So what's a better "test" for martial arts other than MMA?

[SenseiHitman]

All I am saying is that if you are young and healthy and want to be as prepared as possible do it. I would not recommend MMA fighting for anyone not young and healthy. I dont do it anymore. Now, I would recommend that anyone who takes his training seriously get in the best shape you can and do something to help you overcome the crippling effect of fear that one faces in a self defense situation.

 

[Hanzou]

Firstly who's spending hundreds? Second why do you think parents put their kids into Martial arts? So they can become amazing fighters?

Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.

 

[drop bear]

 

[Hanzou]

Dominate always the styles made for / more focused on competition. That's clear.

If you stop the fights on the ground when they become 'boring', stand up styles are favoured. Just one example because I don't have many off the top of my head, in fact.

Which some leagues do. Grappling styles still do just fine.

Again, which rules specifically are hindering more traditional styles from doing well?

 

[Kickboxer101]

The reason I feel it is a good idea is based on my own experience. It gave me a way to work on controlling my fear of fighting and it gave me a workout ethic that has survived with me to this day. I am 48 years old and I am proud to say I am in better shape then most men in their 20s. Yes, we all know how much it hurts to get poked in the eyes or kicked in the groin, those are a couple of the favorite targets that many so called self defense gurus claim would lead them to victory in the street over an MMA fighter. As if they = MMA fighters dont know this super secret technique. What if they do it to you first? If you are not fit to fight that poke to the eye or kick to the groin better land just right or its over. Another guru getting body slammed on the ground.

Well it worked for you great but it's not for everyone which is a lot of people don't seem to understand

 

[SenseiHitman]

It's not the rules it's the way they train. No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA. It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.

 

[SenseiHitman]

Which some leagues do. Grappling styles still do just fine.

Again, which rules specifically are hindering more traditional styles from doing well?

It's not the rules it's the way they train. No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA. It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.

 

[Kickboxer101]

You're comparing competitive athletes who train like monsters to people often well past their prime and who often have a full-time job in addition to teaching. They're not training for MMA competition, so why even talk about their ability to fight in MMA?

Absolutely and most of those guys run their own school as well and don't have a load of trainers and strength and conditioning coaches and nutritionists or physiotherapists and don't take supplements and well let's be honest a lot of mma fighters are taking PEDs as well, I mean since the new drug testing has come in in the ufc so many guys have gotten caught and even more have coincidentally lost a lot of muscle and don't look as great shape

 

[Hanzou]

May be you should just say "grappler".

Have you ever met any wrestler, Judo guy, BJJ guy who trains for "health"? I have not.

Again, "health" is a secondary benefit to training. I know plenty of people who are doing Bjj to stay in shape, but that is secondary to their desire to defend themselves.

May be the grappling world is different from the striking world. In the striking world you can punch/kick into the thin air, or kick/punch on a heavy bag to get that "health" benefit. In the grappling world you just can't wrestle against a "non-existent opponent".

The grappling game is "sport" by definition.

Rolling is physically taxing on the body. I've done plenty of boxing and karate in my time, and honestly rolling is probably the most draining type of sparring around. Very rarely have I come out of Bjj rolling not drenched in sweat.

 

[Kickboxer101]

It's not the rules it's the way they train. No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA. It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.

Um no most traditional martial artists won't do mma for a very simple reason..,they're not mma fighters they're not training to do mma if they wanted to do mma they'd go to an mma school

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And that route you mean martial arts.

Why do you think there is no need for a better test?

I was pretty sure a japanese game show would at least have come up with something.

By "that route" I mean MMA. There are a lot of reasons people study martial arts, and not all are related to MMA. And there are many of us for whom MMA could be a useful test, but it's not where our interest lies, so we use other means.

Since a perfect test of ability to defend oneself is pretty much impossible (assuming we include avoidance as part of the self-defense skills), and the same can be said of pure fighting technique (assuming we're trying to keep the fighters reasonably safe), there's no sense trying to perfect the test. We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained. MMA is a good test for some people. Other tests work just as well for others. I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other. If we can improve a test, so that it is better than it was, that's good. But comparing disparate tests and trying to define an equivalency is like trying to compare black belts between arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, but the main reason people enter martial arts is to feel less worried about walking down the street, or to stop the school yard bully from messing with them.

Those skills require fighting ability.

That's the reason many people enter, but not all. My first class I entered I don't know if that's what I had in mind. I know it was with the second and third times I started. I also know people who entered specifically to learn to compete - they wanted to win some trophies, etc. And I know people who started an art because it seemed cool/fun/aesthetically pleasing to them. For those two groups, defending themselves in a fight was not their aim. One group often includes people who can already defend themselves, and who want a trophy for fighting. The others often simply have different motives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. They want their children to be able to handle themselves if someone pushes them around. The discipline aspect is secondary, and frankly you can learn that aspect in just about every sport out there. The kids want to be able to do amazing kicks and moves that their favorite super hero does. The idea that most people aren't in the MARTIAL arts for fighting is simply nonsense.

Actually, from the attitudes of many of the parents whose kids I taught when I was at my instructor's school, I'd say most have fighting ability as a secondary aim, and the discipline (and getting the energy out) is the primary for many parents.

 

[drop bear]

By "that route" I mean MMA. There are a lot of reasons people study martial arts, and not all are related to MMA. And there are many of us for whom MMA could be a useful test, but it's not where our interest lies, so we use other means.

Since a perfect test of ability to defend oneself is pretty much impossible (assuming we include avoidance as part of the self-defense skills), and the same can be said of pure fighting technique (assuming we're trying to keep the fighters reasonably safe), there's no sense trying to perfect the test. We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained. MMA is a good test for some people. Other tests work just as well for others. I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other. If we can improve a test, so that it is better than it was, that's good. But comparing disparate tests and trying to define an equivalency is like trying to compare black belts between arts.

Oh. those other tests that are good of other things.

How about you dont be vague. If there are other tests for other things.

What are those tests?

what are those other things?

Why are those tests more suitable?

 

[drop bear]

This contradicts.

We need reasonable tests that do a reasonably good job. "Reasonable" is a relative term, and that fits perfectly, because we need tests that are reasonable for the purpose being trained

this.

. I'm not sure there's much value in trying to rank one as "better" than the other.

Dont you think.

 

[Hanzou]

Um no most traditional martial artists won't do mma for a very simple reason..,they're not mma fighters they're not training to do mma if they wanted to do mma they'd go to an mma school

It goes much deeper than that I'm afraid. People coming from traditional styles have to almost completely abandon their base system in order to prepare themselves for MMA. Meanwhile, people from Bjj, Wresting, Boxing, Muay Thai, or Kyokushin for example simply have to fill their system's gaps, but they can retain their base.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh. those other tests that are good of other things.

How about you dont be vague. If there are other tests for other things.

What are those tests?

what are those other things?

Why are those tests more suitable?

Well, if someone is training for aesthetic reasons, forms tests are a better evaluation.

If we are talking combat effectiveness, there are tests that are reasonable, which are more suitable for folks who don't want to beat people up. I've discussed some of them elsewhere (hard sparring, simulated attacks, etc.). There was a time when I was fit enough to have competed in something like MMA if I wanted to. I could have trained up the skills needed and would have probably done competently well. I wouldn't have been great, but I'd have managed okay if I'd put in enough hours. But I'd have had to go in and do my best to beat up someone who hadn't done anything to deserve it. I've just never been interested in that, so I never went that route. Something like BJJ probably would have suited me well back then if I'd run into it. Now? My joints suck, so there's no way I want to get into submission contests. I enjoy rolling, because I can just tap out the moment there's a good lock and any level of discomfort. That approach doesn't' work for competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This contradicts.




this.


Dont you think.

No. Two tests can be very different, fit very different needs, and both be reasonable. If both are reasonable for their purposes, why would I bother to try to rank them against each other?

 

[Ironbear24]

It's not the rules it's the way they train. No matter what you do to the rules most so called traditionalist gurus will keep themselves and their students away from MMA. It is bad for business to have that much light shined on them.

Again many places don't care about MMA competition because they are not going to these competitions. If someone is going to Tae Kwon Do dojang expecting to be a prominent MMA fighter then more than likely the Sensei there will tell them to go elsewhere.

This doesn't make Tae Kwon Do bad or inferior, it just isn't designed with MMA in mind. The same can be said for boxing, you go to a boxing gym expecting to come out a prominent MMA fighter you are going to be disappointment because Boxing was never designed with MMA in mind. You go to Judo or Jiu Jitsu to become a legendary kickboxer then you are obviously going to be dissapointed because those are not designed to make a you great kick boxer.

These styles have their purposes and if you want MMA, then go do that or take more than on art so you can deal with MMA. If what you say has any truth to it why is my Dojo more successful than the mma gym here in town? They are both close to all of us and are within reasonable traveling distance, so by your logic we should be dropping our dojo and going since it is just all around better.

Obviously there is something keeping us here though and the same goes for the other place, they are not bad or by any means terrible, people that go to both have their different goals and reasons.

 

[Headhunter]

Okay let me ask you this if according to you mma is the ultimate test to see how good your skills are and that's the only way to show it then tell me what's your mma record? Let's see a video of your fights? Or have you never fought an mma fight? If that's the case then you're simply contradicting yourself and if you say oh yeah I spar or I roll well cool but that's not fighting mma is it. Every martial art club spars so if all you do is spar you're no better than anyone else who spars in their gym.

It's actually funny how much of a fanboy you are