MMA would never work in a real fight.

[Cyriacus]

I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets.

Not exactly.
Thats similar to the Logic that Kata wouldnt work, due to a Lack of Full Contact during Practicing them, despite perhaps Partaking in Seperate Contact Sparring, which ought be the same thing.
Or that Side Kicks dont work in Kickboxing, without realising how sheerly many Variations of the Side Kick there are, and that any Heel Kick Variation can be quite Ruthless.

MMA is highly Subjective.
Like anything, its the Person Training it.
Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking.
The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it.

MMA, as someone else said, is not a Magical Win Button.
Its a Sport Style, which Mixs Martial Arts to suit its Purpose.

Ultimately, its Whos Learning it.

Now, I can understand your wanting to Defend MMA - And to clarify, I think it would Work in Fighting.
But Defend with the Right Reasoning in mind.
Not just an, "If he doesnt think MMA would work, it must be because hes Scared of it."

Thats my Contribution.

 

[frank raud]

Pro Wrestlers use MA Techniques.
The Comparison can be made, besides the fact that Wrestling is meant to be orchestrated.

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?

 

[JohnEdward]

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?

Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet -Shakespeare

You seem to have missed the point of the Shakespeare quote you're using there, John. It's from Romeo and Juliet, when Juliet has realised that the dashing young lad she met at the party that night (he was actually looking for someone else, dog that he is...) is a member of a family that is the sworn enemy of her own. So she laments that fate has dealt such a cruel blow, and rails against the idea that his name is an obstacle. The quote in question is her whining, frankly, and she realises that it is unrealistic of her to hope for such things. It is not a statement, it is a fanciful wish from her.

MMA and BJJ are definitions referring to specific things, same as Montague was a specific name referring to members of a certain family, and no amount of "a rose by any other name" changes that.

Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there.

Except that in the other thread you ducked Frank's question twice, and then said:

I think there is no need to continue.

So how about you answer the question, either here or there? What, in the clip you posted over there, do you identify as BJJ or MMA? If you answer here, then we can get an idea of what you think of when you refer to MMA (for the record, I don't think you get what it is), and if you answer there, then we can get an idea of what you think BJJ is (for the record, I don't think you get what that is, either), as well as correcting your history.

 

[Cyriacus]

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?

Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here. And again, there is a thread for that discussion.

 

[frank raud]

Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

 

[Chris Parker]

Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).

Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here. And again, there is a thread for that discussion.

Except that you refused to discuss it there, and it is on topic as the topic is MMA and it's applicability to a "real" fight. If you cannot define what it is that makes you think the clip you posted is MMA, how can we take any comment you make about MMA as informed, especially when it goes against what most others would call MMA.

 

[JohnEdward]

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

Based on the above Frank, you see that a real fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight and a real fight are not the same. But what if both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't be a real fight. But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?" Now that I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters, training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.

 

[Cyriacus]

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

I should mention that I am not Referring to the Sport of MMA, but rather to MMA as a Whole.
Of Course MMA didnt "Exist" in the Past, in the Sense that it does now.
But the Point was never if it was or was not something which wasnt Technically Coined until later.
Enough about that, anyway. This isnt the Thread for it.

The Venue Decides Which MA they are Mixing.
And what I meant before, is that Wrestlers dont just Wrestle. It isnt just Wrestling, in the sense of Catch-As-Catch-Can, Collar-And-Elbow, or any other such thing. Its largely Organised Visualistic Performances, which can Incorporate Numerous Martial Arts or Styles.

Though at the same time, the Formal Naming of Combinations is seperable to Forms being Mixed.
I can see how you came to the conclusion you did - Such is merely a Flaw in the way Text may be Interprited.
I said that they were Mixing Martial Arts. Not that it was MMA.
I was being a bit more Literal than it may Perhaps seem. And to elaborate on that, the First Two Lines of this Reply ought do Swell.

No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).

I shall Reiterate that I was Likening Wrestling for Blending Styles, to Mixing Martial Arts, similar to how MMA does.
Not saying that Wrestling = MMA, or Using Multiple Styles = MMA.

This is perhaps more Obvious with Context, however.

Based on the above Frank, you see that a real fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight and a real fight are not the same. But what if both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't be a real fight. But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?" Now that I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters, training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.

Now Swinging Away from what I *Think* is a Misunderstanding caused by Phrasology;

I am Inclined to Agree.

 

[OwlMatt]

This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.

For the purposes of this conversation:

• A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
• A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
• A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
• A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
• A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
• A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
• A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.

Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.

For the purposes of this conversation:

• A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
• A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
• A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
• A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
• A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
• A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
• A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.

Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?

I have to once again restate my quote from page three to go along with what you've stated above;

Self Defense Training MethodologyThere has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).

• Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
• The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
• The opponent is unarmed.
• The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
• Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
• The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
• You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
• If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
• There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.

As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

• Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
• Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
• Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
• You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
• There are no rules.
• There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
• The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
• The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
• The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
• There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
• The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
• To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
• The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.

When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

• Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
• Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
• Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
• Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
• Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
• Is the student required to observe certain rules?
• Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
• Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
• Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
• Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
• Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.
  
  This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;

• Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
• A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
• A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
• Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
• The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
• Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.

Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

 

[Indie12]

This is actually a good topic for discussion but if I am to contribute it is not in the For but rather the Against.

I do not believe MMA is no good for real fighting, there may be some bad habits that come from training with sports motivation and training techniques which can be exploited but all in all I would say MMA fighters are some of the most dangerous fighters you could face in a real world situation where weapons are not involved.

Then the question should also be, 'Is Mixed Martial Arts, Martial Arts?'

And yes, I do agree with this opinion! There's a difference between sport fighting and street/combat fighting! How you train effects how you'll respond!

 

[Indie12]

Underlined part mine. Couldn't agree more with that!

Are we talking from a sport view or self defense/combat view? There is a difference!

 

[Tez3]

MMA is a sport, we don't go around saying that if you can do MMA this is all the self defence you need. It's those, most often outside MMA, who insist on this discussion about whether MMA is good for ' a real fight'. In a real fight whatever that maybe ( as opposed to a 'play fight' perhaps with friendly drunks just trying to bruise you rather than bashing your head in?) we do the same as everyone else...whatever is necessary to get out of that fight in one piece.

 

[Mz1]

Not exactly.
Thats similar to the Logic that Kata wouldnt work, due to a Lack of Full Contact during Practicing them, despite perhaps Partaking in Seperate Contact Sparring, which ought be the same thing.

Hi, I never said kata wouldn't work. Where did you get that from? Kata is like shadowboxing. Kata w/o actual sparring hard can work and is better than nothing. But if that's all you have, then it's probably going to work badly in a fight vs. someone with actual sparring & fight experience. If all he's got is kata too, then you're good to go.

And sparring can range from touch sparring all the way to sparring for full knockouts. What's good about MMA gyms is that there's a lot more sparring and hard sparring sessions for full KO's than at your TMA schools. Especially when preparing for upcoming fights.

Or that Side Kicks dont work in Kickboxing, without realising how sheerly many Variations of the Side Kick there are, and that any Heel Kick Variation can be quite Ruthless.

Whoever said this? Sidekicks certainly do work in Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc.

MMA is highly Subjective.
Like anything, its the Person Training it.

Well of course, but the main difference being, MMA is geared towards fighting for real, with actual fights. Many TMA schools also fight in MMA tournaments, KB, WKA, etc. But in general they don't participate in tourneys that are as brutal as MMA. MMA gyms just produces more fighters.

Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking.
The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it.

No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated.

MMA, as someone else said, is not a Magical Win Button.
Its a Sport Style, which Mixs Martial Arts to suit its Purpose.

Of course not. No one said it was. There are plenty of non-fighters in MMA gyms that don't want to get hit hard in the face during sparring, so they don't stay for the sparring or w/e. Just that you're more likely to become a fighter should you train in an MMA or Boxing gym compared to TMA.

Ultimately, its Whos Learning it.

Now, I can understand your wanting to Defend MMA - And to clarify, I think it would Work in Fighting.
But Defend with the Right Reasoning in mind.
Not just an, "If he doesnt think MMA would work, it must be because hes Scared of it."

You made up a bunch of stuff that I didn't even say, let alone argued about.

 

[Cyriacus]

Hi, I never said kata wouldn't work. Where did you get that from? Kata is like shadowboxing. Kata w/o actual sparring hard can work and is better than nothing. But if that's all you have, then it's probably going to work badly in a fight vs. someone with actual sparring & fight experience. If all he's got is kata too, then you're good to go.

You said, "I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets."
To begin with, I was quite a bit less experienced over a year ago. Other than that, I was addressing that full force sparring isnt the only way to learn. I used Kata as a comparison of reasoning.
"Thats similar to the Logic that Kata" =/= "YOU SAID KATA DOESNT WORK".

And sparring can range from touch sparring all the way to sparring for full knockouts. What's good about MMA gyms is that there's a lot more sparring and hard sparring sessions for full KO's than at your TMA schools. Especially when preparing for upcoming fights.

Im pretty sure any good gym will train You up rigorously for an upcoming fight.

Whoever said this? Sidekicks certainly do work in Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc.

And exactly how often do You see them used in those formats of competition?

Well of course, but the main difference being, MMA is geared towards fighting for real, with actual fights. Many TMA schools also fight in MMA tournaments, KB, WKA, etc. But in general they don't participate in tourneys that are as brutal as MMA. MMA gyms just produces more fighters.

Id liken that more to the fact that people who are serious about fighting tend to migrate toward MMA, Boxing, Kickboxing, or Thai Boxing. Its quite natural, indeed.

No, MMA in early UFC's was a lot about the ground game where BJJ dominated. Most people never saw that back then. This is why it made BJJ so popular. Now that MMA has evolved, the audience have got bored of grappling for 2+ hours. Dana White is giving fighters more incentives to keep it standing. He always states that he wants to see exciting fights w/spectacular finishes. He doesn't come out and say to keep it standing, but the fighters understands that if they want to get fights in the UFC and get paid, this is where the UFC currently is situated.

Aha. How does that relate to MMA not being BJJ + Striking even though some people treat it like it is?

Of course not. No one said it was. There are plenty of non-fighters in MMA gyms that don't want to get hit hard in the face during sparring, so they don't stay for the sparring or w/e. Just that you're more likely to become a fighter should you train in an MMA or Boxing gym compared to TMA.

I agree. Boxing in particular is very simple. It runs off of a small arsenal, and allows You to optimise it to Your preference. And You get good at using that small arsenal. Thats 90% of why I box.

You made up a bunch of stuff that I didn't even say, let alone argued about.

Actually, i sort of trailed off and on about something that could have been answered with a short sentence, because the Me of one year ago jumped to conclusions and put too many cards on the table too early on.
I can stand by the last bit, though. If someone doesnt think MMA works, it doesnt have to be because Theyre afraid of hard sparring. They might just not like the format of competition. Or They might really dislike grappling. So on, so forth. For that matter, that last statement was probably the only one that was actually relevant.

 

[Josh Oakley]

As far as whether MMA works in a real fight... yeah it freaking does.

"But there are no rules in a street fight!!!"
Depends on the situation. In loss prevention, the fights are definitely real and while the assailant doesn't necessarily adhere to any particular rules, the LP agents most certainly do. Same with cops, military police, soldiers.

Then there are of course city, state, and federal laws that should be adhered to.
"Well I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6"
Uh huh. And if you kill a man in a way that is way past self defense, you can be judged by 12 and THEN carried by 6.

"But it is unrealistic! "
More unrealistic than anything else practiced by anyone? Who here trains gun defenses against a loaded pistol? Or knife defenses against someone wielding a re knife with the intent to kill? Who here purposely breaks someone's arm to make sure they understand just what amount of pressure is required?

Or practices their knife skills by cutting up a guy?

It isn't more or less realistic than what most of us train.. and a little more so than a lot of us, because the other guy is frying to knock your block off.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tez3]

It's rarely the 'style' that works in a 'street fight' ( oh how I hate that expression) it's the person.

 

[punisher73]

MMA is a sport, we don't go around saying that if you can do MMA this is all the self defence you need. It's those, most often outside MMA, who insist on this discussion about whether MMA is good for ' a real fight'. In a real fight whatever that maybe ( as opposed to a 'play fight' perhaps with friendly drunks just trying to bruise you rather than bashing your head in?) we do the same as everyone else...whatever is necessary to get out of that fight in one piece.

I agree with you, I always hate this argument. Let's break it down into it's simplest terms.

Martial arts work on the street. If we agree with this statement then we have to also agree that mixed Martial arts as pulled from various traditions would also work on the street.

Martial arts don't work on the street. Then by logic mixing martial arts and attempting to use them on the street wouldn't work either because they are still martial arts.

MMA is a ruleset for a sport; just like boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and other sport grappling. Just because one understands that they are training to compete in a sport with a ruleset doesn't mean that they also don't understand that the "foul tactics" of their sport can't be applied in a violent encounter.

I know (in the US) at least that there are LEO's that adapt MMA training for use in the "real world" for law enforcement. I know that the Marines now use MCMAP which is heavily MMA based to train in. Why? because it gives them an environment to test their skills as close as they can without unnecessary injury.

I have seen the same argument with military combatives vs. traditional martial arts. Where did the combatives come from? From TMA's.

It's is ignorant to look at an aspect of the whole and deny the wholeness of the other.