Old school traditional fighters vs today's MMA top guns

[SevenStar]

Sevenstar.

 

In the old day, when there were no guns, cannon, tank, and jet. The war were fought by close combat, so do you think those people who put their life in the front line will be lesser than MMA who probably only encounter life and death situation few times in his life, or never.

 

lesser skilled? yes. there have been too many advances since then in the realm of exercise science and training methodologies. Also, the fact that someone was on a battlefield doesn't mean they had any skill at all. if someone attacked, the village would send ALL men to defend it. peasants, farmers, etc. were just given a weapon and thrown on the field. Similar to today - do you think everyone we sent to iraq is a fully trained soldier? of course not. I think people read too much into the whole "the old warriors were on the battlefield" argument.

 

 

Even our soliders today, they usually fight with guns and long range weapon, instead of close combat.

 

sure do. They also learn bjj. and some branches have MA programs, like the marines MACMAP program. But like I said above, no, I don't necessarily consider them skilled either.

 

 

And yes, all thai soldier, chinese soldier, or Japanese soilder and samurai were trained in MA pre 18 century, and they fight close combate with exception of Archer.

 

*. not every soldiere was trained. the MILITARY had some training, but the villagers that fought were untrained, and were soldiers nontheless. Also, they didn't want close combat. They didn't have all of the guns we have now, but they had swords, horses and spears. those were their long range weapons. hand to hand was a last resort. The reason the samurai were trained in jujutsu was a LAST RESORT in the event that they were disarmed. their primary fogus was weapons, not hand to hand.

[Muaythaiboxer]

good post, threw all this debateing its pretty ovious that the new guys could beat the old guys.

[ravenzoom]

I haven't read all the posts but concensus seems to be that new fighters would kill traditional martial artists in a fight and I beg to differ. I know today's fighters are way more versatile and quite possibly physically conditioned, but I'm not sure these same MMA fighters would fare all that well in an open area with no mats, referee, etc. where everything is legal. Let's not forget that the real Martial Artists of the past were also trained fairly severely in many cases, and they were skilled, so I wouldn't count them out so easily. I am not saying that MMA fighters are not good, heck they are great fighters, but all they train for is those cage matches, so perhaps they would not be comfortable in another environment

[SevenStar]

most of the techniques that are illegal now were allowed in the early UFCs... I don't think the allowance of such techniques would change the game that much, actually.

 

Eye gouges? I should be protecting my head anyway.

 

groin shots? I should be protecting low anyway.

 

joint locking/breaking? we already do that.

 

pressure points? they are so precise that you have to beVERY accurate to get them to work - and even then, there's no cuarantee that they will. I can take my chances there without much worry.

 

kicking a downed opponent? Pride already allows that.

[Kamisama]

I truly think that an old fighter would win.

 

Why? Lost techniques, skill, training and movement.

 

People trained since they were a child in the old days.

 

People could kill and get away with it because there wasn't and type of DNA scanning.

 

I think in a life or death situation, the old fighters would win.

 

I think an old school ninja could kill a special ops soldier.

 

Well, then you have to take in consideration the guys who faught in nam, they had ninja skillz themselves.

[Gumbi]

Hehe, uh oh, hes talking about ninjas!

 

No argument there, only a ninja can destroy a ninja......

 

Your brain interprets either situation as being a life or death situation- your heart rate and blood pressure will elevate just as much in a nerve rattling challenge match as they will on the battlefield (there is a maximum heart rate). On top of that, loads of endorphins are being dumped into your system just the same in either situation.

 

They did not have the MOST effective training regimes from the most effective styles back then, not to mention many of them may have been one demensional fighters.

 

Take someone like Mirko Cro Cop for example- heres a guy with great striking skills who wants to learn how to fight on the ground. What horrendus luck he would have if civilization were like it was a 1000 years ago and he was left with the best ground fighter in Croatia- because of technology, he was able to find one of the best in the world and fly him in from Brazil to make his training THAT much better.

[mai tai]

why does fighting to the death make you a better fighter.

 

example. frank shamrock lost to jon lober. but he got better ended up winning 8 straight after that to include utterly spanking lober. who he got better than.

 

same could be said for benard hopkin who lost early in his career.

 

fighting to the death only means you wont have much fight experence.

 

 

 

now enter the real world. i have been to combat twice.

 

during the first gulf war i came around a bunker and came face to face with the enimey. he hesitated, i didnt. im here, he is gone.

 

why because i was "killed" about fifty times in training the year before.

[Synaesthesia]

I think an old school ninja could kill a special ops soldier.

 

Well, then you have to take in consideration the guys who faught in nam, they had ninja skillz themselves.

 

Dude, those guys go out of their way to be dangerous. Those are cyborgs; TRAINING, ELECTRONIC PERCEPTUAL ENHANCEMENT, MODERN PROTECTIVE GEAR, and GUNS.

 

Ninja vs UFC warrior is a different matter. UFC fighters are athletic warriors, but they are not assasins.

 

He who fights most unfairly, wins. The modern Special ops warrior is so unfair it just isn't any fun.

Edited March 19, 2005 by Synaesthesia

[Synaesthesia]

fighting to the death only means you wont have much fight experence.

 

Not necessarily. There are steep experience differentials. I do however recognize your point, that merely being desperate does not mean you've optimized your fighting style.

 

Fighting to the death, or the focus on mortal combat, fosters the understanding of what that actually means. It means you don't lead with a left hook, but a sword slash. You don't touch gloves, you emerge from darkness to stick the spear in their back.

[Muaythaiboxer]

this thread is still going!