Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[Hanzou]

By the way. Sakuraba wasn't a bjjer to my knowledge.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e6khZnrh4RE

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in grappling or MMA who doesn't respect Sakuraba. The man is considered a legend.

Just don't where his t-shirt during a Royce Gracie seminar. You might get choked.

 

[Steve]

So... Basically, when you ask why we don't see these things in MMA, what you really mean us "why don't we see completely different things in MMA". Which seems sort of a silly thing to ask.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

Come on, now, DD. It's not quite like that and you know it. But, you do bring up a question I've long had. If it's too much of a tangent, just let me know.

Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target? It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not. Also, my face is very mobile. I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike. If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great. Now I've got no eye. But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself. You might break your finger.

So, the question is twofold. First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success? Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes? In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."

I really think that everyone here is making interesting points. That includes BOTH k-man and Hanzou. I'm glad that the conversation is moving back to the heart of the topic and away from picking on a particular, well known martial artist.

 

[Steve]

What some people seem to expect from MMA fighters is to be able to tell specifically every time which technique comes from which TMA, it doesn't work like that. Techniques are picked up and adapted to suit the fighter, they are used, hopefully, seamlessly so that one technique flows into another. You cannot watch a fight sitting there saying 'oh that's a TKD kick, that's a Aikido move' etc. It's an MMA fight, one where a fighter has knowledge of his opponents fighting style and will have prepared for that. In the early days, "back in the day" which I do remember, you could tell which style a fighter had come from but now MMA is taught as an encompassing style in it's own right. We are constantly looking at techniques to use from any style, it may only be one or even part of one technique, it may be more but people should stop trying to see MMA as a one TMA style being used at a time thing, it isn't. It's a meld of many styles ( the name gives it away) see it as a whole rather than it's parts. Oh and try not to think of the UFC as the only place where MMA is fought, I've watched in different capacities thousands of fights and you'd be surprised how many techniques are used by fighters covering a huge range of martial arts styles.

Tez, it's nice to see you back! Welcome. Very glad to see your name. I agree completely. Often, MMA-ists train in multiple styles. Even amateurs who never intend to fight will train "MMA" but will often also train BJJ (both gi and nogi), wrestling and muay thai seperately. They learn each style in its singular form, but also train specifically to synthesize the various parts. The specific formula may change. I remember how interesting it was to see Benson Henderson (since he was brought up earlier) competing at the Pan Ams in a gi. He did pretty well, too!

Why is that a silly thing to ask? If someone is using Praying Mantis Kung Fu in a fight, would they look like those pics from Inside Kung Fu, or would they look more like a Sanshou/Sanda or MMA fighter?

Whenever I see a fight breakout, I never see anyone break out the Mantis or Tiger claw. It's always some crazy kickboxing-like Melee which oftentimes ends up on the ground with someone pummeling on the other person. You see this over and over again in several street fight videos and competition videos across continents and throughout time. From Emin Boztepe vs William Cheung, to those two. Kung Fu masters fighting in the ring in 1952, to two Kung Fu guys fighting in the streets of Hong Kong recently, it all looks very similar, and it looks nothing like what you see demonstrated in Inside Kung Fu, or the Kung Fu forms.

Karate is similar in that regard as well.

Is there an ideal fighting aesthetic on one side, and a more reality based aesthetic on another? In other words, when everything breaks down to pure fighting, does all the fancy hand techniques and stances go out the window and everyone pretty much fights in a very similar fashion (i.e. like a MMA fighter)?

This is where I start to scratch my head, too. When the topic of sport vs "street" comes up, I hear the arguments against "sport." But it rings hollow when we can see plenty of evidence that competitive sport martial artists do indeed 'fight how they train.' We have seen evidence that where sport is not integrated in SOME way into training, martial artists do not "fight how they train." And this holds up even for those individuals who choose not to compete, but train within a style where competition is present.

It gets back to testing and measuring proficiency. there has to be some independent, subjective feedback mechanism. Competition is a very good way to do this. Without it, I tihnk the training model is flawed, and you will find out whether YOU (as an individual) can apply the techniques after it really matters, when the stakes are high.

Are there other ways to gain this feedback? Sure. Are there other things involved with martial arts than pure fighting skill? Of course. But is there a more effective way to measure your fighting ability in a relatively safe manner? I'd love to hear them!

 

[drop bear]

Come on, now, DD. It's not quite like that and you know it. But, you do bring up a question I've long had. If it's too much of a tangent, just let me know.

Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target? It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not. Also, my face is very mobile. I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike. If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great. Now I've got no eye. But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself. You might break your finger.

So, the question is twofold. First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success? Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes? In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."

I really think that everyone here is making interesting points. That includes BOTH k-man and Hanzou. I'm glad that the conversation is moving back to the heart of the topic and away from picking on a particular, well known martial artist.

Well we could just find a decent boxer put on a set of goggles and have an eye gouge off as well. Unless the suggestion is that tma striking makes the eye gouge more effective. Then the better eye gouger would be the one who hits the goggles more times than the other.

It would effectively be definitive as to which system delivers the better strikes.

By the way I have done this grappling because I had a krav guy try it on once. Just light access to the eyes.

 

[K-man]

Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target? It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not. Also, my face is very mobile. I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike. If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great. Now I've got no eye. But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself. You might break your finger.

So, the question is twofold. First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success? Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes? In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."

No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.

I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.

It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.

Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
:asian:

 

[mook jong man]

No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.

I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.

It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.

Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
:asian:

Actually finger whips into the eyeballs are a lot more practical than poking the eye.
There is no risk of damaging fingers on skull or bone , they are a lot faster and can be done in quick succession like chain punching.

Think like you are doing a punch with a vertical fist , but instead keep the hand loose and open and let the back of your finger nails hit the eyes like a whip.

 

[MJS]

One of my guys told me his Dog Brothers experience. They like to attack from a very far distance, generate enough body momentum, charge in toward you, and then run you down. If you are not used to

- move your body outside of their attacking path, and
- take advantage on their forward commitment,

you may not be able to play their game very well.

Perhaps it was just the 2 fighters, because I've seen a lot of DB fights on YT, and I've never seen what you describe.

 

[Blindside]

Perhaps it was just the 2 fighters, because I've seen a lot of DB fights on YT, and I've never seen what you describe.

I have, but the guy was basically a football player with a stick to block shots as he closed. Viable tactic if you can make it work.

 

[MJS]

People often say this, but 20 years later, Bjj is still the dominant grappling form in MMA. You literally cannot go far in MMA without knowing it. Let's also not forget that Rickson was promoting Bjj in Japan via Vale Tudo, and Renzo was promoting Bjj in another NHB tournament whose name escapes me.

So yes they were brilliant promoters, but their promotion only worked because they delivered the goods.

This is true, however, while it's been a while since I've paid to see a UFC, I'm curious as to how many pure BJJ guys we see in the ring today. In other words...take Royce. He's a pure BJJ guy, who started to add in some striking, the last time he entered the ring. However, despite that, which didn't seem to help him against Matt Hughes, I'd wager a bet that any pure, 1 dimensional BJJ guy in the ring today, would probably get destroyed. So yes, it is important to have a ground game, but you have to add in the other stuff as well.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yes, mma has changed quite a bit MJS in that you never see pure BJJ guy in the ring anymore at least not at the UFC level. At the very least they have added boxing or muay thai to their arsenal to draw on.

 

[Hanzou]

This is true, however, while it's been a while since I've paid to see a UFC, I'm curious as to how many pure BJJ guys we see in the ring today. In other words...take Royce. He's a pure BJJ guy, who started to add in some striking, the last time he entered the ring. However, despite that, which didn't seem to help him against Matt Hughes, I'd wager a bet that any pure, 1 dimensional BJJ guy in the ring today, would probably get destroyed. So yes, it is important to have a ground game, but you have to add in the other stuff as well.

The winner of TUF 18 (2013) Chris Holdsworth was fairly pure Bjj, and he pretty decisively won the competition. If you watch his fights on the series, once he got a hold of you, it was all over. He's currently undefeated in the UFC.

 

[Hanzou]

No sorry. I'm in that arguementive mood again.

I'm assuming by poking to the eye you are really talking about a strike to the eye which is quite legitimate but not really all that practical, not because I might hurt my finger but because you will instinctively move to protect your eyes. Therein is the first benefit. I will utilise your flinch response as a distraction. If I actually make contact, that's a bonus.

It's actually in grappling that the eyes become valid and useful targets. Grabbing the head with fingers in the eye sockets is standard fare, low risk (to me) and extremely effective.

Now to your questions. Because I don't actually care if my strike reaches the eye it is still the best target for me. There is no other target that will give me the same response with the added benefit if I actually connect. So I will most likely target the eyes regardless of other targets. Then of course, from a grappling perspective, there are numerous places on the head that give good control but none better than the eyes or eye sockets, when you really want to grab and control.
:asian:

Bas Rutten on eye pokes versus grappling (At 3:00 mark)

Joe Rogan Podcast With Bas Rutten Talking About Fake Martial Arts People - YouTube

 

[Dirty Dog]

Can we all agree that trying to gouge the eye is a low percentage/high risk target?

But still viable, given the right circumstances. Just not in a competitive setting.

It's small, and while eyes are squishy, the eye sockets are not.

The orbits are "squishy" in the sense that they are considerably more fragile than other parts of the head. They also form a lovely anatomical 'funnel' that guides the fingers into the socket, in the case of a near miss.

Also, my face is very mobile. I only need to turn my head (and instinctive response) a fraction of an inch to "defend" the strike. If you try to poke me in the eye and succeed, great. Now I've got no eye. But if you don't, you will likely hurt yourself. You might break your finger.

In many (even most?) cases, that flinch response may well be exactly what I'm hoping for. If you train finger strikes (which admittedly the vast majority do not, these days) then you shouldn't injure yourself. After all, you can beak your hand punching a bag, and you can break boards using finger strikes. There are risks to fighting...

So, the question is twofold. First, if you can't hit another target on the face, can you rely on this technique at all, much less as the first in a chain of techniques that rely on its success? Second, and this is long the lines of what Hanzou was saying, if you have skill to mitigate the risks of this technique, why wouldn't you be able to adapt the technique to reliably strike other, similarly effective targets within inches of the eyes? In MMA, we have see the reliable results of being caught "on the button."

You can, of course. But then it wouldn't look anything like the pictures Hanzou was asking about, right? It would look like a punch to the face.

 

[Hanzou]

You can, of course. But then it wouldn't look anything like the pictures Hanzou was asking about, right? It would look like a punch to the face.

You can strike with the Mantis Hook.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Just a few thoughts ...

As others have noted, I don't think that "TMA" vs "MMA" is a really useful terminology to use. The arts which make
up the core of modern MMA are just as "traditional" as most of the arts which are typically cited as not working
in MMA. In general, I'd say the arts commonly referred to as "TMA" are not particularly homogenous and mostly not
all that traditional.

It seem that every time this discussion starts up we get just a few viewpoints repeated ad nauseam. To wit:

1) Success in MMA is the ultimate criteria for determining the combative effectiveness of a martial art. If
something works in MMA then it will work in a "real" fight. Contrariwise if we haven't seen something work in MMA,
then it obviously wouldn't work in a "real" fight.

I generally disagree with this. The circumstances of a violent encounter, the environment and the rules of
engagement all have an effect on the optimal tactics and techniques for surviving and/or prevailing in that
encounter. For example, in 99+% of self-defense situations you will have no need for knowledge of how to pass the
guard or defend a triangle choke. In the octagon those are important skills. On the other hand, a sucker punch is
one of the most common opening gambits in a street assault. In an MMA match you don't have to worry about being
sucker punched because you know exactly when the fight is starting.

Furthermore, the sport of MMA is still developing. There are fighters pulling off moves now that 15 years ago were
dismissed as ineffective in an MMA setting. I expect this evolution will continue.

2-a) Practitioners of my art could totally do well in MMA if we wanted to. It's just that none of us wants to
because we're too enlightened and not into all that barbaric fighting for money.

Hey, if you aren't personally interested in competition or fighting, that's great. Just don't pretend that you
know how you would do if you did.

2-b) Practitioners of my art could totally kick *** in MMA, except for all those rules which outlaw all my best
moves.

Unless your art is primarily a weapon art, I have to call BS on this. I studied "ninjutsu" in the Bujinkan for
about a decade. 99% of the unarmed techniques I learned there are perfectly legal in MMA. 100% of the aikido
techniques I've seen are legal in MMA. The overwhelming majority of Wing Chun techniques I've seen are legal in
MMA.

In addition, these claims ignore the results of many years of Vale Tudo/NHB/MMA matches before the adoption of the
modern unified MMA ruleset. Strikes to the throat or groin, small-joint manipulations, elbows to the back of the
neck, and so on, were not game changers. For that matter even eye gouging was not a surefire winner. Gerard
Gordeau (illegally) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Japan badly enough that Nakai permanently lost sight in one eye. Even
so, Gordeau still lost the fight by submission.

Practitioners of weapon arts have a much better case. Introducing knives and swords definitely changes the
equation. On the other other hand, if your art includes both armed and unarmed methods and your unarmed techniques
are demonstrably ineffective then it doesn't inspire confidence in your sword techniques.

3) The results of MMA competition are only relevant to that arena and present no useful lessons for any other
context.

This viewpoint takes my point in #1 above about environment and rules of engagement and then takes it to an
extreme. Advocates of this view claim there is no overlap between the principles that apply in an MMA fight and
the principles that apply in any other violent encounter. As you might guess, I think that this is also way off
target.

I'll just toss out one example. Let's say your martial art advocates for not going to the ground in a street
fight. (A sensible approach under most circumstances.) Your teacher tells you that you can avoid being taken down
by just side-stepping your opponent, or punching him as he comes in, or elbowing him on the back of the neck. You
can watch hundreds of MMA fights and watch these tactics fail over and over again. What makes you think these
takedown defenses will magically work in the greater chaos of a street assault when they didn't work in the cage?
It's not enough to say "the street is different from the MMA arena." You need to explain why those differences are
relevant to the specifics of what you are currently looking at. How does the absence of a referee or the presence
of broken glass on the sidewalk make your takedown defense any more effective?

Just my two cents worth.

 

[K-man]

Bas Rutten on eye pokes versus grappling (At 3:00 mark)

Joe Rogan Podcast With Bas Rutten Talking About Fake Martial Arts People - YouTube

Yes, but don't take what he said out of context. If an attacker is in a dominant position like Bas said with a choke, and some one goes for his eyes Bas said he can break their neck, and I have no doubt he could. Ninja girl was obviously pissing him off with her comments. That does not mean that the eyes aren't a valid target in the situations I described. Even in the situation Bas was talking about with the chokes, obviously attacking the eyes or groin alone may not succeed in securing your release but after relieving the pressure of the choke they are options you can use.

Then you have the man himself. He is big and strong and able to take considerable pain. Ninja girl was obviously just plain unrealistic to believe what she was saying. In a SD situation for females in particular, eyes are a legitimate target but every response has to be appropriate. I'd be interested to hear Brian's response to what Bas said.

 

[mook jong man]

Yes, but don't take what he said out of context. If an attacker is in a dominant position like Bas said with a choke, and some one goes for his eyes Bas said he can break their neck, and I have no doubt he could. Ninja girl was obviously pissing him off with her comments. That does not mean that the eyes aren't a valid target in the situations I described. Even in the situation Bas was talking about with the chokes, obviously attacking the eyes or groin alone may not succeed in securing your release but after relieving the pressure of the choke they are options you can use.

Then you have the man himself. He is big and strong and able to take considerable pain. Ninja girl was obviously just plain unrealistic to believe what she was saying. In a SD situation for females in particular, eyes are a legitimate target but every response has to be appropriate. I'd be interested to hear Brian's response to what Bas said.

Utmost respect for Bas Rutten , but I think that Joe Rogan is one vile arrogant human being.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

So do you disagree, or agree with the marines? I mean, I agree that a ring fight isn't always the same as a real fight, but does that really change the fact that professional fighters can actually fight?

Just for the sake of answering your questions, I'm probably inclined to agree with him, unless someone proves him wrong. But it definitely won't be me!

And no it doesn't change that fact at all, it would be ludicrous to suggest that and in no way was I trying to give the impression that I was of that opinion.

I'd never say that a credible competition fighter would be useless outside the ring/cage as that's obviously ridiculous, and overall I'd largely agree with Tony's comments on the subject from a page or two back.

I was only speculating on whether or not the rules of MMA make a difference, and who may have an advantage in a 'street fight', and given that there are many folks far more knowledgeable and experienced than me on here and they can't agree on it I think it's safe to say that the subject is up for debate!

 

[K-man]

Just a few thoughts ...

As others have noted, I don't think that "TMA" vs "MMA" is a really useful terminology to use. The arts which make
up the core of modern MMA are just as "traditional" as most of the arts which are typically cited as not working
in MMA. In general, I'd say the arts commonly referred to as "TMA" are not particularly homogenous and mostly not
all that traditional.

It seem that every time this discussion starts up we get just a few viewpoints repeated ad nauseam. To wit:

1) Success in MMA is the ultimate criteria for determining the combative effectiveness of a martial art. If
something works in MMA then it will work in a "real" fight. Contrariwise if we haven't seen something work in MMA,
then it obviously wouldn't work in a "real" fight.

I generally disagree with this. The circumstances of a violent encounter, the environment and the rules of
engagement all have an effect on the optimal tactics and techniques for surviving and/or prevailing in that
encounter. For example, in 99+% of self-defense situations you will have no need for knowledge of how to pass the
guard or defend a triangle choke. In the octagon those are important skills. On the other hand, a sucker punch is
one of the most common opening gambits in a street assault. In an MMA match you don't have to worry about being
sucker punched because you know exactly when the fight is starting.

Furthermore, the sport of MMA is still developing. There are fighters pulling off moves now that 15 years ago were
dismissed as ineffective in an MMA setting. I expect this evolution will continue.

I'm with you.

2-a) Practitioners of my art could totally do well in MMA if we wanted to. It's just that none of us wants to
because we're too enlightened and not into all that barbaric fighting for money.

Hey, if you aren't personally interested in competition or fighting, that's great. Just don't pretend that you
know how you would do if you did.

I don't think that anyone is saying they could do well in MMA. I know I would get my **** kicked, unless they had an Old Fart division for geriatrics. It is more that people are agreeing with your position that they simply aren't interested in the competition.

2-b) Practitioners of my art could totally kick *** in MMA, except for all those rules which outlaw all my best moves.

Unless your art is primarily a weapon art, I have to call BS on this. I studied "ninjutsu" in the Bujinkan for
about a decade. 99% of the unarmed techniques I learned there are perfectly legal in MMA. 100% of the aikido
techniques I've seen are legal in MMA. The overwhelming majority of Wing Chun techniques I've seen are legal in
MMA.

In addition, these claims ignore the results of many years of Vale Tudo/NHB/MMA matches before the adoption of the
modern unified MMA ruleset. Strikes to the throat or groin, small-joint manipulations, elbows to the back of the
neck, and so on, were not game changers. For that matter even eye gouging was not a surefire winner. Gerard
Gordeau (illegally) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Japan badly enough that Nakai permanently lost sight in one eye. Even
so, Gordeau still lost the fight by submission.

Practitioners of weapon arts have a much better case. Introducing knives and swords definitely changes the
equation. On the other other hand, if your art includes both armed and unarmed methods and your unarmed techniques
are demonstrably ineffective then it doesn't inspire confidence in your sword techniques.

Again, anyone outside of MMA with that attitude is a fool. But people always look to the champions of MMA to use as an example. If I was in a real fight with an MMA guy it would only be because I couldn't avoid the fight. But I would say straight away that my first option given the opportunity would be the point of the elbow to the face. I teach that in Krav as a primary strike in weapon disarms.


As to 100% of Aikido being legal in the ring ... not true. Even the basic takedowns you see would not be legal as the technique actually is a knee drop to the neck in real life. (Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent) Another is the elbow strike to the ribs on the way to applying nikkyo or yonkyo. (Striking downward using the point of the elbow)


Kaitenage, one of the main take downs involves a knife hand strike to the neck. (Striking to the spine or the back of the head)


Iriminage is a bicep strike to the throat, many of the joint manipulations actually go on break fingers (Small joint manipulation), after applying sankyo the follow up is the knife hand to the back of the neck followed by the knee to the face if he's still standing. (would certainly come under the unsportsmanlike rule even if not considered a grounded opponent)


All takedowns in Aikido involve turning the head away from Nage when you are on the floor. That is to protect your face from getting kicked. (Kicking the head of a grounded opponent)


Release from a shoulder grab amongst others, not done in isolation, involves a shot at the eyes. (Eye gouging of any kind) It is only if that strike fails you move to the next technique such as nikkyo or an arm bar.


Defence against a shoulder grab from behind involves a strike to the groin. (Groin attacks of any kind)

After any of the takedowns where you are sill standing and you have a standing wrist lock the finishing technique is the heel stomp to a vulnerable point. (Stomping a grounded opponent)

When you consider Aikido only has about 15 techniques a lot of them work outside the rules of MMA.


Sure you can say that you don't have to use those nasty moves, just as you see Aikido normally trained, but that's a little like saying you can take your gun into the fight but you can't have any bullets.

And again I would say about the Vale Tude etc, that Aikido was not represented because no one from Aikido was interested, if indeed they were even invited.

3) The results of MMA competition are only relevant to that arena and present no useful lessons for any other context.

This viewpoint takes my point in #1 above about environment and rules of engagement and then takes it to an
extreme. Advocates of this view claim there is no overlap between the principles that apply in an MMA fight and
the principles that apply in any other violent encounter. As you might guess, I think that this is also way off
target.

The results of MMA competition are really only relevant in the context of that fight. If a champion boxer was defeated in an MMA match it doesn't mean boxing is ineffective.on the street any more that it proves MMA is effective. I have no doubt both are effective. Sure you can argue that techniques are proven to work under pressure in the ring. So I can choke out an opponent in the dojo but because I don't compete in the ring I don't know that my choke will work? Yeah right! But that's pretty much what at least one person has been telling me.

I'll just toss out one example. Let's say your martial art advocates for not going to the ground in a street
fight. (A sensible approach under most circumstances.) Your teacher tells you that you can avoid being taken down
by just side-stepping your opponent, or punching him as he comes in, or elbowing him on the back of the neck. You
can watch hundreds of MMA fights and watch these tactics fail over and over again. What makes you think these
takedown defenses will magically work in the greater chaos of a street assault when they didn't work in the cage?
It's not enough to say "the street is different from the MMA arena." You need to explain why those differences are
relevant to the specifics of what you are currently looking at. How does the absence of a referee or the presence
of broken glass on the sidewalk make your takedown defense any more effective?

Just my two cents worth.

And I would say that instructor is a being totally unrealistic. You can minimise the risk of take down but you must be prepared to be taken to the ground. But again, just because a tactic fails in the ring against a highly trained opponent doesn't mean it will fail on the street. I teach that you take whatever you are offered. It is not realistic to say "in situation a) I will do this, if he does b) I will do that". To me that approach is wrong. It means I have to wait for my attacker to make a move before I can determine how I will respond. So if a person is trying to take me down with a shoot, sure I might use the downward elbow, but only if I've managed a sprawl or at least got one leg back first. If that's not an option, cool, I'll work from whatever situation I am in.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Utmost respect for Bas Rutten , but I think that Joe Rogan is one vile arrogant human being.

Agreed. He was certainly leading Bas in that interview. I mean Bas would probably have said the same thing if Ninja girl had said she would bite him if he had her in a neck hold. Sure, but that didn't stop him telling us that a bite to the chest area was a way to escape in a street scenario.
:asian: