UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[lklawson]

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

They didn't use a knife, club, chain, or some other weapon. Even when inside the victims residence, where, presumably, there were at least steak-knives, they still didn't use knives (from your brief description). Obviously, they had some sort of "rules." Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean they're not there. If you ran in those sort of circles, you'd have a better idea of what they were.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[RTKDCMB]

They didn't use a knife, club, chain, or some other weapon. Even when inside the victims residence, where, presumably, there were at least steak-knives, they still didn't use knives (from your brief description). Kirk

There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.

 

[Cyriacus]

There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.

Weapons are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Hell, just this year some guy was stabbed with a screwdriver at a party. If i remember right, he didnt survive the singular stab.

Noone here has even mentioned competition rules. Weve been trying to tell you that they are following rules in general. Noone has said that competitive rules apply at any point.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Noone here has even mentioned competition rules.

They were mentioned in Post number 2 - UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also styles that have rules It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything goes. and several others if you look close enough.

 

[lklawson]

There could be any number of reasons they did not use a weapon, they didn't bring one with them, they didn't want to make a mess, could not stand the site of blood, they thought they did not need a weapon since they were throwing him off the balcony, they could not find the steak knives, heat of the moment etc. I can agree that people have their own rules of sorts, there's a difference between those rules of conscience and competition rules which do not usually exist on the street which is what the statement "there are no rules on the street" usually means.

I'm sorry friend, but that's just a weak argument. They didn't use weapons because they chose not to. It's really that simple.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Zero]

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

There's the rule: "you cheat with my girl, you get tossed out the window and your genitals stomped". The nexus between (alleged) cheating and groin stomping is a perfect fit and fits with why they did not then stomp his head in resulting in death or cut his throat (though they could have taken a pair of scissors to the nether-regions, ouch). It was a message to your mate and to all and comes in at about rule number three in the Hodlum's Handbook (you can't get this book online).

 

[Cyriacus]

They were mentioned in Post number 2 - UFC has rules. Most styles that are commonly used in the UFC are also styles that have rules It's a different matter when it's a street fight where anything goes. and several others if you look close enough.

That isnt what i was talking about, though. Or Lawson and Chris, as far as i can tell.
As far as COMPETITIVE rules go, yeah, there are none. Go figure, since its not a competition. Except when it is a competition. Then are are 'rules', but once again, rules of a different context.

 

[nocturnal_]

They didn't use weapons because they chose not to. It's really that simple.

The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway.

Weapons are everywhere. EVERYWHERE. Hell, just this year some guy was stabbed with a screwdriver at a party. If i remember right, he didnt survive the singular stab.

Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim.

That isnt what i was talking about, though. Or Lawson and Chris, as far as i can tell.
As far as COMPETITIVE rules go, yeah, there are none. Go figure, since its not a competition. Except when it is a competition. Then are are 'rules', but once again, rules of a different context.

This argument stemmed from Competitive Rules vs No Rules in the earlier posts.

There's the rule: "you cheat with my girl, you get tossed out the window and your genitals stomped". The nexus between (alleged) cheating and groin stomping is a perfect fit and fits with why they did not then stomp his head in resulting in death or cut his throat (though they could have taken a pair of scissors to the nether-regions, ouch). It was a message to your mate and to all and comes in at about rule number three in the Hodlum's Handbook (you can't get this book online).

In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc.

I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.

 

[Cyriacus]

The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway.

Clearly, they werent.

Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim.

I repeat: The stomped on his groin. Not. His. Head. They did not want to kill him. How can you not see that?

This argument stemmed from Competitive Rules vs No Rules in the earlier posts.

Yes. Then we clearly explained what kind of rules we were talking about. Several times. Go back and read.

In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc.

I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.

If thats what you read us saying, go back and read it again. Because shortly after explaining that, each of us explained what kind of rules ARE being followed. They arent invented rules, theyre really quite predictable.

 

[lklawson]

The thugs were aiming for the same result anyway.

The facts do not support that conclusion.

Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim.

Depends on the goal. If you want to kill someone, then you use killing tools. If you want stomp on his nuts to "send a message" then you don't need knives.

In other words, it's the rule that they created themselves and possibly only valid to them at that given moment. OK, it's a very clever argument. I kind of wish that Chris, Cyriacus and lklawson were able to argue like you. Instead they kept mentioned things were baseless, not in context, etc.

I can agree to "the thugs create their own rules". Again it's a clever argument.

No. They weren't "creating their own rules" they were operating by a set of rules that you don't know. There's a difference.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'm sorry friend, but that's just a weak argument. They didn't use weapons because they chose not to. It's really that simple.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Since none of us were there at the time there's no way to know why they did not use weapons either way so the whole argument (I am discussing not arguing) is moot.

 

[Ryker Wells]

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.

 

[lklawson]

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts

Yeah. Him or Edward William Barton-Wright, who proceeded said Mr. Lee by a half-century.

Or any of a bunch of other folks who mixed arts together into a martial casserole.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.

What makes you think that modern day mixed martial artists are less honorable or respectful than any other modern day martial artists?

 

[frank raud]

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.

As long as we ignore the history of most martial arts and how they were developed, then sure, some guy in the 1960's was the first person to come up with the innovative idea of combing several arts together. Other than that, your statement is pretty accurate.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Bruce lee was the first to really start the idea of mixed martial arts if he had lived longer to influence it more i believe that that mma would be more honorable and still respectful towards the martial arts they are using but much of the honor and respect i believe has disapeared personally i prefer learn a martial art traditionally and alone rather than mushing it all together.

Who was it that first said "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."?

While I am pretty sure that most everybody here can appreciate the contributions of Bruce Lee to the world of martial arts, what you've posted here really could not be any farther from the truth.

The earliest mixing of martial arts probably involved rocks and the eternal argument about which grip is best for throwing them.

 

[Cyriacus]

Who was it that first said "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."?

While I am pretty sure that most everybody here can appreciate the contributions of Bruce Lee to the world of martial arts, what you've posted here really could not be any farther from the truth.

The earliest mixing of martial arts probably involved rocks and the eternal argument about which grip is best for throwing them.

Mixed Martial Arts: Tieing a sharpened rock to the end of a pointy stick. *salutes*

 

[nocturnal_]

I repeat: The stomped on his groin. Not. His. Head. They did not want to kill him. How can you not see that?

So? I didn't write anything about killing. Probably someone else in the thread did, but it wasn't me for sure.
There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule.

When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food (not others), was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules?

Life is about choices, not rules.

Depends on the goal. If you want to kill someone, then you use killing tools. If you want stomp on his nuts to "send a message" then you don't need knives.

There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules?

No. They weren't "creating their own rules" they were operating by a set of rules that you don't know. There's a difference

Hahaha.... this is funny.
I suppose you know their rules? If you don't, then how do you know that the rules weren't created by them?
If you do know, tell us their rules then.

 

[Cyriacus]

So? I didn't write anything about killing. Probably someone else in the thread did, but it wasn't me for sure.
There are many possible reasons they stomped on his groin, rather than other parts of the body. Definitely not because there's a rule.

Life is about choices, not rules.

Rules govern your choices. Internal or external.

Now, you said the following:

"Do you have to use everything that's available? If they had used steak knives, then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim."

Your reasoning is flawed. Why would they use steak knives if they werent trying to kill him? The rule was that they didnt want him to die. How hard is it for you to understand that?

You also said,
"then you would've complained that they didn't throw the victim from second level balcony. Or you would've complained that they didn't use a car that they own to hit the victim."

No, we wouldnt. THAT my good man is irrelevant as well as it is baseless. I didnt say anything because i was being polite, but since this is going nowhere.

When you decided to train in martial arts, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided on where to live, was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules? When you decided to eat some certain food (not others), was it because you chose to do so OR was it because you were following some rules?

I was following my rules. Those same rules are why i stopped training in martial arts. If you are a vegetarian, that is a RULE as defined by your intent and purposes. If vegetarianism was a crime, i would regulate if and when i perpetrated it based on elements of risk and reward.

As. We. Have. Already. Explained. Go back and read.

There are so many ways to send message. They just happen to choose that method. What does it have to do with rules?

The rules define why they didnt stomp on his head. Go back and read.

 

[_JLC_]

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.

If you had of taken the time to properly read my post, you would have seen it was worded very neutral. In your post you are clearly attacking my comments. Also, since I live in New Zealand I cannot actually goto a UFC event. Therefore, in my opening line I mentioned I have watched UFC on TV. I didn't want my post to make me sound like a "big headed know it all", but clearly you do by your post.

Thank you to the many other forum members who have taken the time to comment/debate in a civil manner.