UFC proves KF useless

[Rook]

Personally, I don't see any reason to have a video record of this. Are you really advocating creating a video library of all of one's challenge fights, brawls, and whatnot? Especially if they are not part of some big sanctioned event like the UFC, and instead are just the smalltime fights that you get into in your own neighborhood? if someone actually did this, I for one would question their motivations and just what kind of a sick minded person they are. It's just a little twisted to want to collect a bunch of video of yourself beating people up. Not to mention the video evidence you are creating the first time someone decides to press criminal charges against you for assault and battery. The very notion of expecting this expresses some pretty questionable morals and ethics...

I don't expect brawls in the neighborhood to count for a whole lot, and don't see much use in having videos of them. Only people trying to claim significant fighting ability for themselves would have any need of it, and not for entertainment, but rather for being able to prove their case. For instance, most professional fighters have a video record of each of their fights. THe pro fights of most major boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions are available on DVDs. The challenge matches of the Gracies are on tape. If you're going to go around saying that "hey I personally can beat X" there should be some video that corraborates that.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't expect brawls in the neighborhood to count for a whole lot, and don't see much use in having videos of them. Only people trying to claim significant fighting ability for themselves would have any need of it, and not for entertainment, but rather for being able to prove their case. For instance, most professional fighters have a video record of each of their fights. THe pro fights of most major boxing, kickboxing and MMA champions are available on DVDs. The challenge matches of the Gracies are on tape. If you're going to go around saying that "hey I personally can beat X" there should be some video that corraborates that.

But very few people actually fight on an organized circuit of some sort. There are far far far far far far more people who are tough fighters, than who fight on a ciruit. By far, most people do not. This does not take anything away from the fact that they are seriously tough fighters. It just means they don't fight on a ciruit, and there is no video proof of them. But the secret is, they don't care. They don't care about these silly arguments over who is better, so they tend to not get involved. They have no need to prove anything to anyone, and are pretty much content to sit back and let people think whatever they want. But if you ever are foolish enough to tangle with them, you will be in for a big surprise.

This whole argument that happens here over and over is really pretty pointless and silly and ultimately, unprovable one way or the other.

There are MMA fighters who are extremely tough, and would stand up well whether in the ring or on the street. There are also TMA people who are extremely tough, and would stand up very well on the street, even against another trained fighter, even if they may or may not do well in the ring. When push comes to shove, unless you make your livlihood in the ring, it doesn't mean anything. The only place it actually means something is on the street.

 

[Rook]

But very few people actually fight on an organized circuit of some sort. There are far far far far far far more people who are tough fighters, than who fight on a ciruit. By far, most people do not. This does not take anything away from the fact that they are seriously tough fighters. It just means they don't fight on a ciruit, and there is no video proof of them. But the secret is, they don't care. They don't care about these silly arguments over who is better, so they tend to not get involved. They have no need to prove anything to anyone, and are pretty much content to sit back and let people think whatever they want. But if you ever are foolish enough to tangle with them, you will be in for a big surprise.

This whole argument that happens here over and over is really pretty pointless and silly and ultimately, unprovable one way or the other.

If they aren't claiming to be fighters (ie they just don't care) and don't claim to teach other people to be fighters or to defend themselves, then I don't care. What I see a problem with is people who care enough to make a claim and don't care to back it up with any evidence whatsoever, and then are insulted when anyone questions their claim, as though it is self-explanatory and self-proving.

Don't fight, don't claim to be a fighter - ok.
Fight, claim to be a fighter - ok
Don't fight, but claim to personally be a fighter - here we have a slight problem

 

[Flying Crane]

Don't fight, but claim to personally be a fighter - here we have a slight problem

Don't fight in your venue, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk. Yup, they can fight. Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).

They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves. If you have a problem, it is your own.

They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved. They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people. They don't even think about them. They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.

But trust me, they can fight.

 

[matt.m]

Don't fight in your venue, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk. Yup, they can fight. Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).

They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves. If you have a problem, it is your own.

They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved. They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people. They don't even think about them. They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.

But trust me, they can fight.

Very well said Michael.

 

[Rook]

Don't fight in your venue, don't have video proof, but have had plenty of street fights, as well as informal but rough and tough matchups between schools, as used to happen in San Francisco's Chinatown when my sifu was a young punk. Yup, they can fight. Nope, they have no proof that you would be willing to accept (i.e. video).

They are fighters, and they can and do teach people to defend themselves. If you have a problem, it is your own.

They don't give two turds about the UFC, they don't talk one way or the other about the personalities involved, probably don't even know who are the personalities involved. They don't claim to be able to beat the famous MMA people. They don't even think about them. They live in a completely different world where UFC, Pride, MMA competitions, etc., just don't carry any weight and have no value or interest.

But trust me, they can fight.

There is no one I trust that much. Not when there is so much contrary evidence. Not when it would be so very easy to provide corraborating evidence. Not when what little trust they might have gotten has been further compromised by all sorts of fraud and poor performance from the supposedly legitimate.

 

[eyebeams]

[/list]The one I have run with is that of a medium to high quality professional MMA fighter against anyone TMAs can put against him. Whether the argument is "our training methods are superior/different but equally good/the same" the proof required is the same - winning matches.

A pro or an amatuer who competes in an athletic organization will beat a non-pro in any combat sport. Most TMAers are not training at this level and have no intention of ever doing so. *Many* MMAers are *also* not training at this level, but the organizations make it more available and more likely.

I think a large part of this is sampling bias. How many people follow the Kuoshu or Sanda circuits? Many, many competitors in these circuits use their rules sets to fight using Chinese arts. It's worth noting that there are also people who train solely for competition, but as I said, kung fu's a diverse practice.

I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano. How come I'm not as good? Heck, there are people at a boxing gym a couple blocks away from where I live who train the same exact same punches and the exact same footwork on the same bags in the same manner in the same ratios for the same number of hours. How come they aren't as good?

Talent. Training uncovers talent, but it doesn't create it. Genes create it. Comparing martial arts isn't a matter of comparing genes.

We CANNOT and must not ASSUME equivalent ability based on similar or even seemingly identical training. We assume equivalent ability based on equivalent actual performance - and NOTHING else - not lineage, not bag hitting, not hours of training, not theory.

We ought not to assume it at all. Plenty of MMA fighters have a string of bad fights and washout due to a series of accidents or uncharacteristically dumb mistakes that just tend to stack up at the wrong time.

 

[matt.m]

I will use Judo and Tae Kwon Do to illustrate the following. I have known people on the US Marine Corps Judo team that were outstanding at Judo, the sport not art, that lost horribly in fights at the NCO club. Why? The answer is simple....No ruleset. The same goes with Tae Kwon Do, I was good friends with an outstanding olympic style point sparring champ that ran a school. Guess what happened when he got in a fight with mulitple attackers? He got beat down, the reason is simple again. No ruleset.

Were these folks in outstanding shape? Yep, you bet they were. Did they get beat by Joe Average, Yep a group of them. Fighting mulitple attackers will do that.

We used to do a drill in cammie pants, flak jacket and combat boots. The combat instructor would put us on a huge area of sand and chat and told us to just fight.

Were people who were in judo, tae kwon do, karate better fighters? Yes, they held out longer. Also, let me be perfectly clear, it was cool to throw someone down....you are still in control....you got thrown on the ground, it was bad bad bad news.

The last I checked the Marine Corps is an elite fighting force and I know from being in combat on three continents and one island that you cannot just pull your firearm and just shoot someone because it would be the easier of the two options.

 

[MJS]

Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. There have been a number of great posts, however, responding to some...well, I just find that I'm spinning my wheels, because of the one sided views. My intention was never to change anyones views, but simply, to give another POV, in hopes that those that only want to see things their way, will perhaps, realize that there is more to the arts than what they think. I was going to reply to a few of the posts here, but as I said, I'd most likely end up spinning my wheels.

As I have said many times, there are things from MMA that can be applied to TMA and vice versa. Unless we know how every single person trains, how can we honestly come up with an accurate idea of what will work and what will not? Sitting in front of the TV, watching MMA fights is not the answer. What works for one, may not work for the next person.

I read a post, in which the person does not feel that answering certain questions or giving info about his training is important. Actually, while he may not think that, it is in fact important. This person on a regular basis, states that video proof is important. Well, I think that being able to say that you have done something is just as important. If someone has never engaged in MMA type training, but constantly states what will or will not work...well, how reliable of a source is that???? Not a very solid one IMO.

As for video proof...I know a number of people who have used their MA skills, have no video of it, but have come out alive. Some of these folks are police officers, correction officers, and former bouncers. I guess that these people must suck because there is no proof though.

I've been training in the arts for a while now. There are things that I gain from my training that I personally do not feel that MMA can give me. Yet, I give credit where its due, and acknowledge that I have gained a number of things from MMA. The aliveness, resistance and the conditioning, on a lower level, are some of the things. While I look forward to every PPV UFC fight, I personally have no desire to enter the ring. I do however, tip my hat to those guys, for putting themselves through that. I do not brag about my training, I acknowledge that there is always someone better out there, and I don't run around with a camcorder, looking for fights. One of my goals in my training is self defense. Defending yourself can be termed a fight, so sure, I train to fight, but again, I'm not entering the ring. The handful of encounters that I've had, I've come out fine. If someone wants to think that my training is useless, thats fine. I know what I can and can't do, and thats all that matters to me.

Again, this will be my last post in this thread. It certainly has provided me with alot to read, and I have enjoyed the viewpoints of everyone, and yes, that includes you Kevin. While I may not always agree with what has been said, its something to think about.

Mike

 

[Rook]

Well, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. There have been a number of great posts, however, responding to some...well, I just find that I'm spinning my wheels, because of the one sided views. My intention was never to change anyones views, but simply, to give another POV, in hopes that those that only want to see things their way, will perhaps, realize that there is more to the arts than what they think. I was going to reply to a few of the posts here, but as I said, I'd most likely end up spinning my wheels.

As I have said many times, there are things from MMA that can be applied to TMA and vice versa. Unless we know how every single person trains, how can we honestly come up with an accurate idea of what will work and what will not? Sitting in front of the TV, watching MMA fights is not the answer. What works for one, may not work for the next person.

I read a post, in which the person does not feel that answering certain questions or giving info about his training is important. Actually, while he may not think that, it is in fact important. This person on a regular basis, states that video proof is important. Well, I think that being able to say that you have done something is just as important. If someone has never engaged in MMA type training, but constantly states what will or will not work...well, how reliable of a source is that???? Not a very solid one IMO.

As for video proof...I know a number of people who have used their MA skills, have no video of it, but have come out alive. Some of these folks are police officers, correction officers, and former bouncers. I guess that these people must suck because there is no proof though.

I've been training in the arts for a while now. There are things that I gain from my training that I personally do not feel that MMA can give me. Yet, I give credit where its due, and acknowledge that I have gained a number of things from MMA. The aliveness, resistance and the conditioning, on a lower level, are some of the things. While I look forward to every PPV UFC fight, I personally have no desire to enter the ring. I do however, tip my hat to those guys, for putting themselves through that. I do not brag about my training, I acknowledge that there is always someone better out there, and I don't run around with a camcorder, looking for fights. One of my goals in my training is self defense. Defending yourself can be termed a fight, so sure, I train to fight, but again, I'm not entering the ring. The handful of encounters that I've had, I've come out fine. If someone wants to think that my training is useless, thats fine. I know what I can and can't do, and thats all that matters to me.

Again, this will be my last post in this thread. It certainly has provided me with alot to read, and I have enjoyed the viewpoints of everyone, and yes, that includes you Kevin. While I may not always agree with what has been said, its something to think about.

Mike

Well, I've enjoyed talking with you MJS. This has been an interesting thread, and I agree it has gotten rather circular.

 

[Rook]

A pro or an amatuer who competes in an athletic organization will beat a non-pro in any combat sport. Most TMAers are not training at this level and have no intention of ever doing so. *Many* MMAers are *also* not training at this level, but the organizations make it more available and more likely.

I think a large part of this is sampling bias. How many people follow the Kuoshu or Sanda circuits? Many, many competitors in these circuits use their rules sets to fight using Chinese arts. It's worth noting that there are also people who train solely for competition, but as I said, kung fu's a diverse practice.

I don't follow the sanda circuits, but I am aware of them. They provide a decent test of standup ability at the amateur and lower professional level. Several Sanda fighers (mostly Cung Le, who has only fought I believe twice, and that against against cans) have done ok in MMA and I have high hopes for the future of Sanda in MMA.

Talent. Training uncovers talent, but it doesn't create it. Genes create it. Comparing martial arts isn't a matter of comparing genes.

Thats true too. But in order to find out who was and wasn't talented, we had to have a heck of a lot of fights, and even now we're not all that sure. Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights. Is he the best? Is Ali the best? Tyson? Dempsey? Louis? I don't know, but I certainly know that it would be pretty funny to most boxers if you posted a video of some boxer, even a pretty proficient boxer, shadowboxing and proposed adding him to their company based on watching his technique. Yet, TMAists do this all the time, watching forms done well and then sayind "oh yeah, great fighter" - huh?

We ought not to assume it at all. Plenty of MMA fighters have a string of bad fights and washout due to a series of accidents or uncharacteristically dumb mistakes that just tend to stack up at the wrong time.

Thats true too.

 

[zDom]

Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights. Is he the best? Is Ali the best? Tyson? Dempsey? Louis?

"Best" is a transitory state.

People have peaks and valleys in performance. The results we get today could be very different if the very same fight was fought tomorrow or next week — or even five minutes apart.

 

[eyebeams]

I don't follow the sanda circuits, but I am aware of them. They provide a decent test of standup ability at the amateur and lower professional level. Several Sanda fighers (mostly Cung Le, who has only fought I believe twice, and that against against cans) have done ok in MMA and I have high hopes for the future of Sanda in MMA.

I think it'll depend on the incentive. Fighters' first priorities are to get paid and succeed in their base sport. FWIW, I think there are areas where Sanda's rules are actually superior for emulating streetfights, such as rules that forbid stalling. Consideraing that streetfights are usually extremely short, that's a good thing. MMA is starting to speed up as well, but there's still too much stalling that indulges guardwork and boxing.

Thats true too. But in order to find out who was and wasn't talented, we had to have a heck of a lot of fights, and even now we're not all that sure. Rocky Marciano creamed the best in the world and won 49 straight fights. Is he the best? Is Ali the best? Tyson? Dempsey? Louis? I don't know, but I certainly know that it would be pretty funny to most boxers if you posted a video of some boxer, even a pretty proficient boxer, shadowboxing and proposed adding him to their company based on watching his technique. Yet, TMAists do this all the time, watching forms done well and then sayind "oh yeah, great fighter" - huh?

Yeah, and that's no good. It used to be that being able to harvest detailed information from a forms performance was one of those legendary things a really good shifu could do. Thanks to the internet, every doorknob out there now claims this ability since it's the primary way online TMAers can see each other in action. Really, all you can tell is whether someone would be a *bad* fighter, not whether they would be a good one, if you understand the distinction.

 

[Rook]

I think it'll depend on the incentive. Fighters' first priorities are to get paid and succeed in their base sport. FWIW, I think there are areas where Sanda's rules are actually superior for emulating streetfights, such as rules that forbid stalling. Consideraing that streetfights are usually extremely short, that's a good thing. MMA is starting to speed up as well, but there's still too much stalling that indulges guardwork and boxing.

I'm not sure I agree. Streetfights have no rules, and I really see fewer rules, fewer restrictions as a good thing. There is the much-mocked "ground=lava" and such... I don't think adding more rules makes something more realistic. An ability to stall could work to your advantage anyway... it depends on who is likely to get help first - if your friends or the police will get involved before their friends.

Yeah, and that's no good. It used to be that being able to harvest detailed information from a forms performance was one of those legendary things a really good shifu could do. Thanks to the internet, every doorknob out there now claims this ability since it's the primary way online TMAers can see each other in action. Really, all you can tell is whether someone would be a *bad* fighter, not whether they would be a good one, if you understand the distinction.

Agreed.

 

[Rook]

"Best" is a transitory state.

People have peaks and valleys in performance. The results we get today could be very different if the very same fight was fought tomorrow or next week — or even five minutes apart.

Thats why people considered "proven" fighters have lots and lots of proven fights... they establish their consistancy.

 

[7starmantis]

The one I have run with is that of a medium to high quality professional MMA fighter against anyone TMAs can put against him. Whether the argument is "our training methods are superior/different but equally good/the same" the proof required is the same - winning matches.

So let me get this right, your saying: "A medium to high quality professional athlete who gets paid to train and has no other obligations will normally and consistently beat a non-professional athlete who has to work at the least 40 hours a week to make money, has many other obligations and interests outside of training and trains maybe 1/4 as much as the professional athlete if that". Is that about right? You my friend have an amazing point, you’re absolutely right, I couldn't agree more with you. In fact I would say most medium to high level professional MMA fighters could most likely perform in other athletic events at a level at least equivalent to other non professional athletes in the same events. What’s your point?

As to the proof, you’re incorrect. The proof required is living through someone else desperately trying to take your life. Let’s look at how many professional MMA fighters have been shot, stabbed, clubbed, etc and attacked with the intent to kill and walked away. What about CMA fighters? Seems the scales tip a bit when using that criteria to judge "effectiveness". How many professional MMA fighters had the job of getting captured in Vietnam to gather intel, escape and bring back the information? How many professional MMA fighters were tortured during this process? How many professional MMA fighters were warlords of gangs in D.C for years, lived on the streets, have been shot 7 times? Your starting to loose your point here when you start saying things like the proof is the same when referring to professional (get paid to perform) and self defense (get to live to perform) fighters. Sorry. Oh, and why are you still practicing a TMA if MMA is so much better?

I throw the same boxing punches as Ali and Marciano. How come I'm not as good? Heck, there are people at a boxing gym a couple blocks away from where I live who train the same exact same punches and the exact same footwork on the same bags in the same manner in the same ratios for the same number of hours. How come they aren't as good?

Wait. You’re saying basically that training has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are so much better than TMA fighters? So the manner in which they train, the time in which they spend training, the training of exactly the same techniques, all of that has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are better? So people who train in MMA are simply receiving some type of magical powers that TMAs don’t have? I'm sorry, you've lost your point and your believability factor. You throw the same punches as Ali? Sorry, thats a surface understanding of a skill that you obviously don’t train (you said so yourself). So what makes Ali better than you at boxing? I ask you. So your saying boxers train the same exact workout as Ali did and yet aren't as good because Ali had what exactly? Oh, you’re saying Ali was better because he won matches and had video proof. See, you have things out of order there. As my grandfather used to say, you've poured the oil in without taking off the cap. (or something like that)

I'm with MJS on this one, you don’t seem to really care about providing validity to your statements and I must excuse myself from the thread. You seem to be lacking true understanding of what you’re arguing for and are making some statements that are just wrong. I mean what your saying is incorrect be it MMA or TMA your referring to. Training methods, time, work ethic, all these things matter. You’re contradicting your own posts and expecting us to listen to you. You’re making ridiculously unrealistic statements about something you have absolutely no personal experience with. That’s why the UFC is such a money maker, you have proven that for sure.

We CANNOT and must not ASSUME equivalent ability based on similar or even seemingly identical training. We assume equivalent ability based on equivalent actual performance - and NOTHING else - not lineage, not bag hitting, not hours of training, not theory.

Ability is a personal thing. Individual fighters have different abilities. You’re absolutely wrong if you think training doesn’t affect the ability of a fighter. There are two sides to assuming equivalency. If you don’t assume your opponent is at least at if not above your level be it sport or self defense you’re going to get your *** handed to you or killed. To assume someone is lesser skilled because of a lack of evidence is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically is saying that because there is no evidence that something is right means it’s wrong. That’s a logical fallacy and is simply incorrect.

You’re seriously saying that two fighters with no video history are going to fight. One who trains 8 hours a day, heavy cardio, lots of bags and lots of fighting. The other doesn’t train cardio, little bags, and little fighting. You are seriously going to say you honestly give the same chance to both fighters? First, I don’t believe you if you say yes. Second, your naïve and simply incorrect if you say yes. Training does have a lot to do with ability. It’s not the only thing, but you’re arguing against the one thing MMA has going for it, pure hard work. You began the discussion speaking of MMA’s resistance training and full power and speed as its benefits and now say those things don’t matter, only a winning record or video of winning a fight? Your pulling the old lineage is proof card only substituting wining record for good lineage. Ask any of your top professional MMA fighters they will all tell you that anyone can beat anyone on any given day. For you to think otherwise is simply inexperience.

Where did I say video was not sufficient as factual proof? I think that was ZDom discussing superman on the silver screen, not me.

You said video was no valid in saying that it gives us ….

Its also given us all sorts of garbage about aliens, the Loch Ness monster, the daily Elvis-is-alive sightings, the chi powers of chinese masters, the bullet dodging abilities of Ueshiba, etc.

I'm not sure how that is directly relavent. I have nowhere relied on personal experiance in my arguments and don't intend to. I am still active in training karate, so I'm sure what you mean about "since" it.

Again, you’re actively training in a TMA while holding a heated debate that TMA’s are inferior to MMAs and that MMA is the best way to train. I don’t understand your intentions or motives for this discussion. And while you may not have relied on personal experience this is not a discussion that can be made devoid of personal experiences. That’s what everyone here keeps telling you. Get out there, fight some skilled fighters both CMA and MMA, take video, and lets see the tell the tape makes after that. That’s the way to find out the truth, not sit back and make assumptions about things you see on TV without having personal experience in them.

You do realize there are lots of fighting tournaments that groin blows are allowed in? This includes everything from Kyokushin and some muay thai to Finnfight, the early UFCs, most of the Vale Tudos, the AFCs and lots of other tournaments. Why don't you look at the outcomes of those fights instead of assuming what the outcome will be? Fights have been ended by purposeful groin shots (Jon Son vs. Hackney), but the overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't.

1. Yes, I realize there are fighting tourneys that allow groin “blows”. I have participated in them for years.
2. No one is assuming anything here Kevin, I was using your own preferred method of proof…video. Also, I was using my own personal experiences, something you have left out of this discussion so far and something you are admittedly lacking.
3. No one is talking about a fight ending groin shot, Kevin. As you have seen yourself, it happens like that sometimes, but sometimes not. What a solid shot to the groin does is initiate a reaction which can allow for the fight to be ended.

You do realize that lots of people, including some MMAists, kyokushin karate, many muay thai people etc. do train with full power attacks to the groin fully allowed in their sparring? You do realize it appears in competitions?

1. Yes, once again I know this is allowed in many people training, I allow it in mine.
2. We addressed the fact that I have personal experience with it being allowed in competitions.
3. You’re Point?

Kevin, without offering either a logical argument that solidifies MMA’s superiority over CMA’s, or providing personal experience of non-sport superiority of MMA over CMA, or providing proof (yes even video) of non-sport MMA’s superiority over CMA’s, you lack credibility and really believability in this discussion. The UFC proves many things, among them is not that MMA is “better” than CMA or TMA in non-sport fighting. Remember, sport vs. non-sport. Do you have video proof of non-sport MMA and non-sport CMA?

Again, I think I’m out of this thread, so sad too….I’m the one who started it! Sorry everyone. I thought we could have serious intelligent and logical discussions about specific abilities of MMA vs. CMA…..I see that’s not going to happen.

7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

There is no one I trust that much. Not when there is so much contrary evidence. Not when it would be so very easy to provide corraborating evidence. Not when what little trust they might have gotten has been further compromised by all sorts of fraud and poor performance from the supposedly legitimate.

Well, i don't see any way to bridge this divide, so I'm gonna leave it alone.

I will restate what I stated a few posts back: There are MMA fighters who are extremely tough, and would stand up well whether in the ring or on the street. There are also TMA people who are extremely tough, and would stand up very well on the street, even against another trained fighter, even if they may or may not do well in the ring. When push comes to shove, unless you make your livlihood in the ring, it doesn't mean anything. The only place it actually means something is on the street

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due. I don't dispute the abilities of the MMA competitors. But I don't see a similar attitude from you. I have been reluctant to take part in this thread because this always seems to be how they end up. I've said it in other threads: I think the MMA and TMA crowds could learn a lot from each other if they would all just open their minds a bit.

From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.

Not only have I seen you state that you feel MMA is vastly superior to TMA (that's really understandable, as most people who lack maturity in the martial arts tend to single-mindedly believe that what they do is the absolute best and everyone else sucks; I went thru a phase like that myself when I was in junior high school and I was training kenpo, my first art; but most people eventually grow out of it), but you have even gone so far as to suggest and imply that the TMA have no value as fighting arts at all. It's a basic close-mindedness, and it makes it impossible to have any really meaningful and insightful discussions. All it does is make the other camp get defensive, and then everyone gets closed minded about it because it gets downright insulting.

I think it is that basic haughty position that makes these threads spiral downhill so rapidly.

So with that, i've given all I can to this one and I'm bowing out. Anyone who feels the urge to continue on, have at it.

cheers, all.

 

[matt.m]

7starmantis,

I really like where you went with your last post. I know from the stories of my GM, Old Gunny Sgt's that were in Vietnam etc. that the VC were scared of the U.S. Marine Corps and Army. They were horrified of fighting the ROK Marines. Let's ask the question why? The answer has been stated millions of times.....they knew the ROK Marines were extremely proficient in Tae Kwon Do.

Along, the same lines but not exactly the same. However, I really did like your post.​

 

[matt.m]

From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.

I could not have said this better.

 

[eyebeams]

I'm not sure I agree. Streetfights have no rules, and I really see fewer rules, fewer restrictions as a good thing. There is the much-mocked "ground=lava" and such... I don't think adding more rules makes something more realistic. An ability to stall could work to your advantage anyway... it depends on who is likely to get help first - if your friends or the police will get involved before their friends.

I'm thinking of things like counterpunching, sticking and moving with the jab and standing opponents in your open guard. The first two tend to get overwhelmed by the pace and intensity of a brawler who isn't think about picking his shots later in the round. The third is one of those situations that work well, when both fighters have a common objective in the ring, but not in other situations. A striker standing in somebody's open guard has an advantage in MMA because he can drop bombs, but it's the best way for the guy on the ground to protect himself with his legs and move things along. But if the striker's goal is to knock you down and get away, he's just "won." If my goal on my back is to keep this guy from getting away, then I'm screwed. This means that I want to change my strategy for guard and I want to train to better choose my own positioning for the situation.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that MMA makes you a robot designed for that rules set alone, but that different rules impose different conditions. You fight how you train, so you want to train (always with live resistance) for these different situations. Sanda's charms are that it rewards some activities tha translate to self-protection quite well, such as staying standing and employing a very fast pace. This is no substitute for rolling, but I think that if MMA scoring rewarded clean throws and did something to encourage faster pacing it would lead some some exciting action *and* emphasize practical skills. I don't like breaking the clinch too often as they do in Sanda, but some changes in scoring (point deductions for the last scorer in clinches or non-engagement lasting more than 8 seconds extra points for throws where one fighter remains standing while the throwee makes contact) might do it.

This reminds me of a thought experiment I had about "full contact aikido," actually. You'd score hand blows and clean throws, but nothing else, with bonus points for a blow followed by a throw. These kinds if specialized rules sets would be great for developing specialties within various arts, though you'd naturally want to bring them back to a more open venue later.