UFC proves KF useless

[Hand Sword]

Outstandingly put Exile!

 

[MJS]

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...

Mike, Great post! You certainly bring up some very good points. For myself, I have no desire to compete. That being said, I'm not going to that 'record' that everyone seems to thrive on having. Does this mean that I can't defend myself? Of course not. Does this mean that the millions of other people that do not compete are incapable of defending themselves? Of course not. Having a 'record' in 'the ring' does not mean success in every confrontation.

I know a number of people that have successfully defended themselves, and last I knew, I havent seen them sign up for the latest cage fight.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I give alot of credit for what the UFC has done, and I've added methods to my own training. There are things that I gain from my training, that the mma type just can't offer.

 

[MJS]

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.

Well, thats the thing..is there an ultimate art out there? I think if we look really deep into every art, we'd see, a small hole somewhere. I'm sure that everywhere we look, we could find something, some area, that could be expanded upon.

 

[funnytiger]

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.

I understood the OP's question and its purpose. It was kind of an aside point on how we define MMA...

 

[kempo-vjj]

I have seen only a few, I'll say chinese martial artists (style?) that have competed in the UFC, from what I could see had very poor boxing skills. American boxing and Chinese taught boxing must be different. For the last Olympics the chinese team went and got cuban coaches to train them. Just 2 cents. I agree it's a training philosophy for UFC training. Traditional martial arts to do not seem to apply to this area. For me and my style neither do any of my self defense techniques.

 

[7starmantis]

There have been some great points so far in this thread. I wanted to clarify that I am not neccessarily referring to competition and "in the ring" or octagon fighting. I used that example to get my point across as the UFC is well known and would help my point be understood. It seems I wasn't clear enough. I am refering to the style of the UFC if there is one, the grappling mentality, the BJJ guys, the grapplers who train for self defense type combat, not sport competitions.

In my own opinion I think the whole grappling game is a wake up call for lazy martial artists to realize how they are training. I completely disagree that a person needs to go study bjj or wrestling to be able to effectively defend against a grappler, they need to study their style of fighting and methods of training to see if its realistic enough to handle this type of fighting. What fascinates me is the mentality that a grappler will be just so overpowering and overwhelming that he will take you down and choke you or submit you and therefore that intent is so strong nothing you can do will allow you to defend against it. They are so strong and forcefull they will take what you give them and still get the choke. Now we can all turn our heads and say that type of mentality doesn't exist, but its there and for the most part I think its very true. The problem is the inconsistency of the two opposing forces. For a non grappler, how do you really honestly shut down a grappler who is just forcing you to the ground and choking you out? If the attacker is a bjj fighter and you dont know bjj, you can't use the bjj method of escaping or turning the attack on them. Well, a nice tight ripping grab to the boys might do the trick, but as someone earlier pointed out, is that really what you want to do? I've broken many a choke with a nice tight twisting pull, but I'm not going to take it to the same level the choker can. The choker can put me unconscious with very little concern for my wellbeing, I can't very well scrape optic nerve out from under my fingernails and feel ok about it can I? That right there is the inconsistency of the "competition" of the two. However, most seriously competent grapplers I have trained with or had the pleasure of knowing honestly believe those "nasty techniques" will not honestly work. And with good reason too, most people who apply them either pull them or stop them, or have no force or application behind them. However, are you really going to hurt someone to prove you can defend their takedown or submission?

So then the discussion is moot some might say. But I find it interesting to discuss the possibilities of specific encounters of these types. In a real situation will a non grappler (who doesn't study a grappling art) be able to seriously defend against an intent takedown? I'm talking in a self defense situation? Then on the other hand, is a takedown really the smart thing to do on the pavement outside the club with 3 of his friends lurking around? These are the things that interst me, not the "will kung fu work in the octagon" discussion. We know it will not. I'm concerned with life or death self defense, and like it or not there are people who watch the UFC and want to go outside and armbar the first guy who looks at their girlfriend. How would a CMA practitioner deal with that type of intensity and technique? Can a CMA player really have the tools to defend those types of attacks without also studying bjj or wrestling?

7sm

 

[dok]

haven't you've answered your own question?
If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

style is nigh unto irrelevant compared to your commitment to training and the skill level of your instructor. that goes for mma vs kf or anything else.

 

[Andrew Green]

haven't you've answered your own question?
If you assume the following : that KF will not work in the octagon, and if 'nasty' techniques are not a viable defense against a determined grappler (thus negating the main difference between the octagon and the street) - then it seems that by your own reasoning : no, KF will not work in a self defense situation either.

But you are making the assumption that what works against a highly trained professional fighter who is prepared to fight, and knows he is in a fight and is commited to hurting you is what works in all situations.

Self-defence and "fighting", even the physical skills of self-defence and "fighting" are different.

Fighting is a piece of that puzzle, but there are other pieces. IMO MMA fills the fighting piece better then any other style, but it is only one pieces of a larger puzzle. Kung Fu, and other arts do fall short when compared to MMA under MMA standards. Look at the bigger picture and perhaps Kung FU fills other pieces of the puzzle better then MMA

 

[dok]

But you are making the assumption that what works against a highly trained professional fighter who is prepared to fight, and knows he is in a fight and is commited to hurting you is what works in all situations.

the question was [paraphrase] - "can CMA deal with the intensity / technique of someone who trains and fights MMA". Personally, I wasnt making any statements (cause I don't study KF/ CMA's) - only working off the logic and assumptions that 7star presented.

We're not talking "any and all" SD situations - as most SD situations don't involve UFC afficionados. We're talking SD situations VS. MMA (or at least, thats how I read it). SD overall is a much bigger issue that I haven't even thought of in this context, as quite honestly I don't know enough about CMA's to make a qualified assertion.

 

[Carol]

So then the discussion is moot some might say. But I find it interesting to discuss the possibilities of specific encounters of these types. In a real situation will a non grappler (who doesn't study a grappling art) be able to seriously defend against an intent takedown? I'm talking in a self defense situation?

Sure, if they train for the situation.

Can field hockey player put on skates join an ice hockey league on the rink? I think so.

But a field hockey player that doesn't spend time learning how to ice skate and doesn't put in the effort learning the rules of their new league will probably not perform as well as the player that spends time training on the rink and absorbing the new rules.

Then on the other hand, is a takedown really the smart thing to do on the pavement outside the club with 3 of his friends lurking around?

That question could also apply Baqua, yes? (Or Silat, or Judo...) As a Silat player, I'd say...it depends.

These are the things that interst me, not the "will kung fu work in the octagon" discussion. We know it will not. I'm concerned with life or death self defense, and like it or not there are people who watch the UFC and want to go outside and armbar the first guy who looks at their girlfriend. How would a CMA practitioner deal with that type of intensity and technique?

The same way a CMAer would deal with the intensity and technique of a pugilist that would sucker-punch the first guy who looks at their girlfriend. Situational awareness is paramount.

Can a CMA player really have the tools to defend those types of attacks without also studying bjj or wrestling?

Sure a CMA player can have the tools. But threats can change.

Sometime back, a teacher taught me ways to help avoid a potential carjacking. It's great advice. Park under the light, stay with a trusted companion, carry a light, look around the car, always have a cell phone at the ready...etc.

I believe very strongly in these principles that help prevent carjacking. I also believe that these principles are so good they help keep me safe from troubles other than carjacking.

But, as good as these skills are, they don't really protect me against....identity theft. I had to learn a different skillset to protect my credit history.

A CMAer that seeks out how to break a choke or how to defend against a takedown is going to do better than a CMAer that wonders why a defense against a punch may not be enough to get them out of a sleeper hold.

 

[variance]

I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.

First off I believe there hasn't been a large representation of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts fighters in UFC. The "Wing Chun" guy wasn't even a wing chun guy if i remember right. he had what, six months of training?

MMA is a sport.
The difference between street and sport is more than just technique and rules.

The rules in MMA make it biased towards submission and ground because knockouts are more risky and dangerous. You're not going there to defeat or incapicitate/kill them. You're there to win. You don't worry about other factors.

In a real fight. You never want to be on the ground any longer than you need to. Potential Ground Stomp by a multiple opponents. Most sport fighters also don't train extensively to deal with weapons. They train around the rules of the sport in order to win. Not to kill. Not to say they can't defend themselves but to make ignorant generalizations is just retarded. Reminds me of the long retarded arguments of Freudian vs Jungian Psychology.

also in a sport, you have sportsmanship, control. Some people have trouble fighting in a restricted arbitrary ruleset when they've trained otherwise.
"All or Nothing". While others may have taken a "zen/buddhist" stance. They see no need to go out and prove themselves to the world or they have other things preoccupying their minds.

I believe someone said it best that the UFC/MMA is the best attitude is mainly a reactionary insecure attitude to what they perceived "mysticism" and "condescendence" of eastern martial arts.

which is not to say that this condescendence/superioity complex doesn't exist. but the art/system being overall superior threads have got to stop.

The only constant in every martial art is adaptability and improvement.
What people are generally taught is techniques and different possibilities
How a individual chooses to interpret and utilize them is up to the individual.
right tool/technique for the task.

I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.

 

[matt.m]

You guys know something, the post that Exile made about the ROK Marines was a great example.

I will use one of my own......I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994. The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.

The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself. You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.

 

[MJS]

I believe this thread is nothing but disguised apologetic flamebait IMHO
and the topic of it is quite inflammatory despite the authors apologetics.

First off I believe there hasn't been a large representation of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts fighters in UFC. The "Wing Chun" guy wasn't even a wing chun guy if i remember right. he had what, six months of training?

MMA is a sport.
The difference between street and sport is more than just technique and rules.

The rules in MMA make it biased towards submission and ground because knockouts are more risky and dangerous. You're not going there to defeat or incapicitate/kill them. You're there to win. You don't worry about other factors.

In a real fight. You never want to be on the ground any longer than you need to. Potential Ground Stomp by a multiple opponents. Most sport fighters also don't train extensively to deal with weapons. They train around the rules of the sport in order to win. Not to kill. Not to say they can't defend themselves but to make ignorant generalizations is just retarded. Reminds me of the long retarded arguments of Freudian vs Jungian Psychology.

also in a sport, you have sportsmanship, control. Some people have trouble fighting in a restricted arbitrary ruleset when they've trained otherwise.
"All or Nothing". While others may have taken a "zen/buddhist" stance. They see no need to go out and prove themselves to the world or they have other things preoccupying their minds.

I believe someone said it best that the UFC/MMA is the best attitude is mainly a reactionary insecure attitude to what they perceived "mysticism" and "condescendence" of eastern martial arts.

which is not to say that this condescendence/superioity complex doesn't exist. but the art/system being overall superior threads have got to stop.

The only constant in every martial art is adaptability and improvement.
What people are generally taught is techniques and different possibilities
How a individual chooses to interpret and utilize them is up to the individual.
right tool/technique for the task.

I give the initiating post a thumbs down as a pointless inflammatory thread.
and I'm disappointed to see that its from a moderator no less.
Given such a huge forum. hasn't this argument/debate been done to death already.

Sir,

You'll notice throughout this forum, there are many topics of a similar nature. While it may appear to be redundant, anyone is free to start a topic of their choice. If you feel that there is a post that is rude, inflammatory, etc., feel free to use the RTM (Report To Mod) feature. Its the little red triangle that is found in the upper right corner of every post. Doing this will generate a ticket for the mod. team and it will be reviewed. Also, if there is a post that you do not wish to read, feel free to use the ignore feature which is found on everyones profile, or just ignore the thread.

Mike

 

[Rook]

The thing is, this isn't about competing theories anymore. In the 80s, we could talk about what art might beat what art when where why and how based on comparing their theories about and approaches to combat.

This arguement is fundamentally different. We aren't talking about what could happen, but explaining what DID happen and WHY.

The grappler is not an unstoppable force, but to stop one, you need to have the only real anti-grappling defense there is - grappling.

Rodger Gracie divided the martial arts into three general ranges - freemovement, clinching, and ground. Now, you can easily subdivide them ad nausium, but movement within the three is very fluid, so I'm going to stick with his three ranges.

Most martial arts deal with only one of these ranges in their common day to day practice. The realization of MMA has been that it takes alot less skill and strength to clinch up with someone than to stay out of the clinch, and alot less skill to take someone down than to remain standing against that takedown. Some people, like the aforementioned Chuck Liddel and Vanderlei Silva, are at such a high level that they are rarely taken down - but even they do go down on occasion.

There is a need for actual results against MMAists/grapplers (not the same thing BTW) by TMAists rather than theoretical exercises. I ussually enjoy debating theories, but this is just getting absurd. Instead of SAYING someone could have sucess, I hope we will get an actual attempt followed by the video being posted and follow-up matches.

I have other work to do, so I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[zDom]

There is a need for actual results against MMAists/grapplers (not the same thing BTW) by TMAists rather than theoretical exercises. ... I hope we will get an actual attempt followed by the video being posted and follow-up matches.

Why is this needed? By whom?

And how do you propose to get this video footage? TMAists tend to avoid getting into those situations.

 

[Rook]

Why is this needed? By whom?

And how do you propose to get this video footage? TMAists tend to avoid getting into those situations.

Its hard to have a discussion when you can't compare and don't compare any proof or evidence, only the theories themselves.

If I say "A decent grappler can submit a larger, top level striker who is not familiar with grappling," I can cite examples, and just like footnote in an academic text, anyone can get the videos. For example:

Genki Sudo (155 lbs.) submitts Erich Esch (professional 82-9-5 boxing, with 58 KOs, IBA Superheavyweight champion, 390 lbs).

Royce Gracie (180 lbs.) submits Patrick Smith (225 lbs, K-1 champion)

If I say "A person untrained in sports grappling can defeat a top rated Mixed Martial artist OR a top rated sports grappler" then there is no video, no recorded instance of it ever happening. Its just theory. And seeing as there is ample evidence to the contrary, it is not a particularly good theory.

 

[Flying Crane]

If I say "A decent grappler can submit a larger, top level striker who is not familiar with grappling," I can cite examples, and just like footnote in an academic text, anyone can get the videos. For example:

Yes, but I can also say that a decent striker can pummel a good grappler into submission, and then cite Gichen Funakoshi who went to Japan and defeated the jujitsu people by kicking them in the nuts. They weren't accustomed to these fighting techniques and strategies, and he took advantage of that and defeated them.

Is this conclusive proof that striking arts are better than grappling arts? Of course not! they are just an example, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[exile]

Folks---

I really don't think this thread is, or need be interpreted as, a sequence of disguised flames and counter-flames. The people posting are all experienced MAists, and at least some have been involved in real, brutal, dirty fights. I think the underlying question, the one this thread is really about, is, are you willing to inflict the most horrible damage on another person that you're capable of, using the tools your MA almost certainly makes available to you (in abundance) to carry out that kind of damage? Are you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack?

If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life possibly in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is willing to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the chance to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that in general the grappler will be able to block every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver? And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
more likely to win as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist.

But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:

I was a Corporal in the U.S. Marines during our deployment in Haiti in 1994. The way I handled hand to hand fighting while there was a complete 180 to what I would even comprehend doing to someone in the dojang or any kind of competition.

The big difference was absolutely clear.......destroy them or be destroyed yourself. You either one 1st place or nothing......to lose had dire consequences.

That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by anyone, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is still a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?

 

[Rook]

Are you really prepared to permanently destroy your opponent/assailant's eyesight or confine him to lifesupport in response to an attack?

This is a good time to point out that sports fighters train to finish fights without the sort of unnecessarily dehabilitating techniques. A very common ending is a chokeout - which, properly done, does no permanent damage whatsoever and yet completely ends the fight.

If the answer is yes, then under what conditions would you do this? On the street---with your life possibly in serious danger? (but you won't always know in advance if that much danger is involved...) In the octagon? That would be, as Andy M. pointed out much earlier, the sign of a genuinely disturbed mind. But if someone is willing to do that kind of violence to another person in any context at all, regardless of the threat, then the most accomplished grappler is going to lose to this person, even if the latter is delivering the strike using a TMA technique. Only if the grappler's skill is so great that they can protect themselves from any of the potentially fatal or permanently disabling fouls that were listed in an early post could you say that a skilled grappler will always defeat a comparably skilled TMAist. If the latter is willing to deliver a lethal or blinding strike for no better reason than to prove a point, then it seems to me that unless the grappler is willing to do the same thing, the only way the grappler is going to win is if they are capable of imposing the takedown so effectively, and so overwhelmingly quickly, that the somewhat crazed TMAist we're contemplating never gets the chance to deliver a hard strike to the throat, or neck vertebra, or push two fingers deep into one of the grappler's eye canals, or... you get the picture. Do we have any evidence that in general the grappler will be able to block every one of those lethal/crippling possibilities that a TMAist specializing in a striking art has the tools in his or her toolkit to deliver?

The evidence has been the no-rules matches. If it were likely that such tactics would suceed, they would have been sucessfully used by now. There is absolutely no shortage of video of people unsucessfully going for the Gracies eyes, throat and groin as well as biting, pinching, trying to push pressure points and otherwise trying to make up for their lack of grappling skill. Now, some people would make the arguement that these people are simply too inadequate as a representative of their style and that their grandmaster or some such person WOULD be able to sucessfully use their tactics. However, seeing as these people refuse to consent to any challenge match, there really is no reason to think that they would do any better.

And if the answer is `no', then the most you can say would be this: in a physical conflict between a MMA-type exponent and a TMA exponent, the MMA exponent is
more likely to win as long as the TMAist isn't willing to kill, maim or blind his or her antagonist.

I don't believe this.

But doesn't this reductio ad absurdum show that the question itself is pointless if what we're interested in is self-defense effectiveness? Because in a real survival situation, a TMAist might well do what s/he would never consider doing in any kind of athletic competition. Look at what Matt says:



That's the voice of grim eperience talking. My guess is, if a TMAist senses a potentially deadly attack is about to be launched by anyone, trained in any style whatever, and if that TMAist has trained to a high level of skill to deliver deadly force (along the lines that at least some dojos, dojangs, CMA, FMA etc schools train), then it's not going to matter if the attacker is the most skilled grappler in the world---because the person fighting them is willing and able to destroy them, literally, given the slightest opening. Again---is there anyone on this thread who thinks that---given a TMAist and a MMAist of comparable skill, where the former is willing to kill the latter and has the striking skills to deliver a lethal or crippling blow---the MMAist is still a shoe-in(or even just more likely) to win simply because their skill-set is MMA? Does this make it clearer why the question of MMA making KF, or TKD, or Karate, or Silat, or... obsolete is arguably so hard to make sense of?

I understand your position better but I really don't agree. There has been a great deal of talk about the ability to deliver deadly force, but no one has been sucessful in doing so against even moderately or modestly skilled MMAists. I don't believe that their tactics will be sucessful.