UFC proves KF useless

[MJS]

I think we've been here before, but what could be a better unarmed fighting method than the one that comes out on top of all the unarmed fights that involves it? There are situations that no one but no one can prepare you or train you for (I heard a guy not far from where I live got shot with a sawed off shotgun from a guy hiding in a doorway when he walked past on the sidewalk... there really is no unarmed defense for stuff like that that doesn't come out of a comic book), there are armed situations, and then there is unarmed fighting. The optimum method for fighting unarmed, IMO has been established over years of pitting unarmed fighting methods against each other under few or no rules and watching a very consistant result.

The bold is mine. What you're describing is what works in the environment of the ring. There are many arts out there, all of which can prove effective. As I've said countless times, but don't seem to get a reply...we can sit and debate about tape, proof of this and proof of that, but the fact remains that there are many folks that have used TMA to defend themselves and there is no tape. This does not mean that its not effective.

Let me put it this way. In a fight between two untrained unarmed people, one is could win. Maybe he would win by a smaller margin if he trained in, say, the Ashida Kim system (he would win despite, rather than because of, his training), maybe he would win by a larger margin than with no training if he studied a legitimate TMA, and maybe a larger margin still if he studied a sports system. In all cases, our hypothetical man won, and sucessfully defended himself. However, because in most of the cases he didn't use the best method he could have, he probably had a longer, more injury filled and more tiring fight than was necessary.

Again, 2 people matched, in a controlled environment. The ring dictates what happens, what does not happen, weapons, etc. This is an apples to oranges debate.

A good MMA fighter would be using his takedown defense to try to stay OFF the ground in a situation when most other people would have been knocked down by the group. If caught on the ground, he could regain his feet quicker, and if not immediately possible, utilize guard to keep people from mounting directly on top of him.

Sure, that is possible, against one person. I'm interested in hearing how this is done against 2, 3 or more?

Mike

 

[MJS]

Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport.

Exactly!!!

 

[Andrew Green]

Yet the truth is you will fight the way you train. Spending more time on sport rules may not exclude spending time on self defense, but what are your goals? Are you wanting to be the godl medalist? Then why waste prescious time on self defense when you should be working your olympic rules? See my point? If you really want to be the best, you train for that specifically, if thats sport fighting you would be foolish to spend time apart from the needed skill sets for that sport.

Yes, fight the way you train, I agree to that fully. On that note do you subscribe to hard sparring as a regular part of training? I think the stop before a target method of sparring is probably one of the most counter productive activites you can do under this theory.

I also think that in order to fight the way you train, you have to be "fighting" in training, which means some form, or better yet many different forms of sparring.

As far as goals go, again, I agree. Someone training to be a Olympic TKD fighter should focus on the skills needed for that. Someone looking for a more general purpose method, one that can be adapted to different situations, needs to train in many ways. Sort of a Jake of all Trades approach.

MMA is this in the limited spectrum of the sport systems. It covers boxing, wrestling, Submission, Kickboxing, etc. Few of the fighters would be at the top level of the specialized sports, but as those are not the goal, they train in all to a more moderate level.

Of course MMA does not cover the full spectrum, nor does any other art. But it is a individual choice as too how wide of a piece of that spectrum they want to focus on. With that comes a trade off, the more stuff you focus on, the less you get to focus on the smaller pieces.

If the goal is to be the best at a single piece, that leaves little room for the others. However, competition, or being the best at any given slice is not everyones goal.

I agree but what I was addresing was the mentailty and near blind quoting of ideas that anything outside the MMA circle doesn't train for those or trains ineffectively for those situations.

It goes back to the same idea as above. MMA fighters train the most effective techniques and methods for the slice of the spectrum that they specialize in. Perhaps not to the same level as those in more specialized systems, but still basically the same.

A wrestler and a MMA fighter will train takedown defences in basically the same way. A wrestling club will likely spend more time on it, go into more detail of it, and a MMA club will take more things into consideration (ex. punches) but for the most part, they are trained to do basically the same thing, and use the same sort of training methods to do it.

Where conflicts come up seems to be where one of two things happen:

1) Someone tries to assert that certain things work / do not work within that MMA piece of the spectrum, something which people that train in MMA know to be false through experience. (ex. When mounted simply use tiger claw technique and finish him)

or

2) Someone from within that spectrum tries to make claims about other pieces of it to those that specialize in training for those pieces.


We are all martial artists, but we do different things. If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.

Similar to tradespeople. There are many types, they do different things. Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.

If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen. Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....

 

[zDom]

We are all martial artists, but we do different things. If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.

Similar to tradespeople. There are many types, they do different things. Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.

If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen. Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....

Well said Andrew. Speaking just for myself (although I'm sure a lot of TMAists will agree) you are not the one I find myself disagreeing with.

But there are a couple of MMA enthusiasts (some of which, I understand, don't even TRAIN in MMA!) who will hold forth on things that I find hard not to take issue with.

For example:

• The claim that MMAists have identified and practice the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE techniques known to mankind — and that those practiced by TMAs are INeffective because they are not proven on tape!

Absurd! Especially when we often are using/training the EXACT same techniques!

Why would an armbar (juji-gatame) as trained by a MMAist be any more effective than the very same armbar I train in hapkido?

What makes him think that a sprawl defense as trained in a MMA gym effective while the sprawl I train in hapkido isn't?

• The claim that the Muay Thai kicks (which these MMA fans claim is part of MMA and not really a TMA because they SAY it is!) are selected because they are the most effective kicks — more effective than the Korean TMA kicking I train.

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps MMAists train that MT roundhouse kick, for example, because it is easier to master the basics of than a Korean roundhouse?

Sure, it is effective enough: I see lotsa people in UFC knocked out with what I consider to be a sloppy, unrefined roundhouse.

Why do I consider it sloppy and unrefined? Well, because it is exactly how I see brand new students with NO kicking experience but sufficient flexibility kick!

But BETTER (the optimal!) than the roundhouse kick I have spent years refining? You gotta be KIDDING!

Lets hook up a force recording machine and I can SHOW them with objective data, or lets go rock a heavy bag (a bit subjective, but probably demonstrable).

Heck — there is even video proof: we have seen scores — maybe HUNDREDS — of MT roundhouse kicks thrown to the legs used to "weaken" the opponent with cumulative effect.

Then go look at the most recent pay-per-view UFC: somebody chambers and unleashes a roundhouse on someone's hip (i.e., using the quads instead of just the hip flexors as with the MT straight-leg roundhouse) and it DROPS the guy with a SINGLE KICK — a TKO from a LEG KICK!


I could go on and on, but to wrap this up: I don't think the MMAist have found a list of OPTIMAL techniques so much as they have seen a recipe that works (for example, MT kicks + boxing hands + BJJ ground techs) and decide to train that recipe.

More power to 'em! I'm not casting stones their way — they found something that works, so go with it!

But to presume to tell TMAists that our techniques do NOT work because they are not listed among the ingredients of that particular recipe is, well offensive or comical, depending on your outlook on life.

Likewise, claiming that particular recipe is the "optimal" or "best way" because it has a "proven record on tape" is fallacious.

For example, I don't see anybody in the MMA using ridgehands. I don't have any taped proof they would work in the UFC, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if someone trained it and tried it, they would knock someone clean out.

I don't see anybody using body shots during standup (attempting, sometimes, but not effectively using). I will repeat the same bet: if somebody trained it well and tried it in the UFC, they would probably win themself a UFC match by knocking the wind out of an opponent. Video proof? I got none.


There is stuff out there in TMAs that if someone would give it a try could shake up the UFC/Pride/etc. world — and it doesn't have to be be eye gouging, crotch kicking, tiger clawing.

Anyway, its Friday night, work is over, and I have to go get some #2 white pine.

To put it in a nutshell: I'm not knocking MMA — I even like the idea of them playing a game in which ALL ranges of combat are fair game. And it IS fun to watch techniques (many of which I train, like armbar, rear naked choke, etc.) used in a pressure situation.

But I'm tired of MMA fans knocking TMAs as "ineffective" and trying to insult TMAists into a cage fight to "prove" on video that we ARE effective.

Ain't worth it. I like having my ears look pretty instead of a like a hunk of cauliflower. I like having my front teeth instead of a (another) partial bridge.

And I like not inflicting violence on other martial artists simply to entertain the masses and to prove my effectiveness to someone who probably would just call it a "fluke" even if I did!

 

[matt.m]

You know I have to agree with Scott. The thing is this: Why in the world would you want to go to the ground in a fight? You are more likely to lose control if you do. Plus, most fights I have been in involve multiple attackers.

I love watching MMA events, I think they are cool. However, I don't think the recipe is the end all of end alls of the best of the best either.

 

[exile]

Once again, I think zDom and Matt have nailed the points exactly. A book I've been reading for the past little while puts it very nicely: MAists are all doing the same thing, but in different ways. If you're really good at your way, really master not just the kinematics of the techniques but the strategic plan of your art, and how that plan is realized tactically no matter what the situation is, then you're going to be a very capable fighter, period. But we keep coming back to the same point: it's what you train for that determines what you wind up being able to do, eh? If you train hard enough for the octagon you're going to do well in the octagon; if you train for Olympic sparring you're going to do well in that; if you train as realistically as possible for street nastiness and hang the legal consequences (`better to be judged by twelve than carried by six'), and really master the strategic/tactical interaction that your art expresses, you're going to do well in that. I just don't see any point or usefulness trying to make any stronger claim than this on behalf of one or another fighting system...

 

[Kensai]

Well said Andrew. Speaking just for myself (although I'm sure a lot of TMAists will agree) you are not the one I find myself disagreeing with.

But there are a couple of MMA enthusiasts (some of which, I understand, don't even TRAIN in MMA!) who will hold forth on things that I find hard not to take issue with.

For example:

• The claim that MMAists have identified and practice the BEST and MOST EFFECTIVE techniques known to mankind — and that those practiced by TMAs are INeffective because they are not proven on tape!

Absurd! Especially when we often are using/training the EXACT same techniques!

Why would an armbar (juji-gatame) as trained by a MMAist be any more effective than the very same armbar I train in hapkido?

What makes him think that a sprawl defense as trained in a MMA gym effective while the sprawl I train in hapkido isn't?

• The claim that the Muay Thai kicks (which these MMA fans claim is part of MMA and not really a TMA because they SAY it is!) are selected because they are the most effective kicks — more effective than the Korean TMA kicking I train.

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps MMAists train that MT roundhouse kick, for example, because it is easier to master the basics of than a Korean roundhouse?

Sure, it is effective enough: I see lotsa people in UFC knocked out with what I consider to be a sloppy, unrefined roundhouse.

Why do I consider it sloppy and unrefined? Well, because it is exactly how I see brand new students with NO kicking experience but sufficient flexibility kick!

But BETTER (the optimal!) than the roundhouse kick I have spent years refining? You gotta be KIDDING!

Lets hook up a force recording machine and I can SHOW them with objective data, or lets go rock a heavy bag (a bit subjective, but probably demonstrable).

Heck — there is even video proof: we have seen scores — maybe HUNDREDS — of MT roundhouse kicks thrown to the legs used to "weaken" the opponent with cumulative effect.

Then go look at the most recent pay-per-view UFC: somebody chambers and unleashes a roundhouse on someone's hip (i.e., using the quads instead of just the hip flexors as with the MT straight-leg roundhouse) and it DROPS the guy with a SINGLE KICK — a TKO from a LEG KICK!


I could go on and on, but to wrap this up: I don't think the MMAist have found a list of OPTIMAL techniques so much as they have seen a recipe that works (for example, MT kicks + boxing hands + BJJ ground techs) and decide to train that recipe.

More power to 'em! I'm not casting stones their way — they found something that works, so go with it!

But to presume to tell TMAists that our techniques do NOT work because they are not listed among the ingredients of that particular recipe is, well offensive or comical, depending on your outlook on life.

Likewise, claiming that particular recipe is the "optimal" or "best way" because it has a "proven record on tape" is fallacious.

For example, I don't see anybody in the MMA using ridgehands. I don't have any taped proof they would work in the UFC, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if someone trained it and tried it, they would knock someone clean out.

I don't see anybody using body shots during standup (attempting, sometimes, but not effectively using). I will repeat the same bet: if somebody trained it well and tried it in the UFC, they would probably win themself a UFC match by knocking the wind out of an opponent. Video proof? I got none.


There is stuff out there in TMAs that if someone would give it a try could shake up the UFC/Pride/etc. world — and it doesn't have to be be eye gouging, crotch kicking, tiger clawing.

Anyway, its Friday night, work is over, and I have to go get some #2 white pine.

To put it in a nutshell: I'm not knocking MMA — I even like the idea of them playing a game in which ALL ranges of combat are fair game. And it IS fun to watch techniques (many of which I train, like armbar, rear naked choke, etc.) used in a pressure situation.

But I'm tired of MMA fans knocking TMAs as "ineffective" and trying to insult TMAists into a cage fight to "prove" on video that we ARE effective.

Ain't worth it. I like having my ears look pretty instead of a like a hunk of cauliflower. I like having my front teeth instead of a (another) partial bridge.

And I like not inflicting violence on other martial artists simply to entertain the masses and to prove my effectiveness to someone who probably would just call it a "fluke" even if I did!

Righteous post Scott. \^^/ Not much further to add.

 

[7starmantis]

Some really great posts here!!
A few things....

Yes, fight the way you train, I agree to that fully. On that note do you subscribe to hard sparring as a regular part of training? I think the stop before a target method of sparring is probably one of the most counter productive activites you can do under this theory.

I also think that in order to fight the way you train, you have to be "fighting" in training, which means some form, or better yet many different forms of sparring.

Yes, very much so. In fact, if you read alot of my posts you will see I'm a huge proponent of hard "sparring" (I hate that word). Not everyone is interested in fighting or hard fighting, but if you are you must, must in my opinion, participate in hard fighting very often. There are great benefits in going slow to learn techniques and feel and such, in fact its a must, but just as important is full speed hard fighting.....if you want to be a fighter.

Of course MMA does not cover the full spectrum, nor does any other art. But it is a individual choice as too how wide of a piece of that spectrum they want to focus on. With that comes a trade off, the more stuff you focus on, the less you get to focus on the smaller pieces.

I'm probably offering a very unpopular view point, but I dont think I agree with the idea that no art can cover the full spectrum. So far I've heard no true explination of this mentality or really any source for this ideology. I think many times its used to say that no one art covers everything other arts do and I agree, but I think there are systems out there that cover the full spectrum, just not in the same way other arts would. There are complete systems out there and while they may not cover certain aspects of fighting like other systems, they do cover the full spectrum or aspects of fighting. Now its become popular for some reason to subscribe to the "no art covers it all" mentality almost like it become popular not to say Merry Christmas for fear of offending someone who doesn't practice Christmas. The problem is, I'm not saying your art, or any art for that matter is incomplete or lacking, but merely that there are systems that could be considered complete if your not holding specific curriculum for what you want complete to be. We must realize that there are many ways to address different issues or aspects of fighting, no one style has the market cornered even on small specific issues. Boxing doesn't have the market cornered for hand techniques, they are amazing at hand techniques, but its just another way to address hand techniques. Am I making any sense?

A wrestler and a MMA fighter will train takedown defences in basically the same way. A wrestling club will likely spend more time on it, go into more detail of it, and a MMA club will take more things into consideration (ex. punches) but for the most part, they are trained to do basically the same thing, and use the same sort of training methods to do it.

I agree. However you could substitue the word MMA in your statement with CMA and be correct as well. Thats my point. BAd training is bad and good training is good regardless of style or system.

Where conflicts come up seems to be where one of two things happen:

1) Someone tries to assert that certain things work / do not work within that MMA piece of the spectrum, something which people that train in MMA know to be false through experience. (ex. When mounted simply use tiger claw technique and finish him)

or

2) Someone from within that spectrum tries to make claims about other pieces of it to those that specialize in training for those pieces.

Again, I agree. Yet, my point has been that the people (some of the people) who train in MMA are using someone elses experience to "know" it to be false. Also, it seems when someone from MMA standpoint talks about those techniques that dont work they can only seem to come up with hollywood and fantasy creations like the "tiger claw and finish him", "poison buddah palm" etc. A serious CMA fighter isn't going to be doing those fantasy gathering technqiues on you. Thats why I say its so dangerous to assume what does and doesn't work, or what will or will not be seen in a fight. Are there alot of fantasy gatherings refering to themselves as CMA schools, of course. Why, I'm not so sure, but its just as well with me, most people who I fight allready have some assumption as to how I will fight and it really gives me an extra edge
See the thing alot of people dont understand is that many CMA systems aren't technique driven or confined. My system of fighting is based on fighting principles so you might very well see many different kinds of attacks, many very similar if not exactly the same as the MMA fighter would be using. Some may be very different, but the strategy may be very different. That make sense?

We are all martial artists, but we do different things. If everyone agreed to recognize what they do is only a piece of the puzzle and not the whole thing we'd all be a lot better off.

How so? While I agree we would be better if everyone understood that their way isn't the only way, but there are complete methods of training out there, at least I've yet to see any valid proof otherwise. The only thing I ever really get is the "burden of proof" argument and thats just a little trite. Accepting that what you do is only one way and not the way is great, but to say there are no complete methods of training out there is just not true.

Similar to tradespeople. There are many types, they do different things. Plumbers don't tell electricians how to wire switches, electricians don't tell plumbers how to fix sinks.

If I was a electrician, trying to fix my sink, and a plumber came along and said "DOn't do that, it won;t work, you'll have water everywhere" I'd probably listen. Unless I was a martial artists, in which case my electrician skills are more then capable with dealing with any plumbing skill just fine as plumbing is a inferior trade proved through electrician competitions and the fact that plumbing is restricted to the rules of water flow, not a art like electricity which, unlike plumbing is a life or death matter....

I see your point but I think the example is a bit flawed. I dont see what different styles are doing as so different as plumbing and electricity. Is the goal in self defense fighting not fighting to protect yourself? The whole sport/reality thing has been address (by you I thought) earlier where the person who chooses to compete under certain rules is not then bound by them? If you take a group of people who train for realistic self defense, all from different styles of fighting...are they really so different in specialization? Are they all really aiming for such different things?

What if you were an electrician trying to fix your sink to leak so you could electricute the thief that breaks into your house? Would you still listen to him? See there are different reasons to do things. The problem comes in when the person training for sport (plumber) starts telling the self defense fighter (electrician) that what he's doing will get him electricuted and killed faster than he can say poison buddah palm. There is a level of understanding that must be considered when discussing such different things. The sports fighter (plumber) doesn't address death like the self defense fighter (electrician) does, why should he tell the electrician that what hes doing will get him killed and he needs to start using PVC pipe instead of copper wire. That distinction is valid and the level of force needed for each is different. However a fighter who trains for life or death self defense could most likely maintain control enough to compete in sport events, probably much less effective than the sport fighter, but its possible. However the gradient of force is moveing upward when taking the sport fighter and asking him to compete in a life or death situation. Could he do it, most likely would he be less effective than the self defense fighter, of course just like the other example. However, since the force gradient is moving up he would be in a much more precious disadvantage than the other way around. That make any sense?

7sm

 

[exile]

Another terrific post on this, 7sm.

 

[xingyiquan]

Compare CMA to MMA in UFC is like compare an orange to an apple, and say apple taste better. MMA is created for UFC, UFC is a sport, and there are rules, purpose is to win the fight and obey the rules. CMA was created from the military, and the only purpose was to kill your enemy, and there are no rules. I have to agree that ever since fire arm was invented, CMA has gradually lost its ground, the people with CMA skills now days are no where near the level when people trainning CMA because their life was depend on it hundred years ago. The car analogy might be right, except people with CMA skills now days is really the 1920's car and people with CMA skills a hundred year ago is the million dollar fiberglass race car.

 

[Rook]

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.

DeLucia started out a traditional kung fu guy, and ended up switching to more modern methods.... I believe he is belted in BJJ and has spent a great deal of time in MMA training halls. If you watch his pancrase fights, he is by no means doing anything that looks dissimilar to normal MMA.

 

[Rook]

Compare CMA to MMA in UFC is like compare an orange to an apple, and say apple taste better. MMA is created for UFC, UFC is a sport, and there are rules, purpose is to win the fight and obey the rules. CMA was created from the military, and the only purpose was to kill your enemy, and there are no rules. I have to agree that ever since fire arm was invented, CMA has gradually lost its ground, the people with CMA skills now days are no where near the level when people trainning CMA because their life was depend on it hundred years ago. The car analogy might be right, except people with CMA skills now days is really the 1920's car and people with CMA skills a hundred year ago is the million dollar fiberglass race car.

Perhaps you didn't read the thread. We discussed no rules fights at length.

 

[Rook]

Some really great posts here!!
A few things....

Yes, very much so. In fact, if you read alot of my posts you will see I'm a huge proponent of hard "sparring" (I hate that word). Not everyone is interested in fighting or hard fighting, but if you are you must, must in my opinion, participate in hard fighting very often. There are great benefits in going slow to learn techniques and feel and such, in fact its a must, but just as important is full speed hard fighting.....if you want to be a fighter.

Agreed.

I'm probably offering a very unpopular view point, but I dont think I agree with the idea that no art can cover the full spectrum. So far I've heard no true explination of this mentality or really any source for this ideology. I think many times its used to say that no one art covers everything other arts do and I agree, but I think there are systems out there that cover the full spectrum, just not in the same way other arts would.

This one is easy to counter. How many weapons can any system handle? Can a propenent weild a Hungarian Axel Sword? A Scottish Claymore? A Chinese Broadsword? A Japanese Katana? A Russian AK-47? A WWII combat knife? A Spanish Short Mace? A Zulu spear? An Israeli throwing knife? An American sniper .30 rifle? Nobody learns all of them in one system. No system covers all of these, and none could.

There are complete systems out there and while they may not cover certain aspects of fighting like other systems, they do cover the full spectrum or aspects of fighting. Now its become popular for some reason to subscribe to the "no art covers it all" mentality almost like it become popular not to say Merry Christmas for fear of offending someone who doesn't practice Christmas. The problem is, I'm not saying your art, or any art for that matter is incomplete or lacking, but merely that there are systems that could be considered complete if your not holding specific curriculum for what you want complete to be. We must realize that there are many ways to address different issues or aspects of fighting, no one style has the market cornered even on small specific issues. Boxing doesn't have the market cornered for hand techniques, they are amazing at hand techniques, but its just another way to address hand techniques. Am I making any sense?

Yep. If you want to do something though, it is ussually best to find a specialist in it rather than someone who thinks they are some sort of universal martial arts savant who knows all aspects.

I agree. However you could substitue the word MMA in your statement with CMA and be correct as well. Thats my point. BAd training is bad and good training is good regardless of style or system.

I don't understand here. CMA uses different takedowns and different takedown defenses from wrestling and trains them in a different method.

Again, I agree. Yet, my point has been that the people (some of the people) who train in MMA are using someone elses experience to "know" it to be false. Also, it seems when someone from MMA standpoint talks about those techniques that dont work they can only seem to come up with hollywood and fantasy creations like the "tiger claw and finish him", "poison buddah palm" etc. A serious CMA fighter isn't going to be doing those fantasy gathering technqiues on you. Thats why I say its so dangerous to assume what does and doesn't work, or what will or will not be seen in a fight.

We can really only go on what has been seen. I realize that alot of people have traditions of other things, but we haven't seen them work very well, and hence don't consider them optimal. For techniques that completely don't work, we ussually have to consult the internet (where there are lots of people who still believe in such nonsense - google Dim Mak and read what people think when they hear it - alot of it is pure nonsense - try qi blasts etc). I think what we have is a set of 3 groups of practices

1. Optimal techniques (in my mind this is MMA)
2. Stuff that works, but there is a better way to do it (in my mind this is legitimate TMA)
3. Stuff that is pure nonsense (in my mind this is stuff like qi-blasts etc)

Are there alot of fantasy gatherings refering to themselves as CMA schools, of course. Why, I'm not so sure, but its just as well with me, most people who I fight allready have some assumption as to how I will fight and it really gives me an extra edge
See the thing alot of people dont understand is that many CMA systems aren't technique driven or confined. My system of fighting is based on fighting principles so you might very well see many different kinds of attacks, many very similar if not exactly the same as the MMA fighter would be using. Some may be very different, but the strategy may be very different. That make sense?

Sure.

How so? While I agree we would be better if everyone understood that their way isn't the only way, but there are complete methods of training out there, at least I've yet to see any valid proof otherwise. The only thing I ever really get is the "burden of proof" argument and thats just a little trite. Accepting that what you do is only one way and not the way is great, but to say there are no complete methods of training out there is just not true.

I realize that the burden of proof thing is annoying, but it really is necessary to have something to compare. We can discuss theory all day, but there are lots of theories that sound good but just don't work, or don't work as well as they say.

I see your point but I think the example is a bit flawed. I dont see what different styles are doing as so different as plumbing and electricity. Is the goal in self defense fighting not fighting to protect yourself? The whole sport/reality thing has been address (by you I thought) earlier where the person who chooses to compete under certain rules is not then bound by them? If you take a group of people who train for realistic self defense, all from different styles of fighting...are they really so different in specialization? Are they all really aiming for such different things?

Yes. Different styles are very different in their approaches and sucess. I am not one of the people that believes that all that matters is how much effort you put in.

What if you were an electrician trying to fix your sink to leak so you could electricute the thief that breaks into your house? Would you still listen to him? See there are different reasons to do things. The problem comes in when the person training for sport (plumber) starts telling the self defense fighter (electrician) that what he's doing will get him electricuted and killed faster than he can say poison buddah palm. There is a level of understanding that must be considered when discussing such different things. The sports fighter (plumber) doesn't address death like the self defense fighter (electrician) does, why should he tell the electrician that what hes doing will get him killed and he needs to start using PVC pipe instead of copper wire. That distinction is valid and the level of force needed for each is different. However a fighter who trains for life or death self defense could most likely maintain control enough to compete in sport events, probably much less effective than the sport fighter, but its possible. However the gradient of force is moveing upward when taking the sport fighter and asking him to compete in a life or death situation. Could he do it, most likely would he be less effective than the self defense fighter, of course just like the other example. However, since the force gradient is moving up he would be in a much more precious disadvantage than the other way around. That make any sense?

7sm

I understand but that has been shown to be false so many times. We have so many no rules fights, and NEVER do competent sports fighters lose to these tactics. Hold back nothing outside the ring, but it still doesn't work as well.

 

[exile]

We can really only go on what has been seen. I realize that alot of people have traditions of other things, but we haven't seen them work very well, and hence don't consider them optimal. For techniques that completely don't work, we ussually have to consult the internet (where there are lots of people who still believe in such nonsense - google Dim Mak and read what people think when they hear it - alot of it is pure nonsense - try qi blasts etc). I think what we have is a set of 3 groups of practices

1. Optimal techniques (in my mind this is MMA)
2. Stuff that works, but there is a better way to do it (in my mind this is legitimate TMA)
3. Stuff that is pure nonsense (in my mind this is stuff like qi-blasts etc)

....

I realize that the burden of proof thing is annoying, but it really is necessary to have something to compare. We can discuss theory all day, but there are lots of theories that sound good but just don't work, or don't work as well as they say....Different styles are very different in their approaches and sucess. I am not one of the people that believes that all that matters is how much effort you put in...I understand but that has been shown to be false so many times. We have so many no rules fights, and NEVER do competent sports fighters lose to these tactics. Hold back nothing outside the ring, but it still doesn't work as well.

Rook---

I think I understand what your angle on this is. And I read the following from Si-Je on the Sifu Emin Boztepe thread:

What you have to stop focusing so much on is what the other guy is going to do. If you stick to your technique and follow WC/WT concepts and principles it won't matter much how your opponent attacks, for you intercept their intention and negate their intended technique before they get to finish their movement.
Thus, it doesn't matter if they kick, punch, shoot in to grapple whatever, you focus on flowing with their force and deflecting it from you using it against them. Hence, a TKD attacker doesn't finish the kick, a boxer doesn't finish his/her boxing combo, a grappler isn't allowed to complete a take down or a arm bar. Because you have already executed WC technique to counter their attack from the moment they move.
If your constantly worried about what the other guy is going to do to you you give them the chance to do it by anticipating the outcome, and if you don't stay open minded ready to adapt you play their game and lose.
I've sparred TKD, MMA, and BJJ trained martial artists, and the trick is to stay true to what you train everyday and what you know, have confidence in it whatever art you study, and have faith in your ability to execute otherwise you will lose.
WC's biggest advantage is "getting there first", the quickest way between two points, thus hit them first and follow up quickly and confidently. No time to worry about what the opponent wants to do to you. Only enough time to react.
I've stopped fast and skilled kickers before they can stretch their leg out enough to kick me with WC, I've stopped boxers by intercepting their first jab and crowding their space so they can't follow up with a flurry of combo punching, I've initaiated attack against those that only faint a strike trying to find a "hole" in my guard, and I've stopped grapplers and BJJ/MMA fighters from finishing a takedown simply by strictly following WC concept and reaction.

What she's saying, if I read her right, is that she's fought MMA/BJJ grapplers, that the Wing Chung striking techniques she applies can be systematically and consistently applied to defeat them, and that therefore she's a living `existence proof' of the claim that MMA-type stragegic planning and tactical execution cannot be considered intrinsically superior to TMA (at least the Wing Chun `flavor' of TMA). I actually don't have a horse in this particular race, because she also has indicated that WC principles, properly applied, are capable of defeating highly skilled TKD kickers and other kinds of karateka as well (I view TKD as Korean karate, and what she's saying here as applying to Shotokan, Goju-ryu etc.)

I don't think simply saying to her, well, you've never won in the ring (assuming that's true) would constitute an answer. The issue isn't the ring. She says she's done hard sparring against grapplers/BJJ fighters and beaten them, and I'm going to assume that she's telling the truth. If so, does that answer the part of your argument based on the fact that MMA trumps TMA because it consistently does so in the cage? Can both you be right and she be right at the same time? Hasn't she actually met the burden proof you argue to be on the shoulders of TMAists? Or are you going to take the position that she hasn't, because she doesn't have video proof that these contests she's referring to ever took place? That's not meant at all sarcastically or as a rhetorical question---I'm genuinely curious/I] as to how you see the argument going based on her post...

 

[Rook]

Rook---

I think I understand what your angle on this is. And I read the following from Si-Je on the Sifu Emin Boztepe thread:



What she's saying, if I read her right, is that she's fought MMA/BJJ grapplers, that the Wing Chung striking techniques she applies can be systematically and consistently applied to defeat them, and that therefore she's a living `existence proof' of the claim that MMA-type stragegic planning and tactical execution cannot be considered intrinsically superior to TMA (at least the Wing Chun `flavor' of TMA). I actually don't have a horse in this particular race, because she also has indicated that WC principles, properly applied, are capable of defeating highly skilled TKD kickers and other kinds of karateka as well (I view TKD as Korean karate, and what she's saying here as applying to Shotokan, Goju-ryu etc.)

I don't think simply saying to her, well, you've never won in the ring (assuming that's true) would constitute an answer. The issue isn't the ring. She says she's done hard sparring against grapplers/BJJ fighters and beaten them, and I'm going to assume that she's telling the truth. If so, does that answer the part of your argument based on the fact that MMA trumps TMA because it consistently does so in the cage? Can both you be right and she be right at the same time? Hasn't she actually met the burden proof you argue to be on the shoulders of TMAists? Or are you going to take the position that she hasn't, because she doesn't have video proof that these contests she's referring to ever took place? That's not meant at all sarcastically or as a rhetorical question---I'm genuinely curious/I] as to how you see the argument going based on her post...

I see two problems with her arguement:

1. She doesn't have proof that it happened as she said. Honestly, while I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, when in comes to proving things, be the martial arts or otherwise, the evidence does matter. Even assuming that the fight happens and that she is completely honest about it, what looks or feels like a stunning victory might look more like a draw to someone else. Unless we have the record of the fight, we can't tell.

2. I don't know the level of the grapplers she faced. Unfortunately, all styles have a whole spectrum of practitioners. In MMA, there is a ranking system which compares the records of various fighters, but I am certain that she hasn't fought anyone ranked or probably with any professional record at all, and hence it is hard to tell how good the grappler was. If we had the video, we might be able to give an educated guess. An effective tactic should work with some consistancy even against higher-level fighters (ie wrestling sprawl stops takedowns even in the Olympics), and its sucess against people with little experiance themselves tells us nothing.

If she had PROVABLE and CONSISTANT sucess against HIGH-LEVEL practitioners, then there would be a very stong arguement for the equality of styles.

At the dawn of popular MMA, people said that BJJ was the ultimate style. It wasn't and isn't. Judo fighters beat some of the best BJJ practitioners in the world, SAMBO fighters won UFC and PRIDE belts (and not a few back alley fights in Japan), Catch wrestlers won, shootfighters won, etc. Its hard today to say that SAMBO, Judo, BJJ, Catch wrestling, etc all work and work well. You might even say that they are equal - but they won that reputation through recorded fights and maintained it through consistant sucess. If you look at the top five heavyweights in the world, they are Fedor (SAMBO champ), Mirko CC (kickboxing and BJJ), Josh Barnet (Catch Wrestling), Antonio Rodrigo Noguera (BJJ), and Sergi Karitonov (SAMBO). Its hard to say that they don't all work.

This is not dissimilar to the fighting for respect that happened in Hong Kong between Choy Lay Fat and Wing Chun in the 60s - in the end they had mutual respect, but it took alot of proof before people concluded that they were relatively equal. In these modern days of lazy people and so forth, we often just want to skip the part where every style fights and go right to the part where they have mutual respect, but it just doesn't work, and it has been this hands off demeanor that has allowed the superfrauds (Ashida Kim, Frank Dux and their ilk) to proliferate. It has been this attitude that also freezes the progress of many TMAs.

 

[exile]

I see two problems with her arguement:

1. She doesn't have proof that it happened as she said. Honestly, while I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, when in comes to proving things, be the martial arts or otherwise, the evidence does matter. Even assuming that the fight happens and that she is completely honest about it, what looks or feels like a stunning victory might look more like a draw to someone else. Unless we have the record of the fight, we can't tell.

2. I don't know the level of the grapplers she faced. Unfortunately, all styles have a whole spectrum of practitioners. In MMA, there is a ranking system which compares the records of various fighters, but I am certain that she hasn't fought anyone ranked or probably with any professional record at all, and hence it is hard to tell how good the grappler was. If we had the video, we might be able to give an educated guess. An effective tactic should work with some consistancy even against higher-level fighters (ie wrestling sprawl stops takedowns even in the Olympics), and its sucess against people with little experiance themselves tells us nothing.

OK, that seems a reasonable response. The business of the skill level of the opponent seems as if it's always going to be there to bedevil this particular argument between the two perspectives... thanks for the reply!

 

[zDom]

Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).

It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.

Didn't you get the memo, exile?

.

.

.

 

[Rook]

Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).

It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.

Perhaps you should send some better ones.

 

[grappling_mandala]

... it's just that the brazilians had the best kung fu and no-one can pronounce it in Portugese! Just watch "Choke" a couple more times people. Do you really think Rickson isn't just completely fu'd out? He's more fu then fu folks are fu. It's the food beaches and surf brah.

-G.Mandala

 

[exile]

Of course, as far as point 2 goes, I maintain that the TMAists defeated in recorded matches were all low-level, as far as skill goes (rank notwithstanding).

It is a (until this moment) secret TMA conspiracy to only send low skill level fighters into cage matches so MMAists won't know which techniques are REALLY optimum.

Didn't you get the memo, exile?

Nah, I'm an insignificant brown belt---I barely exist! I'm not even on Their radar screen :wink1:...

Perhaps you should send some better ones.

But I think this is just zDom's point, Kevin—it's by no means clear that top TKD fighters, the Hee Il Chos of the current generation, are interested in the cage at all. I have a sneaking suspicion that no one at all in his right mind would want to street-fight Iain Abernethy, but by the same token, I'm also sure that IA—though it's clear from his newletter that he has MMAists and RBSD people in his research circle working on realistic kata bunkai interpretations and training methods—isn't interesting in ring/cage/octagon competition. He's really only interested in what Geoff Thompson, another member of that group and a feared fighter in the UK, calls `the pavement arena'.

A consequence of this is that your argument about Si-Je—which I think is valid in general: you're right, the MMAists she's fought may not have been particularly good exponents of the art—also applies to the argument that `we haven't seen it in the cage'. Tough TKDists and karateka are out there, but if they're not interested in cage competition, you can't predicate anything about MMA vs. TMA on the basis of those who have shown up. If we had Hee Il Cho or Mas Oyama in their intimidating youth with us now, rarin' to go in UFC competition, then maybe something could be settled. But since we don't, the most you can say is that the TMA people who've competed in the cage haven't done as well as the MMA people. Since the TMA community, so far as I can tell, isn't particularly interested in proving anything to the MMA community, what reason do they have to stop working on their own program and get into ring competitions they have no stake or interest in?