJ practitioners don't always advocate taking a fight to the floor. A considerable amount of their SD applications are done from standing.

Thank you very much for pointing this out! :ultracool I too, in the past, have attempted to point out the standing aspects of 'grappling' due to the fact that many people, seem to think that when they hear BJJ, they assume that it means the ground. While there is ground work, there are many things, even if modifications need to be made, that can be done while standing. You mentioned a few things in your post.

 

[MJS]

Hi,

I've been watching as this thread went from a non-question to a very succinct answer on the very first page through to the general wackiness we find here... been a fun ride, hasn't it? I've so far resisted posting here because I thought it was already covered, but let's see if we can sum it all up, shall we? Maybe put this one to bed? Okay, here we go....

Has MMA surpassed TMA? Yes. And no. Let's look at both.

MMA has surpassed TMA in the public mentality to a great degree with the advent of UFC-style competitions gaining mainstream popularity, hence the term being far more widespread (ask an average viewer of such events about MMA, and they'll immediately have a reference point. Ask about TMA, and expect a blank stare until you explain that you mean the disparate individual systems classed under this umbrella term). So that's one to MMA.

But if you ask those same viewers about "martial arts" without the "mixed" part, then they will reference many things being refered to here as TMA. MMA almost isn't classed as a "martial art" in many senses, as the familiar uniforms aren't used, flashy (leaping, spinning etc) style techniques aren't commonly seen, and it doesn't look like the type of things people see in movie choreography. And that is where the majority of the public get their knowledge about martial arts. Essentially, they will class MMA in the same category as boxing, wrestling, or kickboxing. Sport, yes. Martial art, no. After all, can you get a Black Belt in MMA? Or boxing? This one is a draw, as MMA is taken out of the same category as TMA systems.

MMA is limited. Very limited. In fact, it is limited to the degree that it can be a liability in self defence terms. And that comes down to it being a sport system. But first we'll cover what MMA actually is, because that has come up once or twice here as well. As we all know, MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, and has become a catch-all term for the type of training people go through in order to compete in a particular type of competition. And as such, as pointed out earlier, it is a mis-nomer.

A better term may be "Multi Range Unarmed Combat Themed Sport", but the acronym just ain't as catchy. Hmm, MRUCTS... no, doesn't work. It came out of competition between distinct systems (the original UFC), in which a number of people felt that they were lacking in one area or another (most commonly ground-based grappling, as it was set up to be very grappler friendly, and unsurprisingly, grapplers tended to have a great deal of success. More power to them, I say!), and sought ways to "tack on" these aspects to their existing training... instead of looking to the answers in what they already had. Sparing you my very definate views on this, I don't believe this was the best or healthiest approach...

So Strikers began grappling, and Grapplers developed their striking abilities. In the end, there were no real systems or styles to differentiate the competitors, just different approaches to similar skill-sets, based on the strengths and weaknesses, as well as personal preferences of the trainee and trainer (coach or gym). This non-art became the common term MMA, but as you can see, it is really not an "art" in the same way that, say, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu is. Oh, and I use the same criteria on Kendo and other sport-based systems as well, by the way, but those that have what we are calling a TMA approach keep the art side at least in part, so I consider them a hybrid. For instance, when doing the kata for Kendo, that is the art side. The tournaments are sport.

But there was a reason each of these different gyms/coaches/competitors all ended up doing basically the same thing. It is what worked/works in the environment it is designed for. And that is a competitive ring-based match fight environment. It is not a self defence environment. It is not a battlefield environment. It is not a security environment. It is not a law-enforcement environment. It is not bar environment. It is not a club environment. It is not, in fact, any type of environment other than a competitive ring-based match fight environment. And that is what it is best suited for, because that has been it's forge. But that does raise the question, what exactly is that environment, and how is it different to all the others? Well, without going into every possible environment around, let's explore this one.

A match fight is very simple to understand. It is clear, defined, monitored, and (to a real degree) predictable. By that I mean that a competitor will have a fair degree of understanding of what they might expect to encounter in the ring, what attacks they might face, what weapons they might need to defend against (swords in Kendo, fists and feet in Tae Kwon Do, throws and chokes in Judo, chokes and armbars in BJJ, fists, feet, throws, arm-bars, chokes in MMA as examples), and the rough expected timelines and conditions (3 x 5 minute rounds, what the ground surface will be, when the ref will stop it etc). The other very important thing to realise is that a competition style system will focus on attacking, as that is how you gain points and win. We'll get back to this.

A self defence environment, on the other hand, has none of the above clarity. It could happen at any time, in any location, you could be facing any number, any weapons, any attacks, and no-one is going to step in and stop it (no ref). There is no preditable condition (are you on grass, or concrete? Is it just shouting, or are there going to be punches? Is it over in a few seconds [the most common are, by the way], or are you going to have to deal with an ongoing encounter?). These are just a few ways in which MMA and self defence are very different.

To highlight that, let's look at a timeline of each next to each other. In an MMA bout, you will have any amount of time to have your general preparation. This is the time you spend working on general skill-development in your gym. Then you learn about your fight. You will then typically have 4-6 or 8 weeks specific preparation. As you will often be made aware of who you're opponent is, and you can prepare for them specifically. You will be able to study their movements, work out counters to their favourite moves, and kick up your training to be at your best for the event. The fight itself is then split into various sections. First is the pre-fight, which could last a few minutes to an hour or so. Depending on your level, it could include an interview, ring entrance, an explanation of the rules (again), your opponents ring entrance, and more. Then you get the fight itself, which may be a number of short rounds during which you get an adrenaline dump during the rounds, and an endorphin rush between. Then repeat. This may be 15 - 20 minutes. The post-fight could be again an hour or more, and is very well managed, including physios to manage injuries, trainers to tend to you, even a massage if you're lucky....

A self defence situation is a bit different. The general preparation has the same timeline (any varied amount of time), however the focus needs to cover a larger skill set than an MMA fighter would require. An MMA fighter, for instance, doesn't need to knwo how to disarm a shotgun wielding opponent, or know non-damaging security holds, but when training for real situations, these and many more skills need to be addressed. There is not really much time for specific preparation, it may be a few seconds, or a minute or so as someone yells and pushes you. Or spits in your face. Or asks you the time... As stated, the fight itself is most commonly between 3 and 10 seconds, it can last longer, but not often. And incredibly rarely the 15-20 minutes of a match fight. The post fight can be very bad. There is often no-one to help you manage injuries or any other factors, and the effects can last for years (particularly emotional and psychological factors).

So now we've gotten a better idea of the two situations, we can look at which is better suited to which. Other than the reasons mentned above, I would like to re-visit the concept of a match fighter working towards an attacking mentality. This can be very dangerous for a self defence situation on a number of levels. You can escalate a situation beyond where you could safely get away, you could stay and aggressively continue without real need, and possibly the most important, you open yourself up to legal repercussions and assault charges. If you doubt what I'm saying, check out Bas Rutens "self defence" DVDs. If you do what he suggests, you go to jail. He is very good at what he does, but he is a complete thug who thrives on the violence.

So by it's training methods, MMA training can get you prepared for a physical encounter by getting you used to physical effects of being hit and hitting, as well as handling the adrenaline dumps and endorphin hits, and can give you skills at going against a resisting opponent (oh, and that is so totally out of whack with the reality of a fight as well, by the way. A competition involves two people with the same goal of out-competing each other, a fight involves one person wanting to hurt another and one doing what they have to to not get hurt. Resistance is very different in each situation). But by it's training methodologies it is very limited, and leaves you with very few real options in a large number of situations. You don't have the option of escape trained and drilled, you don't have the option of "gentle" responce tactics (as in security holds and restraint and removal), you don't have talk-down options, you don't have multiple-person drills and training (as you won't find this in the ring), and you don't have weapon use, weapon defence, or weapon retention options as neither you nor your opponent will be carrying them. So it is good, but limited, and in that it cannot surpass anything but itself as it improves through it's own crucible.

It can certainly help, but be aware of the limitations.

There were many other things in this thread that I would like to address, but this has gotten a little long-winded as it is, and I am hoping that this will put the whole thing to bed. But I will make time for one last thing....

Suicide. Seriously, man, what is the deal? Are you just trying to get people riled up? I don't think I've seen a single thread you've started that was started with a clear premise, nor one that you have constructively contributed to. I really have to question the maturity of someone who choses the name "Suicide" to be known by, and posts in such a manner. I originally belived that you were just a kid, but looking at your profile would seem to defy that idea. Really, man, grow up. You say you learnt a lot from this thread, honestly, you haven't shown it. Let's see if we can improve in future, shall we?

I think that should about do it. I'll end with my thanks and congratulations to those who manage to get all the way through this post. You have the patience of one truly interested in having an open mind, and are exactly who should populate this forum.

WOW!!! I don't know where to begin with this, so I'll just some it up in 2 words....AWESOME POST!!!!!:ultracool:ultracool:ultracool:ultracool:ultracool We dont have stars, so I'll rate this as a 5 ultra cool smilie rating!! Seriously, I really can't find a thing that I disagree with here. One thing that did cath my eye, was the part I underlined. A Kenpo friend of mine who now resides in AZ, would often speak of environment and target availability to dictate what technique he would do. This IMO, is so true. This is why for me, I like to try to be as well rounded in all ranges as I can, due to the fact that the situation we're faced with, many not be one that dictates me going to the ground.

"nuf said from me. This post says it all!

Mike

 

[Twin Fist]

oh for the love of peanut butter, would you people stop feeding the troll?

it is clear that suicide is a mma fanboy, has never been in an actual fight, and bases everything he thinks he knows on you tube clips of ghetto beat downs, most of which are staged.

stop feeding the troll!!

 

[Tez3]

Thank you very much for pointing this out! :ultracool I too, in the past, have attempted to point out the standing aspects of 'grappling' due to the fact that many people, seem to think that when they hear BJJ, they assume that it means the ground. While there is ground work, there are many things, even if modifications need to be made, that can be done while standing. You mentioned a few things in your post.

In Cornish wrestling the grappling is done standing up with the intent to get your opponent on the floor not continue on the floor, Cumbrian and Westmorland wrestling as well as Scottish backhold are also 'stand up' wrestling/grappling styles.


Can't give Chris any rep it says until I've spread it around a bit so I'll say thanks for a great post here.

 

[celtic_crippler]

As blindsage said, this is Gracie mentality. The 90% comment was, from what I hear, a study done regarding LEOs, taking suspects to the ground to cuff, etc. Of course this is what they're going to say, why? Because that is what they specialize in, so yes, chances are, they're intentionally going to take the person there.

And IMO, in a bar, with many people, not much light, do you really want to be rolling around? So while I'm looking for that RNC, I'm getting smashed over the head with a bottle.

The actual study is posted around here somewhere and actually the percent is closer to 60%.

:deadhorse

I suppose; however, depending on one's perception, that all successful fights would end up with at least one person on the ground.

 

[Steve]

Just to respond to the original post, my opinion is that MMA can be extremely effective depending upon how it's trained. I don't train striking at all and have zero interest in doing so. But even in a strictly BJJ course, the emphasis of the training makes a big difference.

I was working in open mat with one of the deputies who trains at our school. As we rolled light, he was bringing a definite SD emphasis to the mat. It was a real eye opener.

Couple of disclaimers. I believe that physical and mental toughness are very valuable for self defense and you get both from training MMA, BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Sambo or any other combat sport oriented martial art. I also don't think it would take long for a well trained MMA fighter to learn VERY effective self defense, as I believe it's mostly a matter of emphasis and mindset. But at the same time, anyone training strictly in a sport oriented gym is kidding themselves if they think they aren't learning some bad habits.

 

[jks9199]

MMA is limited. Very limited. In fact, it is limited to the degree that it can be a liability in self defence terms. And that comes down to it being a sport system. But first we'll cover what MMA actually is, because that has come up once or twice here as well. As we all know, MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, and has become a catch-all term for the type of training people go through in order to compete in a particular type of competition. And as such, as pointed out earlier, it is a mis-nomer.
...
But there was a reason each of these different gyms/coaches/competitors all ended up doing basically the same thing. It is what worked/works in the environment it is designed for. And that is a competitive ring-based match fight environment. It is not a self defence environment. It is not a battlefield environment. It is not a security environment. It is not a law-enforcement environment. It is not bar environment. It is not a club environment. It is not, in fact, any type of environment other than a competitive ring-based match fight environment. And that is what it is best suited for, because that has been it's forge. But that does raise the question, what exactly is that environment, and how is it different to all the others? Well, without going into every possible environment around, let's explore this one.

A match fight is very simple to understand. It is clear, defined, monitored, and (to a real degree) predictable. By that I mean that a competitor will have a fair degree of understanding of what they might expect to encounter in the ring, what attacks they might face, what weapons they might need to defend against (swords in Kendo, fists and feet in Tae Kwon Do, throws and chokes in Judo, chokes and armbars in BJJ, fists, feet, throws, arm-bars, chokes in MMA as examples), and the rough expected timelines and conditions (3 x 5 minute rounds, what the ground surface will be, when the ref will stop it etc). The other very important thing to realise is that a competition style system will focus on attacking, as that is how you gain points and win. We'll get back to this.

A self defence environment, on the other hand, has none of the above clarity. It could happen at any time, in any location, you could be facing any number, any weapons, any attacks, and no-one is going to step in and stop it (no ref). There is no preditable condition (are you on grass, or concrete? Is it just shouting, or are there going to be punches? Is it over in a few seconds [the most common are, by the way], or are you going to have to deal with an ongoing encounter?). These are just a few ways in which MMA and self defence are very different.

Wow! Fantastic post.

About the only thing I can add has already been said much better by someone else; see Rory Miller's 4 truths about violent encounters in my signature.

 

[jks9199]

yeah they do and gracie aint got nothing to do with it so leave em out of it dog ! i ve seen fights were one dude drops the other with a punch to the face and gives him a chance to get up - but you see that aint gonna happen everytime not everyone is that righteous most cats will go in for the kill and comense with the ground and pound.

The research and documentation that most fights end up on the ground is often trotted out, without understanding where it came from. There are several threads here that discuss it at length... but the bottom line is that most people who quote it don't understand that it was a study of police encounters. After all, they're the most documented "street fights" around.

Most police fights do end up on the ground -- because a cop's goal is to put handcuffs on someone, and putting a resisting suspect on the ground is the best way to do this and maintain control of them. I'm not going into this at length; it's ground well covered elsewhere.

Saying "most fights end up on the ground" based on that is kind of like saying "most fights end up on the ground" because that's a pretty good bet in MMA events, too. It's true... with the caveat of the environment and rule sets involved.

 

[mwd0818]

I agree with Celtic Crippler . . . if I do my job, the fight does end with one guy on the ground. There is no need to fight once he is unconscious though.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Hey Chris, great post.

Suicide. Seriously, man, what is the deal? Are you just trying to get people riled up? I don't think I've seen a single thread you've started that was started with a clear premise, nor one that you have constructively contributed to. I really have to question the maturity of someone who choses the name "Suicide" to be known by, and posts in such a manner. I originally belived that you were just a kid, but looking at your profile would seem to defy that idea. Really, man, grow up. You say you learnt a lot from this thread, honestly, you haven't shown it. Let's see if we can improve in future, shall we?

+1

I think that should about do it. I'll end with my thanks and congratulations to those who manage to get all the way through this post. You have the patience of one truly interested in having an open mind, and are exactly who should populate this forum.

Thanks You're welcome.