UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[Zero]

Big PUNCHES seem to be the easiest to block...

(3minutes onward).

Obviously Bas can and would also kick if someone blocked his punch but still! Food for thought. The guy in the video is no fighter (the weight lifter), but someone his strength and size would punch pretty darn hard regardless!

Not having a go at you JLC and others have already responded but there is so much BS out there and so many demos displaying an art's capabilities which are rigged so that the art will only succeed and the "opponent" can only fail. Yeah the guy is strong and big but he has no skill as a boxer or fighter of any sort or at least is not displaying any, his mechanics are a joke. I am not saying the blocks shown would not work (actually I do noth think the palm directly arresting the fist would work at all!) but why can they not be used against a heavyweight skilled boxer or the like in the demo, someone who knows what they are doing and how to hurt someone/hit correctly? Demos like this should leave one feeling less than impressed and provide Imperical evidence as to nothing.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Disclaimer: This post is intended to generate discussion. I've made a number of big generalizations, there will be exceptions of course. My comments aren't meant to be interpreted to mean one style of MA is better then another , or to bag UFC fighters or MA etc...

After watching UFC for awhile I've made a few observations.

1) Muay Thai seems to have benefited a LOT from MMA/UFC. Muay Thai fighters are obviously great, but in the UFC it seems the "Muay Trained" fighter just does a whole lot of round kicks. TKD/Kung Fu/Karate all do round kicks. The Muay Thai one is arguably more powerful as you are kicking through the target more, but sacrificing a little speed. Someone who practises TKD for example, should be able to interchange between a more "Muay" round kick and the more snap round kick effortlessly. Yet general UFC followers seem to disregard any other MA styles kicks? (Joe Rogan included). The knees/elbows in UFC rarely seem to be the way Muay Thai teach as well, or used in the same way. If a fighter just trained to do round kicks (any style) and boxing, they would have a good UFC striking game compared to the limited amount of Muay Thai that is used in UFC.

2) UFC fighters seem to telegraph what they are going to go a lot more then other MA's. Watch when a fighter does a spinning kick. Their back kicking leg is often across a lot more to make the kick easier, and they "wind up" before hand more obviously then MA's. Even Lyoto Machida's famous front kick KO is pretty set up, when you compare it to say Anderson Silvias front kick KO. But his opponent was leaning well forward in his stance for a easy target. Most kicking MA styles teach you to be able to kick at pull power from your normal stance without a big telegraph movement first, which slows you down and warns the opponent.

3)Gaurds? Watching the top UFC KO's, how many times could they have prevented it if they had a guard up? Round kicks to side of head, even punches etc. More MA's are taught at the beginning to always have a guard up. All boxers would have their guard up. This happens even when fatigue shouldn't be a factor.

4) UFC fighters seem to lack ruthlessness at times. When the opponent is on the ground, on occasions there seems to be a chance to punch/pound with more intent on finishing him. Submissions pay a larger part, where the traditional MA perhaps would go after the kill more.

5) UFC fighters normally ya LOT stronger/fitter then a typical MA. They are professionals and have really fight experience compared to many MAs. Where their technique might not be as pure or good (examples like off balance in kicks, kick power from strength rather then technique), they make up for it with their physical attributes and fighting experience. They nearly all have a solid to great ground game.

6) Most traditional MA are technically more sound, but lack the strength and fighting experience of a UFC fighter. If they trained to a similar strength and fitness (and some would be anyway), the pure MA should have a more then good chance of winning. When you compare a MA who has studied their art for 10 years + to a typical UFC fighter, the UFC fighter looks a lot less fluid in movements and technique, and leaves a lot more openings for the opponent.

There are however the top UFC fighters in more divisions who are a cut above the rest of the UFC, and are excluded from some of these generalizations...

Thoughts and comments

1. I believe the kick in Muay thai is call a roundhouse kick since it is taught to be thrown in a 360 degree circle (rear leg and switch kick) and they are taught to kick throw an object and not at the object.
Karate and most TKD use a round kick which is thrown at the target and only (if hit) go into target about an inch and snap off. If it misses it will only land in front of you. You can throw the round kick from the from or rear but it will always land in front. Knees and elbows are different because some of the are not taught from Muay thai camps. More of a kickboxing with elbow strikes. I would say the elbows strikes you don't see from muay thai is the cutting elbow which comes down in an angle.

2. Most of them havn't done a spin kick in a while and a lot of them don't know how to set up a spin kick. It is all in the stance. In order to do a spin kick you must be side ways for one and even then don't wind up for the spin (begnner stuff). Also a set up would be better than just spinning (which warns the next guy) and missing. Throwing a round kick and just stepping over to spend would be better than from a front stance which seems to be the stance most use to sprawl.

3.Guards vary but the ufc tend if I may say use the wrong blocks for the defending with a 4 oz glove. If you notice they block with a boxer cover which in training have large 12-16oz gloves on but with the acutural fight they have small gloves which tend to leave them open for small fist to fit in. Forget about a parry or anything. Just duck and roll and cover.

4.While your back is on the ground seems like a easy go for the kill shot some are very well bjj black belts and if they give you an arm they give you a arm bar or triangle choke. Plus if he/she do get the chance to finish they may want to do it by submission. Fighter personal choice.

5. Yes they do train to fight and not to hopefully not fight someone like most martial artist. I guess it is like buying a gun for hunting and using it and someone else buys a gun just for home protect.

6. I think we martial artist look for the technical side of fighting and not just strength. Even when someone train for self-defense, I don't see them wanting to go three rounds. They want it over quickly and run away. Even if the ma workout like the ufc fighter, and get big muscles some ma will lose because of the lack of training in ground or close quarter grappling.

But this just my opnion.

 

[superkizuna]

Many of you are missing the point. MMA is traditional martial arts. This debate should read formal vs informal combat. Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.

 

[frank raud]

Many of you are missing the point. MMA is traditional martial arts. This debate should read formal vs informal combat. Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.[/QUOTE, the MMA uniform has evolved to being board shorts and small gloves, as opposed to the early days when people fought in judo gis, karate gis, silat uniforms, wrestling shorts, wore boxing gloves, no gloves, etc. So now they are dressed for the multi-faceted art that they will compete in and face. So are they not dressed for the part. Is there no etiquette in MMA? Do they not touch gloves(generally) when they start a round, do they not break contact when instructed to, or when the round ends, if a fight goes to a draw, do the fighters generally not hug each other and congratulate each other of a well fought fight?

 

[RTKDCMB]

There actually are usually "rules" while "on the street"

If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.

 

[Chris Parker]

Many of you are missing the point. MMA is traditional martial arts. This debate should read formal vs informal combat. Formal being you are dressed for the part, providing ettiquette, and etc.

Er.... no.

If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.

Kinda missing the point there...

 

[Josealb]

After watching UFC for awhile I've made a few observations.

Thats where you lost the argument, mate. You dont just sit on a couch, watch a sporting event and have epiphanies, specially about something as subjective and practical as martial arts. You would have been better saying that in your "years of traditional and mma training, according to my experience, i observed the following..". A bit late for that angle.

Which led you to your second mistake. You are comparing martial arts. You do realize that a martial art by itself doesnt really exist, right? its a concept, an idea, only when put into movement by a martial artist does it makes sense. Said artist, that puts his own personal vision into it, his own understanding of it, and preferences, and hard work or lack thereof. A thousand practitioners of the same martial art will all be different. Every man is a world, and "methods and skills" are personal, and measured only by individual experience. The only true comparison of martial skill can only be made in person, and usually takes about 5 to 10 seconds to make and understand.

Good luck understanding and comparing something like that from a couch, you're gonna need it.

 

[Steve]

If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them.

What if we ban rules? Then only the street thugs would have them. Wait... that's guns...

 

[RTKDCMB]

Kinda missing the point there...

In what way?

 

[Chris Parker]

Really? Nocturnal makes a comment grounded in as much reality as the episode of Grimm I'm watching, lklawson calls it out, including pointing out that there are actually "rules" on the "street", and you reply that "if there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them", which completely misses the point of lklawson's comments (namely that nocturnal's comments were baseless when looked at realistically). Additionally, the idea that "many street thugs aren't following them" is just following the same flawed logic nocturnal was using, and denying the reality. There are rules, which doesn't just mean laws, but can be social rules, and can change from group to group. The lack of concern for one or more laws doesn't mean that a "street thug" therefore ignores all laws, and certainly doesn't mean that they just don't follow any rules at all.

In other words, you missed the point of what lklawson was saying (to nocturnal), and have continued with the overblown paranoia response, which is just not reality.

 

[Cyriacus]

Id like to add to Chris's and Lawsons point, that rules also relates to 'lines'. A criminal is taking a risk by committing a crime, in the name of a reward. A stable minded criminal generally wont risk too much for too little in return. Those are 'rules'.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Id like to add to Chris's and Lawsons point, that rules also relates to 'lines'. A criminal is taking a risk by committing a crime, in the name of a reward. A stable minded criminal generally wont risk too much for too little in return. Those are 'rules'.

And you have no way of knowing what 'rules' he has or if he will follow any at any given time.

 

[RTKDCMB]

OK - you want reality. When a friend of mine was attacked in his home by two guys who then threw him off the second floor balcony and then went down and repeatedly stomped on his groin - what rules were they following exactly? People and societies have codes of behavior that governs what is acceptable and what is not, however those pesky thugs don't always do what is acceptable. If someone threatens or attacks you you can only guess what 'rules' they have or what they might find acceptable.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh dear lord....

Without context, it's not something that can be said. It could be anything from a dominance display (for other gang members, other "thugs"), a "message" to your friend, retaliatory for some slight, or anything. The point is that the idea of "thugs don't follow rules!" is unrealistic... I'm not saying you know, or understand the rules (when it comes to social rules), but they're there. As far as laws (as rules), some are willing to break some, but not others... the idea that "I'm being attacked, for all I know they're going to cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag, so I should do everything I can to damage them first!" is where the line from self defence turns into assault, as well as being a rather paranoid way to look at self defence and your life.

So while that incident is a more extreme one, it doesn't make your point, or make you correct.

 

[Cyriacus]

And you have no way of knowing what 'rules' he has or if he will follow any at any given time.

Nor do you. And youre more likely to get yourself in trouble by pretending they dont exist and looking at thugs as vicious killers rather than seeing them as people who do things that arent societally acceptable.

OK - you want reality. When a friend of mine was attacked in his home by two guys who then threw him off the second floor balcony and then went down and repeatedly stomped on his groin - what rules were they following exactly? People and societies have codes of behavior that governs what is acceptable and what is not, however those pesky thugs don't always do what is acceptable. If someone threatens or attacks you you can only guess what 'rules' they have or what they might find acceptable.

Friend of mine gets into a fight outside a pub, runs away, catches a flying brick to the back of the head.
Heres a tip. He stomped on his groin, not his head. Get it? If he wasnt following any rules, i guess he was just really stupid because he didnt kill him.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Oh dear lord....

For crying out loud...

As far as laws (as rules), some are willing to break some, but not others...

That was the point I was making. The point Nocturnal was making was that martial arts competitions have rules that the street does not, such as not striking the back of the head - a point you and Lawsons missed entirely.

the idea that "I'm being attacked, for all I know they're going to cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag, so I should do everything I can to damage them first!" is where the line from self defence turns into assault, as well as being a rather paranoid way to look at self defence and your life.

Any reasonable, sane person that learns a self defence art knows that you must use reasonable force for self defence. Do you honestly think that I would snap someones neck for poking me with their finger just because I don't know if they are cut me up into tiny pieces and find me in a garbage bag - that was a ridiculous statement.

Without context, it's not something that can be said. It could be anything from a dominance display (for other gang members, other "thugs"), a "message" to your friend, retaliatory for some slight, or anything.

One of the guys thought he had a fling with his girlfriend.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Heres a tip. He stomped on his groin, not his head. Get it? If he wasnt following any rules, i guess he was just really stupid because he didnt kill him.

They threw off the second floor balcony remember! they obviously did not give a flying monkey fart about his life.

 

[Cyriacus]

They threw off the second floor balcony remember! they obviously did not give a flying monkey fart about his life.

Sure he did. He stomped on his groin rather than his head.
The lines are blurry. That we can agree on. But theres also a line between not knowing the other persons intentions and assuming the worst.

"If there are rules on the street many street thugs aren't following them."

They are. Thats the point being made here. They are following rules.

 

[RTKDCMB]

But theres also a line between not knowing the other persons intentions and assuming the worst.

We can agree on that too.

 

[lklawson]

That was the point I was making. The point Nocturnal was making was that martial arts competitions have rules that the street does not, such as not striking the back of the head - a point you and Lawsons missed entirely.

We didn't "miss" that "point," we said it's wrong.

Just because their "rules" don't match your "rules" doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means you don't know what they are.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk