MMA, UFC, The Cage, what does it prove?

[Daniel Sullivan]

Lousy title, sorry, couldn't come up with much with the space allowed.

Well, the cage itself is an inanimate object and proves nothing unless it is admitted as evidence in a court of law. Sorry, had to say that.

The topic really is what does being successful in the MMA, UFC, The Cage prove?

The one thing for sure that it proves is that a successful competitor made weight, made the drug screening, met any other requirements for competition, and was trained well enough in competative mixed martial arts to succeed in the environment (i.e. the cage).

Are these indeed the best fighters, or are the best styles "proven" by looking at what styles succeed more often? Is it more the best athletes who do will in the confines of the environement and the rules allowed?

To a degree, these are unrelated. The best athlete vs. the best style is largely irrelevent. There is a definite skillset that is needed to succeed witnin the confines of the rules. Those skills can be culled from a large number of different styles, including (but not limited to) traditional karate, BJJ, Muay Thai, orthodox boxing, and wrestling. So in terms of proving a system, I would say that it proves a specific group of techniques more than any complete system.

At the same time, it does prove the training, preparation, and general skill of the competitors. Earlier, there was mention of the 'on any given Sunday' factor, so to a great degree, it proves who was more ready that day.

Or would only no holds barred, no rules, fight to the deaths be the only way to really show who was the best or what styles are the best?

I think the latter would be a better indicator, although totally barbaric, and would result in a lot of needless deaths.[/quote]

No: the same dynamic applies here too: the guy who was the most prepared and the most ready will still likely win over the guy who is not, as every art contains moves not legal for competition and nobody goes into the cage with just one style under their belt. They may use one style predominantly, but the knowledge of other styles enables them to use specific things from those styles to enhance the core style.

It is less a factor of what style than it is of effective use of the techniques and skills that you have.

Perhaps what works on the streets and/or battlefields as indicated in police reports and after action battle reports would be a better indicator? Of course weapons attacks, especially those using guns would win hands down if that was used. What do you think? All opinons appreciated.

What works on the streets depends to a great degree on which streets you are on. If you are on the streets of Beverly Hills, you will face a very different opponent than one on the streets of South East DC. Also, you have regional preferrences. In some places, guys just like to shoot guns. In others, they like to knife you.

Police records will not be helpful because they do not concern themselves with style analysis. Police reports will give you a good picture of what the officer did to arrest a suspect and what measures were taken by the suspect to avoid arrest and what part, if any, that illegal drugs in the suspect's system may have played. Since most people do not receive style specific formal training, police records will not be helpful regarding any sort of style versus style question.

Lastly, those using guns do not always win hands down, though if one opponent has a gun, it gives a substantial advantage over the one who does not.

Daniel

 

[MJS]

Actually the UFC originally set out to prove the superiority of BJJ.......at it's conception. It had a purpose. It evolved, however.


I think there are a lot of folks who forget the early UFC's and forget the intent and purpose, and what it did prove to some degree.

Couldn't agree more with this post. The matches were set by the Gracies to do just what you said...to showcase BJJ...an art that until 1993, wasn't really as big of a household name as it is today.

And yes, it did evolve. We went from a very limited rule set to a laundry list of no-no's, epic matches that went on for 30min, to timed rounds. It also went on to show that once others got that much needed grappling background, that it wasn't as easy road for a pure grappler any more.

 

[Tez3]

Couldn't agree more with this post. The matches were set by the Gracies to do just what you said...to showcase BJJ...an art that until 1993, wasn't really as big of a household name as it is today.

And yes, it did evolve. We went from a very limited rule set to a laundry list of no-no's, epic matches that went on for 30min, to timed rounds. It also went on to show that once others got that much needed grappling background, that it wasn't as easy road for a pure grappler any more.

A laundry list of rules? We have no governing body here so set our own, certainly not a laundry list :boing1:

 

[MJS]

A laundry list of rules? We have no governing body here so set our own, certainly not a laundry list :boing1:

Yes, a laundry list. IIRC, the original rules, were no biting and no eye gouging. We saw early fights were you could kick a downed opponent. Now, that is a no-no. Here is the list:
http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

Lets see...Royce held onto Kimos hair in UFC4, I believe. Now that is a no-no. UFC 1 had Gerard Gordeau kick, repeatedly, a downed Teila Tuli, in the face. That is now a no-no. Look at rule 17. Look at how many times we've seen Royce do just that, while he had someone in his guard.

These rules of course will vary from group to group. Pride only has 10.

 

[Tez3]

My mother taught me never to hit a man when he's down, kick him, she said, it's easier.

 

[sgtmac_46]

My mother taught me never to hit a man when he's down, kick him, she said, it's easier.

And generally much safer.

 

[Joab]

Yes, a laundry list. IIRC, the original rules, were no biting and no eye gouging. We saw early fights were you could kick a downed opponent. Now, that is a no-no. Here is the list:
http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.Rules




Lets see...Royce held onto Kimos hair in UFC4, I believe. Now that is a no-no. UFC 1 had Gerard Gordeau kick, repeatedly, a downed Teila Tuli, in the face. That is now a no-no. Look at rule 17. Look at how many times we've seen Royce do just that, while he had someone in his guard.

These rules of course will vary from group to group. Pride only has 10.

Eys gouging, hooking, head butts, kicking a man when he is down, all these things and more that are illegal in the UFC that are very much taught and encouraged in American Combato when you absolutely, positively, must stop your attacker now! The eye gouge is especially effective, knew a taxi driver that used that successfully when attacked by three men some years ago...

 

[TheArtofDave]

UFC, The Cage, Free Fight Forum, and any other MMA based league especially Bang Championships (which is an MMA based curriculum for your martial art school, academy, dojo or whatever you refer to it as. Allows you to fight agaisnt other schools to test your technique against theirs.)

So MMA allows you to practice your style, and techinque. Are you as fluid in your style and technique as you believe you are, or is your opponent better in theirs.

It becomes the clash of styles, or the age old conflict who is better. Is training traditional better, or is cross training in your style plus other styles better?

Each answer is different for each person. That's different from the no holds barred, or pit fighting where pretty much you're forced to defend yourself with whatever is around you.

 

[MJS]

Eys gouging, hooking, head butts, kicking a man when he is down, all these things and more that are illegal in the UFC that are very much taught and encouraged in American Combato when you absolutely, positively, must stop your attacker now! The eye gouge is especially effective, knew a taxi driver that used that successfully when attacked by three men some years ago...

Agreed, and I have the same tools to use in my art as well. I was simply stating that in the mindset of the ring, those are the things that can't be done. Would a fighter think to do those things outside of the cage? Some will say yes, some will say no. Some will say it isn't rocket science to poke an eye, and I agree...to a point. Of course, I usually like to say that if you're not working those things on a regular basis, that may not be the first thing that comes to your mind.

 

[Tez3]

Agreed, and I have the same tools to use in my art as well. I was simply stating that in the mindset of the ring, those are the things that can't be done. Would a fighter think to do those things outside of the cage? Some will say yes, some will say no. Some will say it isn't rocket science to poke an eye, and I agree...to a point. Of course, I usually like to say that if you're not working those things on a regular basis, that may not be the first thing that comes to your mind.

Depends on the background of the fighter, we have some who would quite happily rip your arm off and beat you with the soggy end as they say. Most fighters I know are people who I'd say could esily defend thenselves outside the ring and many do. We had one fighter who was stabbed last year, nearly died but hell it took four people to do it. It was his fitness and fighting spirit that got him out of his hospital bed though.
One thing that MMA fighters are used to is punching without pulling it, often you don't need to gouge if you get a good dig in.

 

[Joab]

Agreed, and I have the same tools to use in my art as well. I was simply stating that in the mindset of the ring, those are the things that can't be done. Would a fighter think to do those things outside of the cage? Some will say yes, some will say no. Some will say it isn't rocket science to poke an eye, and I agree...to a point. Of course, I usually like to say that if you're not working those things on a regular basis, that may not be the first thing that comes to your mind.

Of course it's not rocket science, one of the reasons it works, it's simple. There is a place for MMA competitions and there is a place for no holds barred self defense , it depends on the situation.

 

[Joab]

Depends on the background of the fighter, we have some who would quite happily rip your arm off and beat you with the soggy end as they say. Most fighters I know are people who I'd say could esily defend thenselves outside the ring and many do. We had one fighter who was stabbed last year, nearly died but hell it took four people to do it. It was his fitness and fighting spirit that got him out of his hospital bed though.
One thing that MMA fighters are used to is punching without pulling it, often you don't need to gouge if you get a good dig in.

I agree, and Professor Steiner did write that most sports martial arts fighters who are really good do know self defense as well and would do well on the streets. Eye gouging is of course a last resort when you positively, absolutely, must stop your attacker now or have the same kind of thing happen to you. Against multiple opponents who are out to do you in on the streets it's a good idea to get brutal fast.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Depends on the background of the fighter, we have some who would quite happily rip your arm off and beat you with the soggy end as they say. Most fighters I know are people who I'd say could esily defend thenselves outside the ring and many do. We had one fighter who was stabbed last year, nearly died but hell it took four people to do it. It was his fitness and fighting spirit that got him out of his hospital bed though.
One thing that MMA fighters are used to is punching without pulling it, often you don't need to gouge if you get a good dig in.

Bas Rutten being a prime example.

 

[Tez3]

Bas Rutten being a prime example.

I do like him! We use his CDs as warm ups sometimes, his accent is like my mothers so I was probably the only one not confused when he said after the punches, knees etc lunches! it was of course lunges

 

[BLACK LION]

It is simply about will, intent and work or force....

When its all said and done and that natural chemical concoction kicks in , you will do what you train your large muscle groups to do. Some good or skilled fighters end up in helicopter mode , flailing wildly... some skilled fighters just rush or try to tackle... some go complete nuts and destroy everything in sight... its all based on the individual and what they train thier body to do with and without the dopamine dose... there shouldnt be any real difference.... eye pokes and groin taps are what they are, annoying... The point of going for the eyes(which I love dearly btw)is to control the head and deny them a few standard necessities like sight and balance... if you get in those sockets there head goes wherever you take them... it may not always equate to injury but just control... same with a squeeze of the esophagus, it doesnt always have t equate to crushing it...it could be used for control or deescalation... it has worked for me a couple of times.... Elasticity is the biggest enemy when translating competitiyve skills to combat skills and posturing is another... throwing a punch or kick and then retracting on impact robs 75% of the power rather than striking and area and driving through it looking to knock them back 6ft.... I once trained for speed while forsaking myself proper targeting by smooth and methodical shot placement... I am very fast but I understand that a tip tap flurry may be effective on some but not all... I equated power with speed so the faster I got the more power I generate right?...wrong... I understand now that speed equals fear and the reason I had such a need for speed was that I was afraid that the very last thing I did on them wasnt good enough... I understand now that if I target and I project my entire body through it slow and smooth and likewise understand the uncontrollable reflex reaction associated with each... I can take my time...I am at liberty to do as I please becuase they will be busy and I can move on to the next target...

excuse the rant....

 

[chinto]

in simple terms the UFC and other MMA cages do not prove or mean anything.

there are a lot of rules in those matches, and should be for fighter safety... with out them I am sure there would be a lot of people dead.

think about it. MMA got its techniques from Traditional martial arts systems, the older systems were not about sport so they modified some of them for FIGHTER SAFETY! they also imposed rules, after all you can not have events and make money if you can not legally have the fight!.. that is not to mention how badly the public and most any one sane would react to people being killed for entertainment, and money making.

 

[Joab]

in simple terms the UFC and other MMA cages do not prove or mean anything.

there are a lot of rules in those matches, and should be for fighter safety... with out them I am sure there would be a lot of people dead.

think about it. MMA got its techniques from Traditional martial arts systems, the older systems were not about sport so they modified some of them for FIGHTER SAFETY! they also imposed rules, after all you can not have events and make money if you can not legally have the fight!.. that is not to mention how badly the public and most any one sane would react to people being killed for entertainment, and money making.

Of course they need the rules for safety.

 

[sgtmac_46]

in simple terms the UFC and other MMA cages do not prove or mean anything.

there are a lot of rules in those matches, and should be for fighter safety... with out them I am sure there would be a lot of people dead.

think about it. MMA got its techniques from Traditional martial arts systems, the older systems were not about sport so they modified some of them for FIGHTER SAFETY! they also imposed rules, after all you can not have events and make money if you can not legally have the fight!.. that is not to mention how badly the public and most any one sane would react to people being killed for entertainment, and money making.

In the first UFC's there were two rules.....no biting and no eye gouging.

The first UFC's lead to many TMA practioners retorting 'Well...my art is just too deadly to compete in the Octagon'......but the reality in most cases was that their art was just ineffective in anything but an even MORE controlled setting than the Octagon.......the only exception were weapons practioners who's art was too deadly to compete in the Octagon......at least in this day and age.

 

[MJS]

Depends on the background of the fighter, we have some who would quite happily rip your arm off and beat you with the soggy end as they say. Most fighters I know are people who I'd say could esily defend thenselves outside the ring and many do. We had one fighter who was stabbed last year, nearly died but hell it took four people to do it. It was his fitness and fighting spirit that got him out of his hospital bed though.
One thing that MMA fighters are used to is punching without pulling it, often you don't need to gouge if you get a good dig in.

Bas Rutten being a prime example.

I agree, and like anything, there are exceptions to the rule, Bas being one example. I suppose it comes down to what the focus of the training is.

 

[jarrod]

mma doesn't prove much in regards to which style is the best or most effective. what it does prove is the individual fighter's strength, stamina, skill, intellect, focus, chin, & courage. which are all pretty handy things in a "real" fight.

jf