UFC proves KF useless

[Rook]

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, there really is no one in the big MMA groups who is not capable in both striking and grappling. Its just become necessary - no more pure striker vs. pure grappler. The guys like Chuck Liddell (BJJ Purple, NCAA nationalist wrestling, world class grappling trainers working with him 6 days a week), and Vanderlei Silva (Brazil Armed Forces champion freestyle and grecoroman wrestling, BJJ black belt, world class grapplers working with him 6 days a week) are able to stay standing because they are very, very high level grapplers themselves, and have the skill and experiance to negate the overwhelming majority of takedowns that they face - and even then sometimes end up on the ground.

Incidentally, the same goes with the grapplers. They have had to learn striking.

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?

No, you are right. I think some people just hide behind the screen of needing years before they can use their art to justify why no one is available for a challenge match.

What represents their track record? With what were these methods judged?

I think of the Gracies in Action tapes, the idea of the Gracie Challenge, the Chute Boxe Challenge, and various other offers for no-rules fights with cash prizes if you beat the BJJ/MMA guy. THe Gracie Challenge still stands, and I find it amazing that no one has claimed it, and everyone thinks their style COULD, but just for some reason doesn't. There have been many people who tried, and to date they have all failed... yet this bring about more denial than acceptance.

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.

This is important. The superiority arguement is not based just on the ring fights, but also the no-rules fights in and out of rings. They have had no-rules tournaments in Russia and Brazil. They have had no-rules challenge matches (still available at anywhere there is a Gracie). Its not just the ring matches but rather the whole picture of both ring and challenge matches.

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?

I think the best way to figure out what works best without rules is to look at the challenge matches without rules and see who came out on top.

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?

That would be the sports method of training, and it has been around since the begining of time. I wouldn't call it an MMA method, just a sports method, just as boxing and wrestling use.

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".

No, MMA didn't create this style. However, most TMAists do not practice primarily in this manner, but rather in compliant and semicompliant exercises and drills.

What exactly is the "style" of MMA?

A hybrid of Western Boxing, western freestyle wrestling, muay thai, and BJJ, or any other combination of arts that covers approximately the same combination of techniques (i.e. SAMBO covers roughly the same territory as BJJ and western wrestling).

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.

The MMA guys have the stats for their competitive fights and use them to improve training. If you have a competitive fight record and use the statistics from it to feed back into your training, then I would put that in the same area as other sports systems. Its not unique to MMA, but rather typical of sports systems (boxers and kickboxers do it too).

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.

See above. MMA as we know it today is a particular hybrid style.

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 used this in referance to the supposed grappling prowess of some CMAists who claim to be able to simply "apply the principles of their art on their backs" who can't seem to win grappling tournaments doing it. That would suggest that if grappling is a concern or interest, one should look to the "conventional" sports grappling methods of BJJ, SAMBO, Catch wrestling, submission wrestling (some schools are pretty hit and miss) and Judo.

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.

Exactly.

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?

Cung Lee trained in a modern sports method, San Shou, which is not dissimilar to MMA in its standup methods. He then trained with Frank Shamrock, a famous if overrated MMAist to prepare his ground skills. He ended up fighting only two fights, both against cans.

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

7sm

I would say all three in the case of most CMA schools.

 

[Rook]

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.

Liddel and Silva (the two guys who to some extent can and have sucessfully stayed standing against most opponents) are themselves excellent BJJ practitioners. I expanded on this in my last post.

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.

There are several sucessful grappling methodologies, but they are rather similar. BJJ, SAMBO, modern Submission Wrestling, Judo, Catch Wrestling - you could study any of these and end up fine.

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 early MMA fights were all about this. We had highly rated standup fighters, everyone from kung fu experts to K-1 and IBC champions, who failed to keep their feet and could not get out from under much smaller grapplers. We saw a 260 lbs. kickboxing champ stuck under 180 lb. Rickson Gracie and struck into submission, we saw IBC cruserweight boxing champion stuck under an 170 lb. Gracie, we saw a sucession of 200+ lbs experts in a variety of marial arts stuck under 185 lb. Royce Gracie in the UFCs.

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.

Quick fights are ussually quick because of matchmaking - if someone gets dropped by one big punch, its ussually because they are nowhere near as good as the other guy (with a couple exceptions). Fights end quick because of the discrepancy in skill.

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.

Very few in the early UFCs tried to play the grapplers game on the ground. Very few in the Gracie challenges. Very few in the other early tournaments. Its very probable that if someone who doesn't grapple will get stuck under someone who does.

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?

Trackrecord. It really is the trackrecord of people like the Gracies that really changed the game. In the early 90s, everyone was saying that anytime now they were going to get torn to pieces before they could get the guy on the ground and it just never happened.

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.

You don't necessarily have to be a better grappler, but you have to be good enough to survive until you can bring it back to your feet. That takes a degree a grappling skill against a grappler, and there really isn't a way around it.

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

Yep.

 

[Andrew Green]

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.

I think there are a couple things that lead to this...

As soon as someone does start competing in this way they stop being a traditional stylist.

And you are right, the "traditional" styles often stress other things and object to ring fighting, it's not the goal. So why make a comparrison? Seems like saying a 18-wheeler is useless cause it looses in a drag race, or a sports car is uselss cause it can't haul much stuff across the country.

Different goals, comparrisons are silly.

MMA fighters do what they do very welll, they know what works in it and what doesn't, same for vale Tudo / no rules fighters. They are the best at what they do, that is what they train for.

If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it. That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything. Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose. Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.

 

[zDom]

I think there are a couple things that lead to this...

As soon as someone does start competing in this way they stop being a traditional stylist.

And you are right, the "traditional" styles often stress other things and object to ring fighting, it's not the goal. So why make a comparrison? Seems like saying a 18-wheeler is useless cause it looses in a drag race, or a sports car is uselss cause it can't haul much stuff across the country.

Different goals, comparrisons are silly.

MMA fighters do what they do very welll, they know what works in it and what doesn't, same for vale Tudo / no rules fighters. They are the best at what they do, that is what they train for.

If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it. That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything. Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose. Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.

Very well said, Andrew (if I had any rep left to give out right now, you'd be getting some).

And I think it even gets even more specific than that: a bracket racing (drag strip) car won't do well in a NASCAR race, for example, and vice versa. Both are race cars, but both are tweaked for optimum performance in a particular type of race.

 

[dok]

If that is not what you do or how you train you will not be as good at it. That's fine, no vehicle makes the best transport vehicle and race car, no martial art is the best at everything. Competing in a race against a race car, when you do not have a race car will have you lose. Competing in MMA when you are not a MMA fighter will have you lose.

I'm not a huge MMA fan, though I do appreciate its effectiveness. However, early on the UFC was -not- really an MMA event and was much more style vs. style (TMA vs. TMA, boxing vs. wrestling). Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present? How did they do? The question of how a traditional Kung Fu practicioner would fare in the octagon against chuck liddell is sorta done and done, but the UFC discredited some arts in terms of effectiveness (on the mat in the octagon) long before there was "MMA". Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu? tae kwon do? kempo?).

I'm both asking and stating - I don't actually know fight results and who beat who.

 

[Andrew Green]

Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present? How did they do?

A few, they didn't do well.

 

[funnytiger]

I'm not a huge MMA fan, though I do appreciate its effectiveness. However, early on the UFC was -not- really an MMA event and was much more style vs. style (TMA vs. TMA, boxing vs. wrestling). Were there any KF / CMA practicioners present? How did they do? The question of how a traditional Kung Fu practicioner would fare in the octagon against chuck liddell is sorta done and done, but the UFC discredited some arts in terms of effectiveness (on the mat in the octagon) long before there was "MMA". Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu? tae kwon do? kempo?).

I'm both asking and stating - I don't actually know fight results and who beat who.

I think what's important to distinguish is that kung fu in itself is not a 'style' it defines a multitude of chinese martial art styles. Wing Chun is not the same thing as Hung Ga and Hung Ga is not the same as Praying Mantis.

I would be interested to know what particular styles DID compete in the early days...

- ft

 

[funnytiger]

Jason Delucia is on guy who faught under the style of "kung fu". He wasn't breaking any barriers, but he wasn't awful either.

Record: 33 - 20 - 1 (Win - Loss - Draw).

Eh... not bad... apparently he also had some grappling in his arsenal as well.

 

[zDom]

Some styles just did well (muay thai, BJJ), some not so (kung fu? tae kwon do? kempo?)

This could be more of a reflection on the competitors themselves than the styles.

For example, in one of the first UFCs, I saw a Kenpo or Kempo stylist do horrible.

High rank (5th dan?) notwithstanding, the guy didn't exactly look like he was anywhere near being the caliber of someone like Jeff Speakman who by all appearances, would be a much better representative of the art, IMO.

The taekwondo guys I saw compete in the early UFCs looked like weightlifters with minimal TKD training, not as skilled as someone like Simon or Phillip Rhee. Or Pu Gil Gwon

And I think there was a Five Animals style Kung Fu practitioner, Jason DeLucia, who fought Royce in UFC 2, if I recall correctly. That was the one where he tried to stand up while Royce put him in an armbar. Even though he was tapping out, Royce arched and dislocated his arm.

I have no idea of how you could entice the top caliber representatives from TMAs into competing in this sort of event. Someone like Jeff Speakman or the Rhee brothers or Jet Li have WAY too much to lose, almost nothing to gain.

Whereas the Gracie family, at that time, and the MMA stylists today seeking fame and fortune have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

And both the Gracies and the newly-arrived MMAists have indeed gained plenty. Certainly a good decision on their parts.

 

[dmax999]

Just as another aspect I haven't seen brought up.

Traditional CMA were originally designed to teach soldiers to use spears. Not much use for ground fighting in those conditions. I believe TMAs have been modified since those times to focus on empty hand techniques since then, but its roots are definitaly based on the use of weapons first.

 

[HG1]

why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? 7sm

Traditional kung fu trains for self defense & real usage. Entering a MMA sporting competition means there are rules in place for the protection of the competitors. This means I have to water down skills I've spent years developing - no thanks.

Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? 7sm

I don't think so. Traditional Kung Fu has a different purpose than MMA sport.

In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? 7sm

As long as there are rules it's a sport - not reality based. This takes nothing away from MMA competitors they are skilled at what they do.

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

TCMA are doing just fine. We have been around a lot longer than MMA, are roots are very deep in the martial forest - we aren't going anywhere.

LOL...'evolution of fighting' that's a good one.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

There's something else that isn't being addressed.

The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.

Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!

Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.

same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.

Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event? You're gonna do something like THAT to someone just to win a game? When they have to earn a living same as you? I doubt it. At least I HOPE not.

I know i'd find it hard to live with. *shrug*.

So there is that natural propensity to avoid those things which is less so in the street as well that no one( even those who advocate them) are taking into account.

From the pretenders who throw out stooge pokes as excuses, to the sports crowd who say "oh well, we have fights with no rules and these fouls still dont come out"

Like as if doing something like that is automatically "Just that easy"

 

[Hand Sword]

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 think, and I maybe wrong, the author of the thread is referring to Mixed Martial arts as UFC, Pride, etc.., and how they train for their sport. (BJJ/wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai). However, In terms of definition, I guess yours and theirs would fall along the lines.

 

[Hand Sword]

There's something else that isn't being addressed.

The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.

Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!

Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.

same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.

Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event?

I know i'd find it hard to live with. *shrug*.

So there is that natural propensity to avoid those things which is less so in the street as well that no one( even those who advocate them) are taking into account.

Definitely a good point Andy! Plays to the subject of mentality, which was brought up by 7SM earlier. In terms of the real thing, attackers usually have conquered the mental reluctance, or fear, to not only start a fight, but, cause damage to the victim. This is where, imo, MMA training is a bit better equipped. Those that get into the MMA know what can happen to them. In training, the injuries, swelling, bleeding, occurs alot, helping to de- sensorize, and teach them to keep fighting. It also sets their minds to trying to achieve a K.O., or submission, against who's in front of them. In general, and they are exceptions to this, but, the TMA doesn't really do this. Shots are pulled, or no contact at all. Bleeding or an injury stops a fight, with apologies at that moment.

 

[Carol]

Handguns haven't made martial arts obsolete.

The FMAs use sticks and blades, which are legal in many jurisdictions around the world, they haven't made other martial arts obsolete.

I don't think that the interests match though.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Handguns haven't made martial arts obsolete.

The FMAs use sticks and blades, which are legal in many jurisdictions around the world, they haven't made other martial arts obsolete.

I don't think that the interests match though.

You know, I've said it before, I'll say it again:

I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life and they still dig holes with shovels.

 

[Andrew Green]

Weapons will never make hand to hand training obsolete, even ignoring sport and hobby and looking at it purely from a practical usage point of view, that level of force is not always required, or desired.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Good point and that's another difference between sport vs. defense--In professional fighting your job( within posted rules for whatever match you're fighting) is to otherwise be as aggressive as you can toward winning that match, where an average person defending him/herself most times cannot simply "unload" with everything they have and not expect repercussions after the fact if it is later ruled to be a disproportionate response to the actual degree of threat.

 

[Tames D]

You know, I've said it before, I'll say it again:

I've been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life and they still dig holes with shovels.

I love that.

 

[exile]

There's something else that isn't being addressed.

The natural reluctance any sane human has to visit that kind of violence on another without actually BEING in danger of death.

Sure you could cave in a windpipe and it could work, except that you caved in his ****in' windpipe!!!

Sure you could kick or otherwise break a leg, but---you BROKE his LEG.

same with eye attacks or muscle ripping and so on.

Now I can't speak for any of you but even though I might do it if it was "him or me"----i'd still feel like crap about it, so how do you think a sane person would feel about doing such things in what is known and what is meant to be a sporting event?

This point of Andy's contains I think the real problem that the TMAs face in terms of street violence: they contain really horrific techniques for inflcting extreme and very likely permanent damage on another human being, if they're trained for that purpose---and how many people are going to stay in a MA school which actually does train them, earnestly and seriously, to crush an assailant's larynx, or blind him, or kill him with a neck twist? The people who bequeathed the TMAs to us often had to do these things, because of the times and places where they lived, but as a rule, we don't. How many parents would continue to send their kids---who increasingly make up a large proportion of MA students, if my dojang is at all representative---to a MA school which drilled them on applying the techniques in a way that would allow them to maim and permanently disable, or kill, an attacker?

That kind of training is mostly reserved for military applications, and a good illustration of what it can do is the battle of Tra Binh Dong, when a greatly outnumbered company of South Korean Marines decimated a sizable combat unit of North Vietnamese infantry, with much of the fighting taking the form of grotesquely violent hand-to-hand combat in which the Korean Marines, all of them trained in military Taekwando, killed a large number of the attackers. Their use of TKD---the variety designed by General Choi as a lethal combat tool should soldiers be separated from their weapons for whatever reason---had been so effective in previous combat that the Viet Cong military command issued a directive the year before Tra Binh Dong to their officers to avoid any confrontation with Korean trops unless the odds were overwhelmingly stacked in their favor, specifically mentioning the danger that the Koreans' training in TKD posed to the Communist insurgents. Can anyone realistically picture any dojang in the US during the past 20 years imposing the kind of training that those Korean troops would have undergone to achieve that level of combat effectiveness? Or look at the video that we saw a few weeks ago when the `Police Shotokan' thread posted links to it---how many dojos train karate to that level of scary brutality? And it's not gonna happen, in a culture in which people seek out MAs for reasons that have little to do with genuine survival needs.

Here's where the dead horse comes in: it's been said, over and over, that it's not enough to have the techniques, you have to know how to use them and you have to be willing to use them. I've no idea just how Frank Shamrock or any of the Gracies would do against those Korean Marines under the conditions of the battle at Tra Binh Dong (whose ferocity and effectiveness earned every single member of the 11th S. Korean Marine Corps Company a full promotion to the next rank personally authorized by President Park Chung Hee of the ROK)--- but I have a hard time picturing the MMAists looking forward to the encounter. But how many people would want to undergo that training unless they had to, unless they were going to face just those conditions? As Andy suggested in his posts, anyone who eagerly looked forward to being able to deliver that level of violence to someone else under the normal conditions we live in probably has something seriously wrong with them. And no MA school that caters to that desire is going to stay in business for long, because that's not what the MA clientele in this country wants. So as far as I can see there's no point in talking about the TMAs vs. the MMAs or whatever; there's just no way short of fight-to-the-death conditions to evaluate which of them is `better' in combat, and even then, all you have in the end are individuals, trained to a certain level of destructive capability that in most cases probably falls far short of what is possible, fighting other individuals. MAs are systems and systems don't fight systems; people fight people.