What is UFC?

[SubGrappler]

Small joint manipulation.

Does this mean you can't use locks?? If so does this include things like the figure four type locks? If so, how can we consider this efficient and realistic grappling?

Small joint manipulation means you cant grab a guys index finger, for example, and twist/break it. You must grab at least 3 digits when you from someone's hand.

[ravenzoom]

I still enjoy watching MMA fights, but I really liked it more when it was style vs. style like in the beginning, you could really see different types of fighters. Nowadays they almost all fight the same way.

[Shane]

UFC = Mixed Martial Arts = Best of all worlds

[Ben Martin]

Wow thanks for the info , however i dont see how people think its close to a real situation. Even the people you would fight on the street are differetn with different intents...

UFC used to have alot less rules. the main rules before were no small joint manipulation, not biting and there was no weight class. im not to sure about all the old rules i only know this because i have UFC greatest hits 1 but i know you used to be able to srtike the groine and knee and kick to all of the head so it used to be alot more like real fighting but that is when it was outlawed in every state but texas.

Small joint manipulation.

Does this mean you can't use locks?? If so does this include things like the figure four type locks? If so, how can we consider this efficient and realistic grappling?

im sure it says somthing about you having to have 4 fingers min so you cant do things such as bend someones finger back rather then things like arm bars.

[Menjo]

Ok why is MMA looked up to more than TMA? Also i think any competition uincluding UFC are so far from being realistic mainly because yuor not going to be fighting these types of people not just the rules, i understand it would be ilegal and its good the way it is, but i dont think UFC just because its more realistic should be compared with real life...(because it really just doesnt compare).

[SubGrappler]

Ok why is MMA looked up to more than TMA?

Because TMA was once a part of MMA. MMA is MIXED martial arts. Obviously if you take the best parts of all the different styles, you're going to be a far better fighter than if you just trained in one. Whie the popular styles in MMA dont seem to be so traditional (BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, Judo) there are some fighters who incorporate traditional styles into their regiment of training.

Also i think any competition uincluding UFC are so far from being realistic mainly because yuor not going to be fighting these types of people not just the rules, i understand it would be ilegal and its good the way it is, but i dont think UFC just because its more realistic should be compared with real life...(because it really just doesnt compare).

In terms of realness, UFC and Pride are as real as it gets. Now as far as not fighting these type of people in the street, thats not a good way to look at things.

Its like a highschool football player who doesnt lift weights every day, because hes not playing against NFL levle players, or a baseball pitcher who only throws a fastball and a curve ball, because hes not pitching to major leaguers.

Basically what Im getting at is that by being at the level these guys are, any fight they get into with someone who's NOT one of their peers is going to be a joke of a fight for them.

[White Warlock]

That's a common statement made by traditional martial artists.

I'm not even remotely close to a traditional martial artist.

As noted by Ben (thank you Ben), there are 'plenty' of rules, many of which disqualify a lot of the 'highly technical' and/or more 'down & dirty' systems that are actually very effective, including, but not limited to styles utilizing "everything-as-a-weapon" (as beautifully demonstrated by Jackie Chan and Ong Bak). The assumption that the latest UFCs impresses upon the viewers, is that 'ground & pound' is the most effective means to win a confrontation, and this is simply not true. When all these restrictions are in place, there simply leaves 'ground & pound' as more effective for these types of rules. Which moves to my next point...

In the older UFCs, we were able to watch many a fight last a very long time on the ground, or even a long time standing up. In the Severn vs Gracie fight, it took 45 minutes before Gracie could apply a triangle choke. The UFC fight extended beyond the Pay-Per-View allotted time, and i recall quite clearly how the channel simply 'cutoff' in the middle of the fight. The cable companies were immediately bombarded by a mass of angry viewers, and the 'end part' of the fight, the finale, was put back on in about 20 or 30 minutes. I'm sure this, and many other issues, is what caused the 'interruption of fights' rules to be put into effect, but it is a direct disruption of how some persons fight... and thus changes the dynamics of the fight game in a UFC. It is also the #1 reason that the Gracies discontinued participating in the UFCs.

Recall the Gracie/Shamrock fight, where Royce ended up with a shiner because the referee broke up his ground-working a multitude of times, forcing him to stand up and try 'once again' to bring Shamrock to the ground so he could eventually work in a lock or a choke. Given time uninterrupted on the ground, Shamrock would have lost. But, because of these interruptions for the sake of 'entertainment,' it ended a tie, with Shamrock celebrating (celebrating a tie?!?), and Royce walking off angry, his shiner prominently displayed.

There's two things that lead to this:

1. Many people expect to see the stylized sort of martial arts they practice in their dojos (or dojangs, in my case). But that's just not reality of combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing traditional practices, but most of the pretty stuff goes out the window in real fight (Or in this case, MMA fighting, which is NOT real but pretty close).

There are a lot of things that go out a window in a real fight, and i don't deny that practitioners who never step out of the test tube of their dojang are going to be in a world of hurt when it comes to a 'serious' real life confrontation. However, most confrontations are not 'serious' to a practiced practitioner.

2. People usually don't understand the arts being practiced. When you see the striking, you are seeing boxing and muay thai. When you see tthose guys "rolling on the ground" you are seeing BJJ at its finest!

There are plenty of techniques from other systems being applied in these competitions. It would be grossly unfair to give credit to these three systems alone. Oh, and i haven't noticed a technique i didn't recognize yet. (ego, hehe)

Because TMA was once a part of MMA. MMA is MIXED martial arts. Obviously if you take the best parts of all the different styles, you're going to be a far better fighter than if you just trained in one.

Apologies, but i'm in total disagreement. Not on what you state, but on what actually occurs. First, TMA is a sort of 'odd' classification that is generally delegated to those schools practicing a system without actually applying said system in MMA-type competitions. MMA stands for mixed martial arts, but it does not mean 'mishmash' of the arts into a single person. There are plenty of competitors that are single-system practitioners (including, but not limited to, the Gracies). It is a misnomer to state that MMA stands for eclectic practitioner that enters no-holds-type competitions.

Also, it is incorrect to state that MMA competitors are implementing the ‘best parts’ of different styles. In most cases, it is merely the techniques that fall within the 'rules' of the competition and that they don't have to spend too much time learning. Seriously consider that many of the MMA competitors are very young and have had only a few years of actual training. They focus on fighting with the tools that are applicable for that particular type of competition, and thus limit themselves to a select few actions that won't break the rules, or skirt the edges of those rules.

Whie the popular styles in MMA dont seem to be so traditional (BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, Judo) there are some fighters who incorporate traditional styles into their regiment of training.

We return to the debate about traditional. Most of the so-called traditional styles are actually 'younger' than the styles you presented above.

I believe the differentiation you need to make is not traditional MA vs. mixed MA, but full-contact vs. otherwise (all the ones you mentioned above are full-contact). The difference with full-contact vs. otherwise, is that there are body dynamics that cannot be readily learned merely by practicing the techniques and actions. Resistance and change must be experienced in order for these dynamics to be understood at a muscle memory level. The systems you presented give that opportunity, and thus the practitioner becomes better conditioned to deal with a real altercation.

And there it is... conditioning. It has to do with conditioning. How you practice is a major factor in how effective you will be.

edit: fixed a stupid quote bbcode, thrice. bah!

Edited August 27, 2005 by White Warlock

[KempoTiger]

Obviously if you take the best parts of all the different styles, you're going to be a far better fighter than if you just trained in one.

Although I agree with your assessment 110% in this instance, I do so feel compelled to play devils advocate and say that if one trains in an effective style, and puts all of their effort and focus into learning it's secrets, that they could theoretically become a thousand times more efficient than one who just samples and tastes a bit of each.

To use an analogy, if you spend a year learning 12 languages, a different one every month, instead of being fluent in all of them, you'd be able to only introduce yourself and ask where the bathroom is in some of them.

Like I said though, I agree for the most part

[KempoTiger]

As usual, excellent post Warlock.

[White Warlock]

hehe thanks, and i noticed you had a similar aversion to the 'best of all the rest' perception.