UFC proves KF useless

[PeaceWarrior]

Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? I’m not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words “traditional martial arts”. I’m not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is “traditional” really so far from fighting? It seems to me “traditional” kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most “traditional” schools I’ve ever seen. I’m not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting

Hmm... I see your point. I guess I am looking at this through my own art, Wing Chun, where it really does take years to get to a high enough level where you can actively and effectively apply the principles in a real life situation without breaking the "rules" of the art. Also I think that it really depends on the time and effort spent on training. In times past, guys would spend 8 hours a day, 6 days a week just to train. 8 hours is a long time, and when you train like that it adds up considerably faster than if you only have say, 1 or 2 hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week.

And yes, I believe that "traditional" kung fu in the truest sense of the word was violent, focused on fighting and very hard core (hence training for 5-8 hours a day). I do not believe that most people nowadays really train in a traditional way. I think the term TMA is normally used to denote a style that is "sticking to its guns" and not jumping on the MMA bandwagon.

Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the “seriousness” of kung fu techniques or principles?
7sm

No, in fact I really do believe that even with solid stand up fighting technique, it is advisable to cross train a grappling art to cover your bases (and vice versa), because in reality a lot of fights will inevitably end up on the ground. These tactics would certainly not negate any tools that a kung fu artist has but would add to them. However, I also believe that you should have a solid foundation in your primary art before you cross train. My problem with MMA is that guys are just training as many different arts as they can - taking whats useful and throwing the rest away so to speak - which I agree, is probably the best way to develop well rounded fighting skills in the shortest amount of time possible, but in doing so they are forfeiting many high level principles/techniques that a TMA has to offer, to those willing to sacrifice the time and effort that it takes to really learn them. After all, where did the MMAist get all of those nifty techniques? Out of thin air? No, they all came from traditional martial arts developed over thousands of years. I could be wrong, but I think that someone with 10+ years in a stand up fighting TMA who trains hard for a year or two in a grappling TMA (BJJ, Jujitsu, etc.) would be a devastating fighter in any real world scenario.

I think that the whole MMA/UFC/Pride mentality has kind of tainted what I consider the true purpose of Kung Fu and other martial arts: a way to tighten the slack, polish the spirit, to sharpen your focus and give you discipline, not just a way to beat somebody senseless or force them to submit. In fact, most high level martial artists that I have met are very kind; gentle almost. You would never know just from looking at them on the street that they could break your neck in two seconds. I think it should be about balance, respect and honor - words we dont hear much today, and certainly not in the UFC ring.

Peace

 

[funnytiger]

The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.

MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight. Fighting and self-defense are different.

I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention. In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking. And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation? We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....

What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.

If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it. If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control. If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that. If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.

We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.

Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.

Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple. I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.

NICE!

 

[7starmantis]

Great point and post, Andrew.

Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?

Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?

Thats a very good point. I'm sure things would be very different. In truth that is where I was trying to go with the discussion. I used the UFC because it is well known and has been a great tool for promoting the MMA method of training. But I'm talking more about the idea, principle, or techniques of the styles. It seems the consensus is that MMA is more modern, full contact, more effective, or just overwhelming enough to really be a more effective fighting system than ... well pretty much anything else. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of why that is, why people feel that way, and what aspects of MMA training they feel create that.

While I don't doubt that ancient China had its share of people who wanted to grapple on the ground, they don't seem to have developed the complex and nuanced groundwork of systems like catch wrestling, SAMBO or BJJ. Perhaps this has something to do with the idea of rolling on the ground as dishonorable, but for whatever reason, the Chinese ground work that shows up in some Shui Chiao systems, as well as in the Dog Boxing tends to be a fairly simple affiar.

I agree with you on that one. I dont know if it was the type or land or what, but CMA tends to focus on ground fighting from the idea of escaping. I dont think it had to do with dishonor, that would be more a JMA than a CMA thing really. I dont know anything about dog boxing but I agree the grappling tends to be simple. But we must ask why that is. Does that mere fact prove that grappling can overtake these CMA styles? Does a non grappler stand a chance agaisnt a grappler? Why do grappling technqiues automatically get the nod in that lineup? What about fighters like Chuck Liddell, he's not a grappler, he says that himself. I'm not sure that the idea of CMA grappling being simple proves that grappling is a more effective method of fighting. Does it?

The power of some systems, like TJQ, can really only be achieved after alot of development in things like soft movement and precise shifts of weight. The beauty of some martial arts to me has always been that most of them are simple to begin to learn, but they have alot of depth to them.

Yes but depth doesn't negate quick effectivness does it? The fact that some arts true strength is in the long ter mstudy doesn't mean they aren't effective at the begginning. It just means they are more effective after long term study and training. Right? Or am I off base?

To date, their track record. In the end, MMA has been based around the idea of having competition, both with and without rules in order to test various means of fighting against each other. The MMAist trains in the style that seems to have emerged on top... it just represents a higher stage in the evolution of the martial arts.

What represents their track record? With what were these methods judged? I think its a misrepresentation to portray CMA as not having been based around competition. They dont seem to have been based around sport or egoisstic competition, but they certainly were based around competition as Andrew pointed out eariler in the thread. Many "schools" or "families" were warring with each other, killing each other, to determien the most effective CMA fighting method all during their conception. MMAist train the style that came out on top of what? Emerged on top of public opinion? Most MMA competitions are based around a set of rules for MMA sport fighting. Just like earlier examples, a baseball player would not do well in a basketball competition would he? They train for different rules. In order to truly compare we must look at fighters who train for the same thing. Thats why I'm more concerned with pure self defense type fighting. Do you feel MMA is a more effective street self defense method of fighting as well?

If I had to guess at the reasons behind the track record, which is probably what you are getting at here, I would say the combination of the style itself and the training methods - full speed, full contact, freeform, fully resistant - which allow a person to experiance a whole spectrum of uncooperativeness not available to someone who trains with compliant or semicompliant partners. The style itself is just very refined for what works - because we have so much video and statistical data, its much easier to figure out what is more effective and why, and the fighers work with a system based on this.

Thats an interesting way to describe it. What makes what you described MMA rather than CMA? As a CMA fighter, since I train full speed, full contact, freeform, full resistant, does that mean I train CMA in a MMA method? Do we really believe these methods of training are something new or modern? Did MMA emerge and create these ways of training? You spoke of the "style itself". What exactly is the "style" of MMA? I use quite a lot of statistical and video data in my training. What I'm getting at is why are these things presented with ownership to MMA? I have trained like that for years. I'm interested in what makes CMA training like that still less effective, outdated, or useless agaisnt MMA training like that.

I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed. The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.

Again, what are you basing your "track record" off of? I'm still not completely sure of your definition of MMA. Is MMA refined to a specific style? You spoke of the MMA style itself, I'm really interested in hearing what comprises that style. This is a very interesting discussion, thank you for being willing to discuss things like this.

Well, the lack of kung fu people winning grappling tournaments suggests that the "use our forms principles on the ground" and "we have our own groundwork" and "fukien dog boxing is a lethal groundwork system" doesn't hold up all that well... they seem to be totally incapable of sucessfully engaging other grapplers.

Thats a great point, and probably one of the most damaging to kung fu people. However the truth is in the words, even the wrods you used: "kung fu people winning grappling tournements". I can very successfully prove the statement: "the lack of grappling people winning kung fu tournements proves grappling to be less effective". But what has happened here is we have judged something out of its element. Any specific tournement will cater to those training for it. Cung Lee is a CMA fighter that seems to be having some great success in the world of MMA. I really wouldn't consider Cung Lee a true CMA fighter, but it seems his methods are working. Why is that? Is it that he has adopted MMA methods?

I personally think that it is outdated as a fighting system.

Outdated as in its methods, techniques, training habits, what exactly?

7sm

 

[exile]

I do not train in, or know much about CMAs, so I'll refrain from comment on whats incorporated into their material. I can comment though on the arts that I train in. As I've said every time this debate comes up, I personally feel that there is something that can be gained from both the MMA and TMA style of fighting. I've 'borrowed' a number of things from the MMA school of thought, and added it into my own workouts.

I'd like to post this, for discussion.



These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage. Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win." However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with. And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself. The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment. If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring? I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge. But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge. Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.

Mike

Mike, it's interesting that many of these UFC `fouls' are blithely exhibited by Iain Abernethy in his books and videos as the most probable bunkai for various karate kata. And IA has emphasized repeatedly that these moves---eye/throat/groin strikes, strikes by standing karateka direct towards assailants who were already partially immobilized on the ground, and many other such techniques---were taught and trained by the early Okinawan and Japanese masters. Karate is another one of those striking arts which people have dissed, in relation to MMA/Pride/UFC style ring techniques, so what is one to make of the fact that, if IA and his gang are right about their bunkai interpretations, this particular family of TMAs has built into its fighting repertoire, as recorded in kata, a whole catalogue of techniques regarded as too nasty to use in supposedly `all out' fighting competition? And I would bet that exactly the same observations can be made about KF or any of the Chinese fighting systems.

So far as I can see, it comes down to the same point that you, Shesulsa, and (it feels like) a zillion other people have made in this and various threads on MT since the board began---the resources are there, but you have to train them for the particular purpose(s) you want to apply them to. If hard street defense is what you need, the traditional CMAs, KMAs, O/JMAs, FMAs and so on have enough nasty techniques to keep anyone happy for a lifetime of training---but you then have to train for that purpose. That's why Abernethy devotes the last chapter of his book on applications of kata bunkai to the particular methods he uses at his dojo to make the training of those bunkai as realistic as possible without anyone actually having to be hospitalized...

 

[Odin]

Great point and post, Andrew.

Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?

Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?

If there wasnt a cage wall or ropes you'd fall out ( how many times have you seen fighters get tangles in the ropes in pride, it would be the same except they would be on the floor rolling around the audience!lol)

and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.

 

[Andrew Green]

Thats a very good point. I'm sure things would be very different. In truth that is where I was trying to go with the discussion. I used the UFC because it is well known and has been a great tool for promoting the MMA method of training. But I'm talking more about the idea, principle, or techniques of the styles. It seems the consensus is that MMA is more modern, full contact, more effective, or just overwhelming enough to really be a more effective fighting system than ... well pretty much anything else. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of why that is, why people feel that way, and what aspects of MMA training they feel create that.

I think it comes down to training mindset and intensity. Most Kung Fu guys don't regullarly go Full contact, those that do drift to Sanshou, or even Kick boxing and out of the "traditional" line up.

A person that has a interest in pushing competitive fighting is not likely to stay in a forms based school, they will go to a place that suits there needs.

Kung Fu can still be combative, and can still work in MMA, Cung Le for example has made the crossover and appears to be off to a strong start

But, what most people do as Kung Fu is far from combative, not to say its bad, but without the intensity, contact levels and time spent doing hard sparring, combat sports are not a option.

I agree with you on that one. I dont know if it was the type or land or what, but CMA tends to focus on ground fighting from the idea of escaping. I dont think it had to do with dishonor, that would be more a JMA than a CMA thing really. I dont know anything about dog boxing but I agree the grappling tends to be simple. But we must ask why that is. Does that mere fact prove that grappling can overtake these CMA styles? Does a non grappler stand a chance agaisnt a grappler? Why do grappling technqiues automatically get the nod in that lineup? What about fighters like Chuck Liddell, he's not a grappler, he says that himself. I'm not sure that the idea of CMA grappling being simple proves that grappling is a more effective method of fighting. Does it?

Well, Chuck Liddell was a pretty good wrestler, and still spends a good amount of time training in wrestling.

Grappling is necessary if either person knows how to do it, same as striking. With a few months training in either a person can dominate over a new person with similar conditioning and aggressiveness quite easily. Grappling won everything early because the grapplers understood striking better then the strikers understood grappling.

A well conditioned wrestler will be able to force a clinch, and get a takedown fairly easily on someone without wrestling experience. And once its down, and a superior grappler has control, it's unlikely it will go back up. The striker might land a couple blows, but well conditioned fighters don't usually drop from a couple blows...

A non grappler going into mixed competition needs to know enough to avoid getting into trouble, avoid submissions, and look for a way back to there feet without getting put in a worse position. Someone without any grappling experience will likely be taken down and dominated.

But then it's back to that people drifting to where they should be part. Someone wanting to fight in MMA will lean towards places teaching those skills.

Someone looking for a "well rounded" approach with no intent to compete will need a different level of skills, in different areas.

One thing that amazes me is why this is a issue, why is MMA vs traditional styles a worry for some? Traditional stylists have not done well in boxing, kick boxing, muay thai, etc. Why are there not the same level of Karate vs Muay Thai fights?

My best guess is the rules, not the current ones, but the old "no rules" ones.Other rule sets are much more restrictive, more equipment was worn, especially compared to the old bare knuckle days, and the "rules" excuse was elliminated as best as possible. There where 2 rules, no biting and no eye gouging, neither of which resulted in a DQ, or even a pause, just a fine that went to the other fighter.

There where of course circumstantial rules, the type of ring, the floor, the cage, no weapons, etc. Same as in those old Leitai, although different circumstances. However in both environments fighters would alter there strategy to fit the ring, which happened in the UFC.

Rules and situation always make the fight, in open tournaments all the TKD / Karate / Kung Fu people fight the same way for the most part, same as in MMA. In judo, same thing, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, Olympic TKD, same thing all around. The rules dictate what works and what doesn't.

The UFC was an attempt, in the beginning, to answer the question of "What happens without the rules?", promoted by people that knew from experience what to do and expect to promote there system. How successful the enivronment was to the question is debateable, but nothing better has surfaced, and probably won't for legal reasons.

Now there is rules, and the system is developed. If you want to beat a MMA fighter, in a MMA match, you need to train the MMA way. Not the Kung Fu way, not the Aikido way, not the karate way. Doing so will not work.

But then if your goal is to be able to beat everyone in every type of rules you got some serious insecurity issues that need to be addressed and training should not be a priority...

 

[Andrew Green]

and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.

That they would... Ouch... remember that kickboxer getting suplexed twice in a row by Severn? I think he'd be eating through a Tub right now if the fight was on concrete :s

 

[g-bells]

i believe that alot of ma do their art for self defence and for their love of their art.i personally train for self-defence and for the fact that i enjoy training and all the learning that comes with improving. i see no need to prove myself in a format such as the UFC. it is great to spar and evulate your progress but there are certain techniques that i don't utilize in sparring that i would use to defend myself in a real life situation.this is just my oppinion and i hope not to offend anybody

 

[Seeking Zen]

I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true? 7sm
MMA, UFC, ect... are entertaining, an excellant form of sport. As with all point based sports they are bound by rules. Rules that limit actions yet prolong the action for the viewer. This is not based on "reality" or a "full ground curriculum" rather a thrilling expose of strenght, endurance, and skill.
Traditional MA teaches that real self defence elinmiates the threat in the least amount of time, and most effective way possible. UFC etc are not examples of self-defense.

Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA


What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?


7sm

MMA, UFC, ect... are entertaining, an excellent form of sport. As with all point based sports they are bound by rules. Rules that limit actions yet prolong the action for the viewer. This is not based on "reality" or a "full ground curriculum" rather a thrilling expose of strength, endurance, and skill.
Traditional MA teaches that real self defence eliminates the threat in the least amount of time, and most effective way possible. UFC etc are not examples of self-defence.

Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA. All this to say if you take away the below rules TMA…Kung Fu, Karate, ect…will fare very well.

Fouls: [Top]
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.

Ways To Win: [Top]
1. Submission by:
Physical tap out.
Verbal tap out.
2. Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest.
3. Decision via the scorecards, including:
Unanimous decision.
Split decision.
Majority decision.
Draw, including:
Unanimous draw.
Majority draw.
Split draw.
4. Technical decision.
5. Technical draw.
6. Disqualification.
7. Forfeit.
8. No contest.

 

[Andrew Green]

Please find the UFC rules listed below. I think we will all agree that there aren't many of these rules in "reality" and that eliminating them creates a situation where the best trained in controlled reactions will walk away. Much of this depends on the person as much as their MA. All this to say if you take away the below rules TMA…Kung Fu, Karate, ect…will fare very well.

This has been addressed countless times.

How many of those things are allowed in your style's full contact matches? So it is less realistic then? You're training is bound by rules and restrictions as well, IMO more of them.

None of those rules where there back when Kung Fu and karate guys where fighting in these events.

 

[Hand Sword]

I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didn’t mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?
7sm

In terms of Reality fighting, it's the key to everything, TMA or MMA. Freeze up, or give into panic, you're done! MMA trains for this, with the contact, and the mental intent of the execution of their goals (seeking a ko, or submission). TMA starts from a defensive mind set, moving after the aggressor attacks (physically, or body language).

I believe that I said to beat boxing use the TMA in a "boxing type" manner, or tactics, not necessarily box to beat boxing. A boxer will outbox you, spending 100 percent of his time boxing, and TMA's hardly not, overall. You would have to spend a good amount of time Boxing to come up to their level of boxing. I do feel that one should take up boxing, at least for the familiarity factor. It will help TMA'ers adapt their stuff.

CMA is not outdated, IMO, It comes down to a practitioner, anyway. Boxers give all MA'ers Trouble, even MMA too.

For cross training, definitely a ground game, again, for familiarity of the better fighters. Escape from them, no need to worry about a thug's ground game in a fight very much. Plus you'll pick up better ways of using your ground game. Face it, in TMA classes, attempts of the ground game, or boxing, by classmates won't be nearly the same as those that do it specifically.

 

[Hand Sword]

I have a hard time picturing this statement since my style's MO is "continuous fighting". In other words, combo after combo until the other guy doesn't get up. So is my particular art the odd man out because of that mode of thinking, or is this statement a sweeping generalization?

Well, if you train that way, then, yes, you are an exception. You are in a MMA type mind set.

I have always thought this was a load of bunk. If I had a quarter for every person on these boards who said, "every (or most) fights end on the ground" I would be a wealthy woman. However, if I was to get a quarter for every fight that I have witnessed with my own eyes that actually ended up on the ground I wouldn't be able to make a telephone call in a phone booth.

I probably haven't seen as many fights as some, but I've seen my fair share. On second thought, I would say that statment is a half-truth. In the fights I have seen one person always ends up on the ground. Usually ending up the recipient of a boot in the face, and sometimes just unconsciousness.

I don't believe I said anything about fights ending up on the ground. I said fights, MMA type also, don't always go along the lines of one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt, or a grab of some sort, Which TMA's spend their time defending mostly. As for the bunk, you spoke of, well let's just say, it usually comes from, and should be reserved, for those that talk along the lines of "Training, seeing, or watching" then them giving opinions of how it "really is".

 

[Flying Crane]

I think there is another part of the picture: People who are interested in this kind of competition go to MMA type schools, train and then compete. These schools lean toward that kind of competition, so if that is what you want, that is where you go.

I think perhaps most of the TMA guys, including CMA, just aren't interested in the competition for whatever reason. Maybe they know they personally aren't cut out for that kind of thing. Maybe it just holds no interest for them. Maybe they don't feel any need to prove themselves one way or the other. So they don't get into it.

Whatever records exists regarding wins and losses in the UFC and related matches are slanted toward those who practice MMA because they are, by and large, the types of people who compete. Sure, in the early days some TMA people competed, but I think that is generally not the case anymore. So we really don't have an accurate picture of how well TMA would stack up. What we have are a few examples of those who didn't do well, but the data pool is really too small to make any conclusive determination. The data that really exists is a whole lot of MMA type guys competing against other MMA type guys. The TMA guys are mostly absent from the data. You can't make meaningful conclusions from that absence of data.

So maybe the few TMA people who did compete didn't do well, but I think the early UFC was a bit of a wakeup for many people. It showed a lot of people where their skills may be lacking. However, I don't think it so much exposed holes in their different arts, but rather perhaps exposed holes in their training methods.

In many cases, I think the training done today in the TMA is not on the same level of intensity that it was done in the past. Our society has changed and the need to fight has been significantly reduced. We now have law enforcemet agencies and networks and 911 telephone systems that we can use to get help. We also have laws that punish criminal behavior, and a society that generally frowns on violent behavior. For most people, our need to fight and defend ourselves is significantly reduced.

It is certainly possible to go thru your entire life and never get into a real fight. I have been doing martial arts for 22 years, I have lived in a larger city (San Francisco) for over 12 years, and I have never had to use my skills to defend myself. Sure, I have had people mess with me, but I have either been able to defuse the situation, or else I had an escape route present itself and I was able to clear out without coming to blows. Nike-jitsu doesn't bruise my male ego in the least.

But in the older days in places like China of a couple hundred years ago or older, these options didn't always exist. China is a huge country, with lots of areas that are or were sparsely populated. Law enforcement was less trustworthy and not present to help you. Telephones didn't exist. Aid was often far away if it existed at all. So you had a much greater need to depend on your skills to save your life. The severity of training probably reflected this reality. I think that many people who train in TMA today don't have the same level of useage ability that those in the past did. We no longer need it on the same level, so our training is not as good. We no longer have the opportunity to really test our stuff for real, because of how our modern society is.

But I think it is possible to bring the level of TMA back up. It is just a matter of making a commitment to train more harshly for the combat and conditioning, that most of us don't do anymore. If done so, TMA can be elevated to a truly awsome and horrifyingly effective and brutal art. But for most people, probably myself included, we have lost that edge. MMA trys to bring that edge back, and for that it should be commended. But I think TMA are much richer arts than MMA, and if TMA were brought back up to that level we would see some much different results.

Ultimately, I don't see this as an argument over better or worse arts, but rather better or worse training methods and thoroughness. Perhaps that is where MMA has the edge. But anybody could bring their TMA up to gain that same edge if they committed to training to do so. After all, MMA techniques are based on the same techniques found in the TMA. There really is not difference between the two, except for the mindset and approach to training. Once upon a time, each and every TMA that we have today was considered Modern and Cutting Edge...

 

[matt.m]

I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.

Curiously, I was talking with a friend of mine who has begun taking TKD at my school. (Side note: This guy also has a purple in Tracy's Kenpo).

He asked me "If you were to fight how do you think it would turn out, since you have a Hapkido, Tae Kwon Do, and Judo background?"

I replied, "I am not good, I know many personally that could most likely beat the snot out of me. However, if they win as they most likely would.....hmmm.....that person would have nightmares about our fight and not come back for seconds."

Ah, a question/example of the old kung fu fighting was brought up earlier. Well it is safe to assume that a big majority of us have seen "Jet Li's Fearless". It is the same thing as what was being described. The raised stone platform.

 

[zDom]

If there wasnt a cage wall or ropes you'd fall out ( how many times have you seen fighters get tangles in the ropes in pride, it would be the same except they would be on the floor rolling around the audience!lol)

You assume they would go on fighting the same way, but it is likely they would NOT fight the same way if falling out of the ring is a loss. I think fighters would adjust their tactics to make sure they weren't forced out of the ring, resulting in a new set of techniques/tactics/strategies deemed "effective" such as ways to hold your ground, as opposed to ways of moving your opponent into a position up against a cage, which is presently the dominant strategy in the UFC, for example.

and if it was concrete then take downs would hurt a lot more, possibly even be fatal.

Many of those takedowns are bad for BOTH guys if they are landing on a hard surface.

We agree, then, that throws would become potential "game enders." Especially if the "no spiking them on their head" rule is removed, as well.

And this would drastically alter the way competitors fought.

There would probably be a shift in the focus from ground grappling techniques to throwing techniques, ways of avoiding situations which can get you thrown, and breakfalling.

Especially if it was a rough, textured hard surface that could cause abrasions while rolling around on it.

I bet competitors would also holler for a rule change allowing them to wear gis/doboks instead of nothing but biker or boxing shorts.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[zDom]

The data that really exists is a whole lot of MMA type guys competing against other MMA type guys. The TMA guys are mostly absent from the data. You can't make meaningful conclusions from that absence of data.

EXACTLY (well put!).

Moreover, the TMA-fighter data that IS available is, IMO, unreliable as it is not truly representative of the best TMAs practitioners.

I think that is because the best TMAists don't feel any need, desire or obligation to prove themselves in a public display under those conditions.

So you are getting the very BEST of MMA'ists in their prime competing against TMA oddballs who, most would TMAists would agree, are NOT the best representatives of their arts.

Find me a 70 year old MMA stylist volunteer with no cage matches ever fought, under blue belt in BJJ, and put him up against Ji Han Jae, for example, and see what kind of results you get.

That way we can video tape the match so we can play it over and over again as "evidence" that MMA training isn't effective.

 

[Rook]

Many of those takedowns are bad for BOTH guys if they are landing on a hard surface.

We agree, then, that throws would become potential "game enders." Especially if the "no spiking them on their head" rule is removed, as well.

I think we covered this before, but the "spike on head" rule refers to pro-wrestling style pile driver stuff, not judo/sambo type throws.

 

[Rook]

The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.

MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight. Fighting and self-defense are different.

I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention. In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking. And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation? We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....

What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.

If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it. If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control. If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that. If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.

We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.

Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.

Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple. I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.

Well, there is fighting and then there is avoiding fights. Most everyone agrees that you should avoid the fights you can and have the best fighting system for the ones you can't avoid. I don't see how reminding us to try to avoid fights negates best practices for what happens if and when a fight does happen.

 

[7starmantis]

I think it comes down to training mindset and intensity. Most Kung Fu guys don't regullarly go Full contact, those that do drift to Sanshou, or even Kick boxing and out of the "traditional" line up.

That I agree with. I think its a sad state of affairs, but I agree.
Actually, all the better for me, I would rather someone take a look at me and think, oh there is one of those kung fu guys, I can take him out with no problem.

Well, Chuck Liddell was a pretty good wrestler, and still spends a good amount of time training in wrestling.

Yes, but he doesn't plan on taking his fights to the ground, and many that try to take him down find his defense and stirking power too overwhelming to stay conscious. Working on ground fighting is a must, but I just dont think learning a different style (ie. BJJ) is a neccessity for being effective on the ground.

Grappling is necessary if either person knows how to do it, same as striking. With a few months training in either a person can dominate over a new person with similar conditioning and aggressiveness quite easily. Grappling won everything early because the grapplers understood striking better then the strikers understood grappling.

Another great point. But does "grappling" mean learning a specific type or style of grappling? Ignoring ground fighting is absurd and has been long before the UFC became popular. My problem is grappling is boxed into a specific style or method and thats just not the case. There are many ways to fight effectively on the ground, few of which I think would be realistic on the pleasent surface of a parking lot littered with broken glass and cigarette butts.

A well conditioned wrestler will be able to force a clinch, and get a takedown fairly easily on someone without wrestling experience. And once its down, and a superior grappler has control, it's unlikely it will go back up. The striker might land a couple blows, but well conditioned fighters don't usually drop from a couple blows...

Thats my major issue. Its a big assumption to assume a conditioned wrestler will be able to easily get a takedown on a non wrestler. Why is it a superior grappler is supposed to be able to keep an experienced "escaper" under control? The issue is grappling or MMA is given the "benefit of the doubt" in any situation requiring real data. Another assumption, conditioned fighters dont drop from a couple of blows....this is simply not true. Take a look at some of the best conditioned fighters and thier knockouts highlights. Again however the situation is appraoched from the grappling mindset. What if the "striker" isn't attempting to grapple (pull armbars, chokes etc) and is simply attacking "soft" areas to be released and gain his/her footing again? Your statement is assuming the striker is going to play the grappling game on the ground. This is the heart of my issue I wanted addressed with this thread. Why is it grappling is considered so overpowering that it bests everything else? Two grapplers grapple, one will loose, but if a conditioned striker is taken down and doesn't atempt the grappling game, why is it just "understood" that he will loose horribly?
What makes these grappling techniques so effective? Why are they so overpowering to other techniques? I dont look for chokes and armbars on the ground normally, I'm looking for ripping move to the genitals, fingers in the throat, etc. I've released many a choke with a nice tight grip and pull on the boys. What makes ground fighters have the advantage when faced with CMA or "standup" fighters? Is it their unrelenting intent to play their game so to speak? Is it that they train for a specific technique and simply look for it the whole time? What is it that makes ground fighters feel they can take what a "striker" has and still take him down and submit him, regardless?

One thing that amazes me is why this is a issue, why is MMA vs traditional styles a worry for some? Traditional stylists have not done well in boxing, kick boxing, muay thai, etc. Why are there not the same level of Karate vs Muay Thai fights?

I dont think its really an issue so to speak. Its not a worry for me, what I'm concerned with is addressing every possible aspect of fighting. Like it or not (strikers and TMA people) UFC has started a whole new breed of fighters who with or without training will give everything they have and just overpower you if possible. That is important to understand and train against or with. Thats why its important to me, I want to understand it enough to experience it and leanr how I would deal with it. The thing that amazes me is that so many grapplers say there is no dealing with it. That only learning a grappling system and being a better grappler is the key. I think thats absurd and am interested in discussing that idea. Thast all.

But then if your goal is to be able to beat everyone in every type of rules you got some serious insecurity issues that need to be addressed and training should not be a priority...

I agree, however learning to deal with this type of fighting is important for self defense fighting. There are the bubbas that watch UFC on demand and will come rushing in with everything they got to get that cool choke or takedown. Learning to deal with every possibel type of fighter is important to me in being a well rounded fighter.

7sm

 

[funnytiger]

Well, if you train that way, then, yes, you are an exception. You are in a MMA type mind set.

Actually, depending on how you define MMA (whether its, "Mixed Martial Arts" or "Modern Martial Arts") my art definitely could be defined as a "Mixed Martial Art" as it is derived from several other kung fu styles. Of course, I alot of Southern-based CMA are combos of other CMA styles. Does that make them MMA?

I don't believe I said anything about fights ending up on the ground. I said fights, MMA type also, don't always go along the lines of one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt, or a grab of some sort, Which TMA's spend their time defending mostly.

You're right. My bad!

You said:

It's also primarily stand up oriented. Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, then to grappling holds, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used.

Which I read to say "goes to the ground" which is not always the case when it comes grappling. Sorry for reading into your post there!

As for the bunk, you spoke of, well let's just say, it usually comes from, and should be reserved, for those that talk along the lines of "Training, seeing, or watching" then them giving opinions of how it "really is".

Okay. I admit, today may be one of my "slow" days because I could not make heads or tails of what you said here... :asian:

- ft