UFC proves KF useless

[grappling_mandala]

Positional Dominance has proven itself again and again. It is not prejudice against style, but a ally of individuals. Gravity is your friend or worst enemy.

The person with the better position can launch any attacks he/she wants from their mothership into your deathstar. Get a grip on reality, it's not the tools, it's the launch platform. Once you got a mothership in orbit, it's not a matter of what you hit them with, just when.

The person with the better TRAINING METHODOLOGY wins. Then again, watch how Royler got knocked out by that Japanese striker when he went for a flying knee... KO'd by an overhand windmill punch to the chin. Very kung fu.

 

[Rook]

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?

This is a very common arguement. It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi. As long as not every person is beaten, there is always a chance that there is some obscure person who could but for some reason chooses not to - however, I really don't consider this any more likely than believing in Atlantis just because we haven't seen the entire sea floor yet.

I am digging through a logic textbook I have to see how it might be best to answer the arguement in a somewhat more serious manner that I started to above. Aristotle's logic considers an appeal to ignorance to occur when a claim is made that something (either any case or all cases applying, it doesn't matter) is true because of a failure to prove the contrary, but makes an explicit exception for "fruitless search" - that is, when a search has been undertaken and the search is to no avail. It is my personal opinion that MMA's open challenges constitute the "fruitless search" Aristotle spoke of, and that the TMA arguement that not all practitioners have been beaten constitutes an appeal to ignorance (ie "you don't know who is best, you have never faced Grandmaster Z").

I don't know if that helps or not. I hope it does.

 

[exile]

It is my personal opinion that MMA's open challenges constitute the "fruitless search" Aristotle spoke of, and that the TMA arguement that not all practitioners have been beaten constitutes an appeal to ignorance (ie "you don't know who is best, you have never faced Grandmaster Z").

I don't know if that helps or not. I hope it does.

Well, I think it does, in the sense that it crystalizes the core of your argument in terms of a familar paradigm, and as it happens, I'm not at all sure you can interpret MMA's challenge to be a fruitless search. Aristotle's argument, so far as I can tell, is really an appeal to a kind of probablistic decision-making, a heuristic, not a strictly formal, way to choose between two possible states of affairs. It works like this: suppose we are playing a version of the nursery-level card game War, where each player turns over a card and the higher card allows the holder to take the lower card and add it to the latter's deck, and suppose we a playing a game in which ten thousand packs have been shuffled together. After playing for an hour or two, it dawns on the players that no aces have surfaced. They keep playing, but two hours after that pass, and still no aces have turned up. As time goes on, the normal statistical likelihood of finding an ace in a game of this kind where all the packs are normal becomes so overwhelming that the players begin to doubt the presence of any aces in any of the shuffled packs used in the game. Five hours later, still no aces. At this point, only an extraordinarily unlikely shuffling outcome could account for the fact that no aces have surfaced. Does this mean that we have a proof that no aces have surfaced? No. But we've played long enough that the statistics require an absurdly unlikely outcome to give rise to the fact that in eight hours, no aces have surfaced—on the assumption that the decks were normal. But if they were aceless to start with, then virtually nothing bizarre or grotesquely improbable has occurred. We don't have a forced result from a logical proof, but rather an empirically grounded inference increasingly strongly supported by the increasingly improbable shuffling accident which had to have happened to keep even a single ace from showing up after eight hours of play.

Your application of the `fruitless search' model takes the MMA challenge to be something like the game of War with thousands of decks that I described. But that's the problem—you have no reason to believe that what has occurred is a fruitless search of the assembled ranks of TMAists, from the bottom of the skill heap to the top. In order to invoke Aristotle's fruitless search model in the first place, you have to assume that an actual search has indeed been under way, that the pool of TMAists being `assessed' by the sheer existence of MMA competitions is a significant and representative fraction of TMAists. But you can't just go ahead and assume that! That's an empirical question, and you need to provided evidence to back it up before you can claim that there's justification for the fruitless search. And I think there's some excellent reason to believe that such an assumption isn't justified.

Take TKD for example. My impression is that there are really two cohorts within TKD: those whose vision of the art coincides with Olympic sparring rules and ring competition success, with high spinning kicks and low hands, and those whose vision involves imposing armbars on obnoxious assailants and forcing their necks low enough that a hard knife-hand can be delivered to their throats, with a low sidekick to the side of one of their knees to blow out the joint and end the divergence of opinion right there. You won't get the first group to participate in MMA competition, because all their training is going in a totally different direction, with different scoring, rules and anything else you can think of. The second group—to which I myself belong—won't participate either, because they/we aren't interested in any kind of ring sport competition. We want to be prepared for unpredictable, hostile and pathologically violent would-be assailants whose loss, if it came to that, the world probably wouldn't mourn all that much. Training to fight a skilled and dedicated BJJ grappler, whose profile is probably as far from the assailant I just described as can be imagined, would be a waste of training time for us. So we're not waiting on line for our shot at the Shamrocks or Gracies or their inheritors. The thing is, we don't have an emotional stake in proving a point about MMA vs. TMA under MMA ring conditions. Our emotional stake is much more vested in knowing that we can impose at will any level of damage on a violent attacker whose strategy or tactics we have no way of knowing at the start of the fight.

This is why I don't think you can invoke the `fruitless search' argument along the lines I've sketched it above: because—if I'm right about my fellow TMAists—most TMA fighters do not care what happens in MMA sport competition and will not be in the contestant pool.

 

[dok]

This is a very common arguement. It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi. As long as not every person is beaten, there is always a chance that there is some obscure person who could but for some reason chooses not to - however, I really don't consider this any more likely than believing in Atlantis just because we haven't seen the entire sea floor yet.

Fact remains, many TMA'ists dont feel they have any incentive to compete in the UFC or Pride. Same could be said for top flight pro boxers, but I dont think many believe Tim Sylvia would own Lennox Lewis.

I'm only making a point - the situations are different. Yes in fact MMA'ists do feel highly about boxing (and crosstrain in it) whereas many TMA's are derided. Yes, pro boxers would never fight MMA because it simply doesnt make sense to take a 2000% paycut. I'm also personally a huge fan of crosstraining, and IMHO the MMA vs. TMA argument (in general terms) is... well... open and shut.

Thats only my opinion though, and I certainly respect certain TMA practicioners enough to have no problem believing there are some out there who could give pro MMA fighters a run for their money. Not everybody has something to prove to the world, and thats just the way it is.

 

[exile]

Fact remains, many TMA'ists dont feel they have any incentive to compete in the UFC or Pride. Same could be said for top flight pro boxers, but I dont think many believe Tim Sylvia would own Lennox Lewis...Not everybody has something to prove to the world, and thats just the way it is.

Dok---we are on exactly the same page in this. See my post just before yours...

 

[grappling_mandala]

A challenge is not the same as traveling to seek enlightenment.

Turn off your TV and practice.

 

[zDom]

This is a very common arguement. It is sometimes disdained as the "grandmaster Z" arguement after a television character who lives a crystal filled cave under Mount Wudong and shoots people with chi.

Kevin, get real. The TMAists here who waste our time interrupting your fanboi rants about the optimal techniques selected by your MMA heroes don't believe in Nintendo bursts of Ki any more than you do.

How about you trot out that argument about how the Rear Naked Chokes and Armbars trained in MMA gyms are superior to the (identical) RNCs and armbars practiced in TMA dojangs?

That one is more entertaining and slightly less insulting.

 

[barnaby]

A challenge is not the same as traveling to seek enlightenment.

Turn off your TV and practice.

this quote I like.

 

[matt.m]

Gee, I have to go with Scott and Exile on this. Let's see Jigoro Kano was teaching throws, arm bars, rear naked chokes etc. etc. etc. way before MMA and the UFC deemed them optimal. I have a dan in Judo, I have competed in countless Judo competition. For the love of God I represented the Marine Corps in Judo. So I believe I may be marginally knowledgeable about the art and sport.

Now, we all know that BJJ is a TMA based on JJJ. Afterall, Helio learned from a Japanese champion that taught Count someone or another. By the way Kano taught the student that taught the guy that taught Helio. The history of BJJ was taught with minor modifications until one of Helio's son "Made it his own" In the book they called the Gracie, "Frail and Sickly", whichever one is big on the "Gracie Diet".

So, in my line of thinking it seems that BJJ is based more on Judo the sport than art, so making a sport into a fighting art is ridiculous. Afterall, MMA is a sport. The UFC is sport based. Dana White, Matt Hughes along with countless others have said it. Look at Rodrigo Vaghi's website if anyone needs a reminder: http://www.submissionjiujitsu.com.

Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Jiu Jutsu, etc. are TMA's. MMA competitions are borrowing techniques that they like, say they are effective and then expect everyone to believe that if they didn't learn it in an MMA gym then it is ineffective? Malarky. By the way, just for arguments sake....I read the history of BJJ in the forewards of all three volumes of the Gracie JJ Encyclopedia.

Dana White has said that its direct competition is Pro Boxing, not the Kukkiwon.

Tae Kwon Do champs like Jason Hon don't feel the urge to go into the octogon, I've not seen Mike Swain, Kurt Angle, Evander Hollyfield, Lennox Lewis, Ernie Reyes Jr., or Derek Panza (ISKA heavyweight Champ) or any other proven champs go to the Octogon because there is no incintive. They don't care. They are great at what they do, everyone knows it. By the way, who in their right mind would start a fight with any of the above that I mentioned to prove otherwise?

 

[Rook]

Kevin, get real. The TMAists here who waste our time interrupting your fanboi rants about the optimal techniques selected by your MMA heroes don't believe in Nintendo bursts of Ki any more than you do.

How about you trot out that argument about how the Rear Naked Chokes and Armbars trained in MMA gyms are superior to the (identical) RNCs and armbars practiced in TMA dojangs?

That one is more entertaining and slightly less insulting.

Explain why they can't use them with sucess. I know all the same punches as Ali but I doubt I could beat the local club fighters, let alone a champion. You may know all the same techniques as MMA fighters (and I very much doubt it) but the sucessful application of the against them is still lacking.

How about instead of trading arguements you find some proof somewhere?

I'm going to leave with an analogy and let it be.

Let us imagine a foriegn car. Let us suppose it is being advertised as one of (not necessarily THE but one of) the safest cars on the road. Now, virtually every time one of the cars is crash tested at medium to high speeds, it explodes in a burst of flame. However, the car company says that the car has been in production for several years, and since it was good enough for their customers then, and they still have customers now, they see no reason to take down their sign. Beside, all the crash tested cars were probably coincidentally all lemons, and they have several people (all from the car company itself) that say they have witnessed the car survive very severe crashes. Rather than providing a car that they are more assured will pass the test and correct lemon examples, they say they have nothing to prove to anyone. Looking at the car, it doesn't seem to have the features that most of the cars that do get high ratings have - no airbags etc. However, the salesman is keen to point out that it has a similar seatbelt design to that used in a recently 5-star rated car made by another company. They also ignore people reporting that the car has served them poorly, and provide a variety of testimonials from people that can't seem to provide evidence that they were in a crash in the first place. Would you buy such a car? When a friend or for that matter a random person on the internet asks you for your opinion, what would you think?

 

[Rook]

Gee, I have to go with Scott and Exile on this. Let's see Jigoro Kano was teaching throws, arm bars, rear naked chokes etc. etc. etc. way before MMA and the UFC deemed them optimal. I have a dan in Judo, I have competed in countless Judo competition. For the love of God I represented the Marine Corps in Judo. So I believe I may be marginally knowledgeable about the art and sport.

Now, we all know that BJJ is a TMA based on JJJ. Afterall, Helio learned from a Japanese champion that taught Count someone or another. By the way Kano taught the student that taught the guy that taught Helio. The history of BJJ was taught with minor modifications until one of Helio's son "Made it his own" In the book they called the Gracie, "Frail and Sickly", whichever one is big on the "Gracie Diet".

So, in my line of thinking it seems that BJJ is based more on Judo the sport than art, so making a sport into a fighting art is ridiculous. Afterall, MMA is a sport. The UFC is sport based. Dana White, Matt Hughes along with countless others have said it. Look at Rodrigo Vaghi's website if anyone needs a reminder: http://www.submissionjiujitsu.com.

Karate, Aikido, Judo, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Jiu Jutsu, etc. are TMA's. MMA competitions are borrowing techniques that they like, say they are effective and then expect everyone to believe that if they didn't learn it in an MMA gym then it is ineffective? Malarky. By the way, just for arguments sake....I read the history of BJJ in the forewards of all three volumes of the Gracie JJ Encyclopedia.

Reread my posts from this thread. I didn't question the efficacy of judo (a sports system) - in fact in one of my responses to MJS I pointed out that it has done well against other sports grappling systems. Several top caliber Judoists have made a sucessful transition to MMA, although several have not.

Dana White has said that its direct competition is Pro Boxing, not the Kukkiwon.

Yep. The venues are in Vegas, the money comes in from pay-per view - Boxing is the competitor.

Tae Kwon Do champs like Jason Hon don't feel the urge to go into the octogon, I've not seen Mike Swain, Kurt Angle, Evander Hollyfield, Lennox Lewis, Ernie Reyes Jr., or Derek Panza (ISKA heavyweight Champ) or any other proven champs go to the Octogon because there is no incintive. They don't care. They are great at what they do, everyone knows it. By the way, who in their right mind would start a fight with any of the above that I mentioned to prove otherwise?

Boxing has sent champs. Eric Esch, an IBC superheavyweight champ has fought in MMA, as has Art Jimmerson (at the time ranked in the top ten heavyweights in the world) - both lost rather swiftly to much smaller grapplers in Genki Sudo and Royce Gracie respectively. The videos from both fights are available on the net. Esch is very much a proven champion at boxing - his professional fight record was 75-7-4 with 56 KOs and he had a similar amateur record.

K-1 (the premier kickboxing org) sent Patrick Smith - who lost to Royce Gracie. They did care and still do - Esch is now working on making a career of MMA, as Patrick Smith tried, even though it is a paycut for Esch.

Incidentally, the Gracies have been challenging top boxers for years - taking out full page magazine ads - so as to your final question, the Gracies ARE trying.

 

[zDom]

Explain why they can't use them with sucess. I know all the same punches as Ali but I doubt I could beat the local club fighters, let alone a champion. You may know all the same techniques as MMA fighters (and I very much doubt it) but the sucessful application of the against them is still lacking.

How about instead of trading arguements you find some proof somewhere?

Yea — that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:

Ok, now I get to share an analogy!

Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.

One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.

The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)

The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.

The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.

He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football — and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!



Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?

 

[Rook]

Yea — that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:

Ok, now I get to share an analogy!

Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.

One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.

The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)

The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.

The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.

He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football — and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!

There was a removed video on youtube of a guy trying to challenge Lennox Lewis, who is surrounded by his entourage, to a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant. He keeps screaming insults and yelling about how he can take him but eventually Lewis who has been ignoring him, leaves. The guy filming the video starts making fun of the guy trying to pick the fight and eventually gets punched - the man screaming that he could have taken on Lewis. It was a very funny video the first time I saw it.

What is in question isn't whether you can beat me, or whether you can beat guys in a bar or on a streetcorner or in the subway. What I am interested in are the pro MMA fighters. I may be like the cameraman in the video, pointing out that you wouldn't win and just getting beat on myself for the trouble (although fortunately its only rep points and not a physical beating).

Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?

Nothing on video. I'm not going to be drawn into a storytelling contest with you. I never or rarely discuss personal experiance because it is easy for someone to simply make up a story to top anything.

 

[Rook]

.

 

[matt.m]

Yea — that's the one I was talking about! :rofl:

Ok, now I get to share an analogy!

Imagine, if you will, two guys who discuss football over the Internet.

One has played tackle football his entire life: first in backyards, then in high school, even a few games in college. Never made it to the pros: got married, had some kids instead.

The other is a big NFL fan and just started playing some flag football once a year at the company picnic (never made or received a tackle in his life, however...)

The first guy shares experiences he has seen, first hand, or heard about from coaches and players in college but has no video footage available.

The NFL fan keeps telling the first guy to "prove" the formations and plays he talks would work in the NFL by providing film footage while holding forth at length about how his beloved Dallas Cowboys have come up with the "optimum" playbook.

He very also very much doubts the sacks that happen in college football are ANYTHING like the tackles he sees his Cowboys do on Monday Night Football — and even if they are, they simply aren't as effective!



Howabout instead of trading analogies, you get some first hand, personal experience?

I have only one thing to say about this post......:roflmao: :highfive:

 

[zDom]

There was a removed video on youtube of a guy trying to challenge Lennox Lewis, who is surrounded by his entourage, to a fight in the parking lot of a restaurant. He keeps screaming insults and yelling about how he can take him but eventually Lewis who has been ignoring him, leaves. The guy filming the video starts making fun of the guy trying to pick the fight and eventually gets punched - the man screaming that he could have taken on Lewis. It was a very funny video the first time I saw it. ... I may be like the cameraman in the video, pointing out that you wouldn't win and just getting beat on myself for the trouble (although fortunately its only rep points and not a physical beating).

No I'm not — I'm the guy who stands in the frozen food section and calls 911!

( = a quote from Anger Management, for those of you who don't recognize it)

Nothing on video. I'm not going to be drawn into a storytelling contest with you. I never or rarely discuss personal experiance because it is easy for someone to simply make up a story to top anything.

a) I get the feeling this is a roundabout way for you to call me a liar.

It is easy enough for people to be exposed as liars when they make things up. Maybe you should grab a camera crew and come do a documentary on me. Would be a nice keepsake for my children and grandchildren.

If anything, I kind of downplay things in my anecdotes. (You should hear the stories the way witnesses tell them )

A more objective viewpoint would be refreshing.

b) I'll come out and SAY what I'm thinking: you don't share personal experiences because you don't HAVE any. All you have to go on is your (guessing here) two years of karate training and 10 years of sitting on the couch watching MMA fights on the couch. Am I in the ballpark on my guesses?

What is in question isn't whether you can beat me, or whether you can beat guys in a bar or on a streetcorner or in the subway. What I am interested in are the pro MMA fighters.

Yea, we know. That seems to be ALL you are interested in. And then you want to take that limited sampling of fighters and make sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of techniques.

I'll tell you what: I'm too old (and good looking ) to make it my Lifes Mission to prove things to you by quitting my job and dedicating my life to beating up people in NHB fights.

But I do have a couple of solutions so we can resolve his conclusively:

Howabout you talk Dana White into paying me for three or four years to train my own little stable of UFC fighters using ONLY techniques I have learned through the TMAs. Give me a budget and some people who want to get into the ring and hurt people and we can do a little "TMA vs MMA in the UFC" reality show. Might be as fun to watch as the TUFC show

(To bring this back "On Topic" we could have a CMA stylist do the same for TMA vs MMA Part II... give JMAs their chance in Part III, etc., )

Another alternative (given that we want to establish which techniques are "best" and/or effective) is we take an AMATEUR MMA stylist who only trains a total of about six or seven hours per week (without steroids *cough* ) in fighting techniques and put him up against a TMAist of my choosing.

No weightlifting involved. After all, we want this to be a comparison of TECHNIQUES, not techniques that require progressive resistance training and under 6-percent body fat to be effective.

Lets see if your theory is right — that MMA is the optimum set of techniques. Prove it to me.

The ways mentioned above are the only things that will prove it to me.

I don't believe in video tape anymore. I've seen Superman fly on videotape but I've never seen a man fly with my own two eyes

 

[MJS]

I'm still waiting for some answers to the questions I asked a few pages back.opcorn:

 

[matt.m]

Scott brings up a great point. He is humble and down plays his accomplishments. He does so where people don't even believe what he is saying. I have known the guy for round about a decade and a half. Just to tell you from recent events, I will use the May and October tournaments we had: When Scott went to the breaking contest a good number of folks stopped what they were doing just to watch, the same with his sparring.

People like him draw an audience via talent and skill not self promotion. Not a lot of folks in Moo Sul Kwan reach dan ranking in Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido. Gee, really in hapkido 90% or above drop out after green belt and never make it to their blue belt test.

A thought process in the Marine Corps was that "If everyone compares themselves to you then you must be doing something correctly."

 

[Rook]

No I'm not — I'm the guy who stands in the frozen food section and calls 911!

( = a quote from Anger Management, for those of you who don't recognize it)

Haven't seen it.

a) I get the feeling this is a roundabout way for you to call me a liar.

Nah, you just don't have proof. I said the same thing about Si-Je and the rest of the people without video.

It is easy enough for people to be exposed as liars when they make things up. Maybe you should grab a camera crew and come do a documentary on me. Would be a nice keepsake for my children and grandchildren.

If anything, I kind of downplay things in my anecdotes. (You should hear the stories the way witnesses tell them )

A more objective viewpoint would be refreshing.

Some objective proof (ie some that doesn't come from you or your friends like a newreport or court documents or something) might be helpful although not absolute.

b) I'll come out and SAY what I'm thinking: you don't share personal experiences because you don't HAVE any. All you have to go on is your (guessing here) two years of karate training

Eight years.

and 10 years of sitting on the couch watching MMA fights on the couch. Am I in the ballpark on my guesses?

Less than ten years.

Yea, we know. That seems to be ALL you are interested in. And then you want to take that limited sampling of fighters and make sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of techniques.

Look, there are thousands apon thousands of gang members, bouncers, security people, bikers etc across the world who manage to defend themselves (and attack others) very sucessfully with no formal training. Some have literally hundreds of fights to their credit. Sitting here, think, ok, they can beat the local town drunk, local tough guys, maybe even a couple of them at once. Perhaps they are the biggest
fish in their pond.

Don't mistake this for being the best in the world. I really don't care all that much about great sucess against unskilled opponents or supposedly skilled fighters that no one has heard of. THe stuff I see from the great annals of the "streetfighters" consists of beating people of no real skill themselves and then thinking that they can do the same to anyone.

What happens when they fight each other (a bunch of the middle UFCs were like this when the TMA masters got ditched for large streetfighters)? How do they do against TMAists? How do they do against professional athletes? What happens when we search for who does best? Do patterns emerge? Do these patterns mean anything?

I'll tell you what: I'm too old (and good looking ) to make it my Lifes Mission to prove things to you by quitting my job and dedicating my life to beating up people in NHB fights.

But I do have a couple of solutions so we can resolve his conclusively:

Howabout you talk Dana White into paying me for three or four years to train my own little stable of UFC fighters using ONLY techniques I have learned through the TMAs. Give me a budget and some people who want to get into the ring and hurt people and we can do a little "TMA vs MMA in the UFC" reality show. Might be as fun to watch as the TUFC show

(To bring this back "On Topic" we could have a CMA stylist do the same for TMA vs MMA Part II... give JMAs their chance in Part III, etc., )

Another alternative (given that we want to establish which techniques are "best" and/or effective) is we take an AMATEUR MMA stylist who only trains a total of about six or seven hours per week (without steroids *cough* ) in fighting techniques and put him up against a TMAist of my choosing.

No weightlifting involved. After all, we want this to be a comparison of TECHNIQUES, not techniques that require progressive resistance training and under 6-percent body fat to be effective.

Lets see if your theory is right — that MMA is the optimum set of techniques. Prove it to me.

The ways mentioned above are the only things that will prove it to me.

I don't believe in video tape anymore. I've seen Superman fly on videotape but I've never seen a man fly with my own two eyes

For the first method: Why would someone pay to redo what the first UFCs already covered? I think Dana White and the rest have already seen what happens when TMA meets MMA and I doubt they will bother funding a repeat.

For the second: Why would someone train in a handicapped manner?

 

[Rook]

I'm still waiting for some answers to the questions I asked a few pages back.opcorn:

Which ones?