MMA levels the playing field

[Tony Dismukes]

would hope that some who has a good sense of their limitations would know this before the match started. There are visual clues that determine that. The last time I was wrong about something like that was when I was 10. For me I'm more likely to think someone is stronger that what they are. By default I think my strength is weaker than what it really is and I think that's because what happened in the past. I'm always surprised how strong I am versus always being surprised that I'm weaker than I thought.

Definitely a mental issue for me because I'm like that with other things as well.

But back on point. I would think you have a good eye for experience levels and strength levels.

I have a decent eye for it because I've been there enough times. But it's not just a matter of being able to whether the other guy is stronger. I've beaten lots of guys who are significantly stronger than I am. But there comes a point where the combined product of the other guys technique and physical attributes is just more than I am going to be able to overcome. Without personal experience trying, I wouldn't know where that limit was.

I've also discovered that some people are just way stronger than they look. Compared to other people of similar size and build, they turn out to be much more powerful once you actually feel them.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Ok. Standing, ground, street fights, multiple attackers.

Ok. Before we start we have to understand the concept of percentages, which are a made up set of numbers to demonstrate your chance of winning vs their chance of winning based on your position.

So a 50/50 is a flip of a coin whether you win or they do. 60/40 is an advantage a 90/10 is a massive advantage.

Two people standing in the pocket trading blows is a 50/50. At any point in this dynamic either guy can take a shot that renders them incapable of defending themselves. This is not reliant on how much either guy was dominating that position a second ago. And it makes it very hard to see that blow coming.

If one person is in Mount and raining elbows on a guy on his back. This is called a 90/10. It is almost impossible to get out punched from this position. You can deal the most damage and finish the fight fastest from here.

If we add an extra guy to either of those positions we get a 60/40. So the guy sitting in Mount now has to handle a third party. The guy in the pocket has to handle a sucker punch.

So there is a natural disadvantage.

Here we go in to risk vs reward. In mount the guy has to stand up and be aware of the second guy. But he might have damaged the first guy enough to take away that standing 60/40.

If he was standing he has more mobility to deal with the second guy. But has taken more risk with the first guy and may not have done as much damage and is now facing that 60/40.

In both situations there is a risk that someone will sneak up on them and punch them completely uncontested and win that fight.

So people who just say. Blah blah the ground are not telling you the full story.

Fair enough Mr. Bear - you are entitled to believe whatever you choose

 

[Gyakuto]

Imagine creating a big competition to see which ballgame was the superior sport

All the different players of ballgames come together and try to prove which one is the Ultimate BallGame

Which one is the Ultimate?

Are there rules?

Surely you need rules, otherwise it would be mayhem?

And once you have rules, is it possible to see which ballgame is the best?

Isn’t that the plot of ’Enter the Dragon’?

 

[drop bear]

Isn’t that the plot of ’Enter the Dragon’?

Kung fu soccer.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Imagine creating a big competition to see which ballgame was the superior sport

All the different players of ballgames come together and try to prove which one is the Ultimate BallGame

Which one is the Ultimate?

Are there rules?

Surely you need rules, otherwise it would be mayhem?

And once you have rules, is it possible to see which ballgame is the best?

If it hasn't been said already, this can be done with sports that have similar objectives, much like combat sports (where the object is to win by KO, submission, or decision).

For example, get a ball of neutral size and material, and you can have field hockey vs soccer. Or field hockey vs lacrosse. Or jai alai vs racketball.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

This is a great quote for the forum

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - Mark Twain

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is a great quote for the forum

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - Mark Twain

Lol it would be a quiet forum if we follow this. I vote for MartialTalk t-shirts. I need one saying..dead horse beaters club...its never over

 

[drop bear]

If it hasn't been said already, this can be done with sports that have similar objectives, much like combat sports (where the object is to win by KO, submission, or decision).

For example, get a ball of neutral size and material, and you can have field hockey vs soccer. Or field hockey vs lacrosse. Or jai alai vs racketball.

We do a galec football match with Ireland like that I think.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Imagine creating a big competition to see which ballgame was the superior sport

Superior to what? More exciting to watch? More brutal? More money earned by players? I don't know what that means.

All the different players of ballgames come together and try to prove which one is the Ultimate BallGame

Ultimate in what way?

Which one is the Ultimate?

Ultimate in what way?

Are there rules?

What rules could be fair to all ball games? Ball must be a sphere? That kind of makes things tougher on football players, right? Ball can't be touched by hands? Kind of makes things harder for baseball and football, right?

Surely you need rules, otherwise it would be mayhem?

I can't imagine it being anything other than mayhem.

And once you have rules, is it possible to see which ballgame is the best?

Again, best at what?

What I see in MMA is that certain existing martial arts favor the ruleset of MMA, and for that reason, the style has evolved such that most competitors use various parts from various arts that best favor victory in MMA.

Does that make them 'best'? I would argue that it makes them most suitable for adoption by MMA fighters. I don't know what else it would make them 'best' at.

I get tired of best, especially when people don't describe what their criteria for 'best' is. "This is the best beer." To whom? For what purpose? Most thirst-quenching? Highest alcohol content? Largest amount per bottle? Cheapest? Best looking label? How is any beer the 'best' beer?

And then we come to the question 'who cares'? If I like beer A, but everyone says beer B is better, does that mean I am wrong? Does it mean I should switch? Does that mean other people should care what I prefer?

Nope. I'm still going to drink the beer I prefer. It doesn't matter what other people think about what beer is best.

And the same goes for my martial arts training. I don't know what best means. If I did, I would not care. If everyone in the world thinks the art I study is not useful for MMA, that's fine with me. I don't do MMA, so why should I care?

I'm just going to keep doing what I do, and if it's not popular with the MMA crowd, I see that as a bonus.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Superior to what? More exciting to watch? More brutal? More money earned by players? I don't know what that means.

Ultimate in what way?



Ultimate in what way?



What rules could be fair to all ball games? Ball must be a sphere? That kind of makes things tougher on football players, right? Ball can't be touched by hands? Kind of makes things harder for baseball and football, right?



I can't imagine it being anything other than mayhem.


Again, best at what?

What I see in MMA is that certain existing martial arts favor the ruleset of MMA, and for that reason, the style has evolved such that most competitors use various parts from various arts that best favor victory in MMA.

Does that make them 'best'? I would argue that it makes them most suitable for adoption by MMA fighters. I don't know what else it would make them 'best' at.

I get tired of best, especially when people don't describe what their criteria for 'best' is. "This is the best beer." To whom? For what purpose? Most thirst-quenching? Highest alcohol content? Largest amount per bottle? Cheapest? Best looking label? How is any beer the 'best' beer?

And then we come to the question 'who cares'? If I like beer A, but everyone says beer B is better, does that mean I am wrong? Does it mean I should switch? Does that mean other people should care what I prefer?

Nope. I'm still going to drink the beer I prefer. It doesn't matter what other people think about what beer is best.

And the same goes for my martial arts training. I don't know what best means. If I did, I would not care. If everyone in the world thinks the art I study is not useful for MMA, that's fine with me. I don't do MMA, so why should I care?

I'm just going to keep doing what I do, and if it's not popular with the MMA crowd, I see that as a bonus.

Someone has finally realized the point of the original post

 

[drop bear]

Someone has finally realized the point of the original post

So the whole point of the original post is you don't care about MMA?

You don't have to.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

So the whole point of the original post is you don't care about MMA?

You don't have to.

Who says I don't care about MMA? That is not what I said

 

[drop bear]

Who says I don't care about MMA? That is not what I said

That is the point Bill made. And you said he was the person who finally realised the point you were making.



"And then we come to the question 'who cares'? If I like beer A, but everyone says beer B is better, does that mean I am wrong? Does it mean I should switch? Does that mean other people should care what I prefer?

Nope. I'm still going to drink the beer I prefer. It doesn't matter what other people think about what beer is best.

And the same goes for my martial arts training. I don't know what best means. If I did, I would not care. If everyone in the world thinks the art I study is not useful for MMA, that's fine with me. I don't do MMA, so why should I care?

I'm just going to keep doing what I do, and if it's not popular with the MMA crowd, I see that as a bonus."



He even made the same point in another thread.

Bill Mattocks said:
I didn't watch them.

I don't care. I know what art I study. Call it anything you like. I will still train.

Too many people worried about what everyone else thinks. Do what you do. Enjoy it. That's all there is to it.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

That is the point Bill made. And you said he was the person who finally realised the point you were making.



"And then we come to the question 'who cares'? If I like beer A, but everyone says beer B is better, does that mean I am wrong? Does it mean I should switch? Does that mean other people should care what I prefer?

Nope. I'm still going to drink the beer I prefer. It doesn't matter what other people think about what beer is best.

And the same goes for my martial arts training. I don't know what best means. If I did, I would not care. If everyone in the world thinks the art I study is not useful for MMA, that's fine with me. I don't do MMA, so why should I care?

I'm just going to keep doing what I do, and if it's not popular with the MMA crowd, I see that as a bonus."



He even made the same point in another thread.

Bill Mattocks said:
I didn't watch them.

I don't care. I know what art I study. Call it anything you like. I will still train.

Too many people worried about what everyone else thinks. Do what you do. Enjoy it. That's all there is to it.

You are easily confused Mr. Bear

Bill was talking about how do you define what is the best? What is the ultimate etc, etc.

It is a confusing topic from beginning to end

 

[Yamabushii]

Imagine creating a big competition to see which ballgame was the superior sport

All the different players of ballgames come together and try to prove which one is the Ultimate BallGame

Which one is the Ultimate?

Are there rules?

Surely you need rules, otherwise it would be mayhem?

And once you have rules, is it possible to see which ballgame is the best?

MMA matches aren't style-vs-style because they are mixed martial artists aka MMA. The proving part you're referring to is about individual fighters wanting to prove themselves, not proving specific styles.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

MMA matches aren't style-vs-style because they are mixed martial artists aka MMA. The proving part you're referring to is about individual fighters wanting to prove themselves, not proving specific styles.

This is correct - the playing field has been levelled. What originally began as styles vs styles (UFC) has turned into the sport of MMA. As you quite rightly mention it is now just a standard competition format where men/women are wanting to prove themselves in a fighting contest.

 

[drop bear]

You are easily confused Mr. Bear

Bill was talking about how do you define what is the best? What is the ultimate etc, etc.

It is a confusing topic from beginning to end

Interestingly your above comment about styles eventually distilling in to a common theme. Probably sort of answers this question.

 

[skribs]

You laugh now, but when the zombie horse apocalypse begins, the members of this forum may be all who stand between humanity and the undead herds.

I'm betting members of TheHighRoad will be that group.

 

[skribs]

I think maybe a better example would be something like looking at individual teams within a ball game to see what works best. For example, if you take American Football. You have some teams that focus on the run game, which could be analogous to grappling, and some which focus on the passing game, which could be analogous to striking.

Regarding "striking", some teams focus on "kicks" (deep passes), others on "punches" (quick passes), and some are "counter-strikers" (they run a lot of option routes and take what's open).

Let's move away from a direct analogy, but still compare. Most NFL teams are built around a quarterback. A few are built around a running back. Some teams are built around a pocket passer, or a mobile QB, or a "field manager", some are built around a power back or a speed back. You see teams with different offenses and defenses succeed and fail, and those that succeed get copied in the next season.

You even have some teams that have "outdated" strategies that still work.

I feel this is a better analogy for the UFC. You have different schools and styles that all have relatively similar goals (defeat an opponent in martial combat) that come together to see what works.

 

[drop bear]

Just for the fun of it. MMA training multiple attackers.