What if MMA matches were fought to the death?

[drop bear]

Basically this is a video of a bunch of idiots with no skill whatsoever brawling in the dirt, and you put this up as an example of what exactly? Quality sparring? Krav Maga? Self defence? If that is what you are basing your fighting prowess on then you need professional help.

No it was in response to my post that a three way fight winds up looking like a spaz fest.

I said it looks dumb he said it looks dumb and now you are saying it looks dumb. You are just doing it all angry.

They do it by the way.
http://www.mma-core.com/videos/fights/San_Do_3_Man_Fighting_Fight_Clip/10008107

 

[Chris Parker]

Depends on the krav unfortunately. From a sports perspective there is a lot of" why?"Moments when looking at their training and there really is no need for those moments to be there.

Krav isn't a sport… it's not interested in being a sport… it has no interest in anything that would be better suited to sports application… why would you expect it to follow the ideologies of sports methodologies? It's like complaining that ice-cream doesn't have as much fibre as a salad… it's not claiming to be.

But I don't think we would see anything like krav in a mma fight to the death. Looking at no rules street fights and those lesser rules first ufc and vale tudo. There is not a departure from the basic punching kicking choking module.

There's no such thing as a "mma fight to the death", nor is there really any such thing as a "no rules" fight, street or otherwise. You're also looking at mechanical techniques, which is the least important and least relevant aspect… it's not where the difference is.

There would not even be much departure from the tactic of sitting on top of someone and beating on someone or going for that rear naked.

Tactically, there can be quite a departure from that… it's not something I ever teach, for instance. To me, it's wasted energy.

It would just allow some of the extra stuff like head stomping or spiking people with throws. And no ref.

What would allow such things? Your hypothetical death match? But, again, you're focusing on techniques… not the right thing to look at.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I missed this yesterday...

True that there are many rules now in current MMA compared to what was allowed in early UFCs. But even with the current rules of MMA, there are NO OTHER martial arts tournament that allows the same level of brutality as MMA. All of the TMA's that claims they're too deadly for MMA, yet they also conduct their own tournaments with a megacrap-ton of rules and regulations as well as all the body armor worn, rivaling riot gear of prison guards.

Garbage.

"All of the TMA's"..? Really? I train in things that are genuinely too dangerous to safely put into a competitive format, without dramatically changing the way they work, and you know what? We don't do any competitive format at all. I know you're new here, but it might behoove you to realise that you're stepping into an area where there's a lot of knowledge and experience… particularly in areas you have no idea about. I might suggest being less dismissive of others' systems, and certainly avoid what you're about to say…

During the early UFC's, especially UFC 1-4, there were only 3 illegal techniques which were no biting, no eye gouging (eye strikes were legal) and no fish-hooking. But these moves did not disqualify the fighter nor stop the fight. He was fined $1,000/incident. Each fighter was paid $2,000 per fight (win or lose) and the main purse for winning it all was $60,000. Therefore, a fighter could have use these wussy ladies' tactics of biting and eyegouging, be fined but still come out way, way, way ahead should she wins the $60,000 prize, which was enormous for any martial artists up to that time as the average full time MA'ist made squat as a salary. And $60k was a lot in 1994, still nice today too for a day's work.

"Wussy ladies tactics?"… "should SHE win…"? Seriously, you're going for misogyny now? Good way to ingratiate yourself…

Eye strikes was certainly allowed, so were strikes to the throat, nutsack, back of the head, spinal column, all pressure points, etc. Raining knees and elbows to the face/head of down opponent, soccer kicking someone's head on the ground, stomping their skull pressed against the mat, no problem at all and was done in quite a few fights.

This is going to surprise you, but that's actually rather irrelevant…

Yet Royce Gracie proved that his BJJ style beat them all and all other styles.

No, he didn't. He proved that he could beat the deliberately chosen opponents in a tournament he (well, his family) had a large part in setting up and creating, in a grappler friendly environment, in a context he knew how to prepare for (when the opponents didn't). And it didn't last long. He didn't prove anything about BJJ, if you look at it objectively… as a single person can't. If you had 1,000 similar tournaments set up at the same time, with no collusion between them, with a similar mix of opponents, all at relatively equal skill/experience levels, and BJJ won a significant number of those, all that would prove is that BJJ is potentially the best suited system for that particular environment… Royce beating people only showed that Royce beat those people… nothing more.

Jason Delucia (Kung-Fu) tried to get out of a hold by eye gouging Gracie, which is why Gracie didn't let go when DeLucia tapped furiously and the Ref jumped in but too late, the arm was popped at the elbow. Same with the Karateka who bit Gracie, you can see him trying to tap like crazy but Gracie didn't let go of the choke. On the street, Gracie could have killed both of them if he wanted to.

He could have killed them? Fine… But I gotta ask… so what? Any competitor in a martial arts tournament could say the same thing. "I coulda killed him with my tornado twisting spinning back fly kick, I just decided not to…"

Gracie said all of this in some post interviews to explain why he didn't let go once they tapped. This was an unwritten rule in Vale Tudo in Brazil, although there were no rules, if you used cowardly moves such as biting and eye gouging, don't expect the tap to stop the fight before you're at least severely injured + direct trip to the hospital, but hopefully not maimed for life.

And Delucia said something different.. of course, you're going to trust Royce, which is fine.. but you really should realise that Royce's word on what Royce did, when it conflicts with other accounts, isn't unimpeachable...

Gracie proved that Ninja deathstrikes and junk don't really work against experienced fighters. And UFC contenders and champions today would annihilate Royce Gracie in his prime. BJJ has long since been a staple of MMA training, and it's not a surprise like it was 20+ years ago.

"Ninja deathstrikes and junk"… might it be time to remind you of the "No Art-bashing" clause you agreed to when you signed up here?

And, again, no… all Royce proved was that he won at the time. But you really, really need to get your head around the fact that a competitive arena, and the forms of fighting found (and useful) there are not actually the same as others… there are plenty of things that work great in a match, but are questionable, if not downright dangerous, to do in other circumstances… and vice versa. I wouldn't take my training into an Octagon, but that doesn't' mean it doesn't "work"… just that it's not suited for that environment and context.

 

[drop bear]

Krav isn't a sport… it's not interested in being a sport… it has no interest in anything that would be better suited to sports application… why would you expect it to follow the ideologies of sports methodologies? It's like complaining that ice-cream doesn't have as much fibre as a salad… it's not claiming to be.



There's no such thing as a "mma fight to the death", nor is there really any such thing as a "no rules" fight, street or otherwise. You're also looking at mechanical techniques, which is the least important and least relevant aspect… it's not where the difference is.



Tactically, there can be quite a departure from that… it's not something I ever teach, for instance. To me, it's wasted energy.



What would allow such things? Your hypothetical death match? But, again, you're focusing on techniques… not the right thing to look at.

OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.

If you want to focus on other elements aside from technique then raise that.

I would expect krav to make sense from a sports perspective and then have modifications that make it street viable. Not things like keeping a fight upright which can be tactically viable. but just really strange ideas at a basic level that there seems to be no need for.

What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.

 

[Chris Parker]

OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.

If you want to focus on other elements aside from technique then raise that.

I think it was established pretty early on (say, nearly two years ago&#8230 that such a hypothetical was just going to be a rehash of the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome… and the thread really has moved onto other ideas since then… but really, I'm just responding to what you're putting down (and others).

I would expect krav to make sense from a sports perspective and then have modifications that make it street viable. Not things like keeping a fight upright which can be tactically viable. but just really strange ideas at a basic level that there seems to be no need for.

Then you need to understand just where the differences lie. Expecting a non-sporting system to make sense from a sports perspective is just plain baseless… and to then expect that non-sport system to have modifications to a non-existent sports application to make it viable for what it's actually for is, well… really, lunacy is the best word I can come up with. Of course, I have no idea what these "really strange ideas" you're talking about are… maybe if you put them down, we can see why they're the way they are.

What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.

You've missed the point. What they're good for is tactically useless to me, which makes them wasted effort. And they're high percentage in a particular context or two… not universally.

 

[drop bear]

I think it was established pretty early on (say, nearly two years ago&#8230 that such a hypothetical was just going to be a rehash of the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome… and the thread really has moved onto other ideas since then… but really, I'm just responding to what you're putting down (and others).



Then you need to understand just where the differences lie. Expecting a non-sporting system to make sense from a sports perspective is just plain baseless… and to then expect that non-sport system to have modifications to a non-existent sports application to make it viable for what it's actually for is, well… really, lunacy is the best word I can come up with. Of course, I have no idea what these "really strange ideas" you're talking about are… maybe if you put them down, we can see why they're the way they are.



You've missed the point. What they're good for is tactically useless to me, which makes them wasted effort. And they're high percentage in a particular context or two… not universally.

Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.

OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't. The sport context is the right way to go.

That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

I mean come on seriously?

 

[K-man]

OK the thread is a discussion on a hypothetical death match. I know there isn't one but that is what we are discussing.

So in this hypothetical death match we can use anything that you have available for your style of MA on the battlefield or are we now making rules. I mean Krav is not taught for the ring in the first place, but principally at lower levels empty hand. Later it includes weapons as does Systema. Chris would have all the things that I have seen at his Dojo. I mean with some of the stuff he has you would be lucky to even make it into the ring. Looks like the match needs to be transferred to the Colosseum after all.

I would expect krav to make sense from a sports perspective and then have modifications that make it street viable. Not things like keeping a fight upright which can be tactically viable. but just really strange ideas at a basic level that there seems to be no need for.

I can't see anything from Krav fitting into a sports perspective. Krav is designed to finish a fight in seconds rather than minutes. It's techniques are to destroy, not submit. It trains to regain your feet if you go to the ground, not to try to wear your opponent down. Apart from that, why would anyone want to make it into a sport? The modifications that would make it 'street viable' are the basic principles. If it was going to be for sport, why would anyone bother with things like Krav and Systema. Those styles of MA wouldn't be worth a cracker if you took out the things that make them work.

What techniques would you teach rather than ground and pound and rear naked? They may be wasted effort but they are high percentage.

I teach rear naked choke and many other chokes as well. I teach how to apply them properly, how to reverse them or escape from them and how to apply them in a way that is extremely difficult to escape. But it each them as standing chokes. Sure they can be used on the ground if required but in Krav that is the least preferred option. I don't teach anything like the triangle choke because I don't want my guys spending more time on the ground than they need. I don't teach ground and pound. I would rather my guys be on their feet where they could kick or stomp. Ground and pound is fine in a one on one situation but if there is a possibility of more than one opponent then you can be in trouble real fast.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.

We've moved on to tactically useless as you've been insisting on questioning the approach of my system… and I've been pointing out that the tactical application and requirements are fairly different… to the point that the MMA tactics you are bringing up are tactically useless to my needs.

I'm not MMA.

OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't.

See, you're halfway there… our punching method is very different, and yes, there are specific reasons for that.

The sport context is the right way to go.

Er… no, not necessarily. Not at all, actually.

That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.

Yes, MMA has it's reasons, absolutely. But thinking that just because MMA has it's reasons for it's applications within MMA contexts that that means it's the right approach for other contexts is rather, well, fanciful.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

I mean come on seriously?

Yeah, far from what I'd advise as well… but I'm not sure what your point is here.

So in this hypothetical death match we can use anything that you have available for your style of MA on the battlefield or are we now making rules. I mean Krav is not taught for the ring in the first place, but principally at lower levels empty hand. Later it includes weapons as does Systema. Chris would have all the things that I have seen at his Dojo. I mean with some of the stuff he has you would be lucky to even make it into the ring. Looks like the match needs to be transferred to the Colosseum after all.

Ha, that was only a part of my collection…

I can't see anything from Krav fitting into a sports perspective. Krav is designed to finish a fight in seconds rather than minutes. It's techniques are to destroy, not submit. It trains to regain your feet if you go to the ground, not to try to wear your opponent down. Apart from that, why would anyone want to make it into a sport? The modifications that would make it 'street viable' are the basic principles. If it was going to be for sport, why would anyone bother with things like Krav and Systema. Those styles of MA wouldn't be worth a cracker if you took out the things that make them work.

Yep, that's exactly what I've been saying. We'll see if it gets through...

I teach rear naked choke and many other chokes as well. I teach how to apply them properly, how to reverse them or escape from them and how to apply them in a way that is extremely difficult to escape. But it each them as standing chokes. Sure they can be used on the ground if required but in Krav that is the least preferred option. I don't teach anything like the triangle choke because I don't want my guys spending more time on the ground than they need. I don't teach ground and pound. I would rather my guys be on their feet where they could kick or stomp. Ground and pound is fine in a one on one situation but if there is a possibility of more than one opponent then you can be in trouble real fast.
:asian:

Same… mind you, an RNC is not one of my "go-to" action… we have… nastier approaches to such methods (standing).

 

[K-man]

Ha, that was only a part of my collection…

Mmm! And therein lies the problem. How many toys should any one lad be allowed?
:hmm:

 

[Dirty Dog]

Mmm! And therein lies the problem. How many toys should any one lad be allowed?
:hmm:

Just one more...

 

[Chris Parker]

Only one…? Aww… but I have my eye on, well… lots… plus a few more…

 

[SandaBoxing]

I did but I must be a little slow. Perhaps you could explain it in simple terms that even I can understand.

Yes, but there was still the understanding that the competitors were not trying to kill each other or seriously maim each other. If you had been around a little longer or read some of my earlier posts you would read where I say that the early UFC bouts were the closest to real fighting. However it would have been just a matter of time before someone was killed or permanently maimed. The authorities would have closed it all down if the organisers didn't self regulate.

No. What I said was 'many' fights don't finish with the KO. In many gang related instances the assault can continue for quite some time.

Already explained this.

Well I would really be surprised if that were to happen. No offence but if you tried that in my school I would just call the police.

No one has called the police on me yet for sparring so I'm good, thanks for the concern.

Sparring in KM is totally different to sparring in MMA. In MMA sparring is generally conducted in a less intense way than you would find in the MMA ring. You don't spar using point of the elbow strikes to the head or spine, you don't train using full force forearm strikes to the back of the head and you don't apply armbars with the speed and force you would use in a serious street situation. In Krav we spar with gloves at a much lower intensity and we don't throw in the techniques that could cause serious injury. They are trained in drills and scenarios. It is different methodology. So if you came into my school and started 'downing' people I would ask you to stop and if you didn't I would call the police. If in your wisdom you chose to attack me, well and good. I would have done the right thing. 'Downing people' smacks of competition and we don't compete.

You've been watching too many MMA movies.

Well I know I'm slow but a little advice. This forum is for friendly discussion. If you continue in this style of discussion I am sure that you will cop a lot of negative reps. Just a friendly warning.

You're the one calling my post "GARBAGE" and now you're getting mad because I don't agree with you nor want to keep repeating myself to you?

 

[SandaBoxing]

You're missing the point. The "lethal" systems are weaponry systems, not unarmed ones. And I'm not talking about "gun fu", I'm talking about the classical arts that I study… but if you want to bring that into it, I can remember a SEAL trainer talking about the hand-to-hand combat methods they have… which are non-lethal. Why? Because they have their weaponry for that.

Well I train with knives, sticks, swords, handguns and AK-47 too. We already know that knives and swords will beat any unarmed MMA fighter and a guy with a shotgun + 10 round mag should kill any silly Ninja running up to him with a sword easily. But what's the point of bringing such into a discussion about what works in Martial Arts fighting. It's not like you're ever going to get a chance to prove it by killing someone for real. Although I do enjoy stick fighting like this:

While in a sparring match or cage fight, this is where you find out if your skills as a Martial Artist using YOUR martial art(s) really work.

 

[SandaBoxing]

I do understand what you're saying, and, well, you're wrong. Which is what I said. So… maybe you need to pay a little more attention to my comments, then?

Throwing a punch/elbow/knee etc in an MMA match is NOT the same as in a street engagement. To begin with, it's rare that such things are really thrown at "maximum power… repeatedly"… you'd be gassed in less than a minute, and wouldn't make it through the rest of the fight. Additionally, it opens you up by over-committing, which is far easier to counter… most MMA competitors throw their strikes closer to a boxer… in balance, guarded, without unnecessarily overbalancing, or exposing themselves to counters. That, by necessity, slows things a bit and removes some power… which is what's needed there. Then there's the protective equipment and gloves worn… a different sense of targeting (you're not going to see someone stomping down on a temple in an MMA match, far more potentially lethal than anything you actually see there). Oh, and seriously, quit with the whole "fight to the death" thing… it's tired, and desperately inaccurate… if it was actually a fight to the death, they'd be pulling blades on each other.

So, to sum up; not a fight to the death… not similar to a fight to the death… not even that similar to a "regular" street confrontation… the MMA guy isn't throwing everything (if he wants to actually have any success)… and he is holding back a range of more "vicious" things that might come up in a streetfight.

In other words, no. You're wrong.



So you're saying that an MMA match is exactly the same as a streetfight "to the death", but that streetfights aren't to the death? They're to the KO (which is wrong)? And that makes them just like as sports fight (which is also wrong)? Really? Can you see the contradiction in your own comments here?



Yeah, I remember that… not really sure what your point is, though… "MMA are real fights to the death, just like real life, except they stop first… real life fights are fights to the death… except most fights aren't fights to the death, they're fights to the knock out… except this example isn't' a fight to the death or knock out…" Huh?

To be honest, I think you're taking an incredibly narrow view of real world violence… you're simply not accounting for probably 90%+ of the types of violence out there… do you know the difference between social and asocial violence? What an educational beatdown is? A monkey dance? Social rules regarding the application of violence?

Outside of sports match fighting, do you have any real knowledge of violence? That's a serious question, by the way.



There is a huge difference between a potentially lethal technique and a lethal technique… a choke is potentially lethal, sure… but it's not a "death technique". It's a restraint and control/subduing technique. Oh, and spare me the whole "you're being spared your life" garbage, okay? 10-20 seconds isn't long enough, and you're making it out to be something it's just not. Believe me, if you want to kill someone, and you have access to their neck or throat, a choke is rather slow and ineffective compared with a whole range of other things.

I already answered this.

 

[SandaBoxing]

No, you haven't. You've repeated the same flawed and inaccurate ideas twice. It's been read, and seen as the garbage it is.



Except that it had a range of banned actions, combined with a range of implied rules (single opponent, no weapons, known environment, known opponent, referee, implied rules of "sportsmanship", and so on). So… no.



And if we showed you 5 clips of fights that didn't stop once someone is knocked out? And five that stopped before? What would any of that prove, other than that there is no single pattern that all violent encounters fit?

Oh, and son? Careful with your choice of words there… K-man is not the one being absurd here.



Honestly, I'm thinking it's more that you're ignoring the context of what you're doing there, and are just trying to do what you want, regardless of the actual situation… I've seen that a number of times before, frankly. I have no idea where your idea of "pads don't hit back" comes from… unless you were meant to be doing a pad drill when you decided to "clown them"… no one else mentioned pads…



Perhaps you could try to realise that, well, we've been at this a lot longer than you, and have a much wider view than you to… and you're wrong. But hey, you've had that explained to you a number of times already… and you still don't understand.

Old age doesn't guarantee wisdom.

 

[SandaBoxing]

Basically this is a video of a bunch of idiots with no skill whatsoever brawling in the dirt, and you put this up as an example of what exactly? Quality sparring? Krav Maga? Self defence? If that is what you are basing your fighting prowess on then you need professional help.

Not if you understood it in context as to what I was responding to, which was a post made by Drop Bear.

 

[SandaBoxing]

Well the context would be a mma death match. I am not sure how we have moved on from that. So I am not sure how we have moved on to tactically useless.

OK if you were throwing boxing punches in krav. And a boxer looks at it and says there are issues it is either technically wrong or tactically wrong. There needs to be a good reason to be continuing with that style of technique. Now sometimes that is the case but if it isn't. The sport context is the right way to go.

That is the same for mma. If I punch kick in a way that a good striker wouldn't there has to be a specific reason for that. I can't just say well. Mma as a reason.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNLrxp459gc

I mean come on seriously?

Yeah, it's usually very difficult to explain to people who don't fight nor spar full contact, how much of their techniques wouldn't work in a real fight vs. someone who's an experienced fighter. This was why the early UFC's were so beautiful as it pitted styles vs. styles to prove what worked and what didn't. There were no disqualifying technique. All Ninja Death Strikes were available, and none of them worked vs. 165 lb Royce Gracie who just took them down and dominated. And the Brazilians have been fighting their no rules matches of Vale Tudo for decades before. MMA today is leaps and bounds beyond what Royce Gracie was 20+ years ago in 1993. 1993 Royce in his prime, would maybe be a decent contender in today's MMA, but nowhere near top contender nor champion.

What I like about the Krav Maga school that I'm sparring at currently is that they have legit Pro and Amateur MMA fighters there so there's a respect for real techniques and what experienced fighters can do. There's no hooplah about how KM is so deadly and not meant for sport. And it's during sparring that they find out real quick that they can't just walk up to me and kick me in the nuts. Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.

 

[ballen0351]

Well I train with knives, sticks, swords, handguns and AK-47 too. We already know that knives and swords will beat any unarmed MMA fighter and a guy with a shotgun + 10 round mag should kill any silly Ninja running up to him with a sword easily.

You need to watch the style bashing its not allowed here

But what's the point of bringing such into a discussion about what works in Martial Arts fighting. It's not like you're ever going to get a chance to prove it by killing someone for real.

sure you can it happens people use force and even deadly force to defend themselves all the time. That is where you learn what your style is all about or more importantly yourself is all about in real life situations NOT in some little ring with a ref and a cut man and rules and judges

s Although I do enjoy stick fighting like this:

While in a sparring match or cage fight, this is where you find out if your skills as a Martial Artist using YOUR martial art(s) really work.

not even close

 

[wimwag]

Can we bash on kyukido? Its not officially recognized as a martial art.

 

[K-man]

What I like about the Krav Maga school that I'm sparring at currently is that they have legit Pro and Amateur MMA fighters there so there's a respect for real techniques and what experienced fighters can do. There's no hooplah about how KM is so deadly and not meant for sport. And it's during sparring that they find out real quick that they can't just walk up to me and kick me in the nuts. Simple jabs and footwork stops them dead in their track.

As I said, sparring in Krav is not the same as sparring in say MMA. If it is being taken that way I would question the instruction. Sparring in the conventional sense is to and fro, both sides trying to get in to strike. Krav is mostly, not always, waiting for the attacker to enter, so walking up to you to kick you in the nuts is not Krav. Sorry.

Oh! When I asked you to explain your position in the earlier post, I really meant it. I did not understand what you were trying to say. To reply by saying "I already told you" really means that you didn't state it clearly in the first place.

:asian: