What is UFC?

[SubGrappler]

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.

15 minutes

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).

That definition of TMA is debatable, but often referred to. As far as any competitors that ONLY use one system of martial arts, that doesnt happen anymore. ALL of the Gracies from the new generation have trained in wrestling and some sort of striking, whether it be boxing or kickboxing.

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.

You never stop learning when it comes to fighting in MMA. Grappling in general is one of the most difficult venues of fighting to actually get a grip on and "master"- much greater than for instance a striking style. So, contrary to belief, many fighters DO have to spend alot of time learning the tools of the trade- just as much, if not drastically more, than say a TMA practitioner. As far as the rules aspect, they dont restrict any drastic number of techniques from a particular style.

The age of mixed martial artists varies greatly in all events- you'll see some guys that are young and some that are old.

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.

What vast number of techniques from Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, or Sambo have that is restricted by the rules of MMA competition?

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.

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).

That is the basic argument, it just seems that many styles that are labeled TMA lack that full contact aspect of it. Yes I realize there are few TMA styles that DO train full contact, but they are drastically outweighed by those that dont. As a result, the conception of full contact became synonmous with MMA, and anything otherwise was labeled with TMA.

[SubGrappler]

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.

These people arent sampling and tasting a bit of each- they're becoming pros in each venue of the fight. Take someone like Alistair Overeem for instance. Heres a world class kickboxer from Europe (and hes primarily known for his striking) but many seem to overlook the fact that he placed in the European Abu Dhabi trials. Here is a guy who's a master at both the ground game AND the standup game- not just someone who sampled a bit of both.

A few things have been determined through MMA- we know that wrestlers have the best takedowns, so rather than learn takedown defense from say, a karate instructor, you'd be much better off learning it from someone who's wrestled their entire life, rather than a karate instructor who's merely been exposed to it. The same is also true in the reverse- I wouldnt ask a wrestler (i.e. Mark Coleman) to teach me how to strike- Im going to look for a Chuck Liddel or a Wanderlei Silva to teach me.

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

You're taking things out of context here. As I said, many of these fighters have done much more than "sample" a different style. Murillo Bustamante is another example of an Abu Dhabi black belt jiu jitsu fighter who was also a pro boxer.

Most people in MMA (the ones you see at the big shows) have one particular aspect of the fight that they excell in. This is generally seen by what style of fighter they label themselves as (wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai). So lets say for instance Im a world class boxer. I dont need to be able to win a prestigous grappling tournament in order to fight MMA- I merely need to know enough to either survive should I be taken to the ground, or enough to prevent my opponent from taking me there in the first place. Either way, the amount of time that I sacrifice from boxing in an effort to cross train in grappling will yield FAR better results than if I did nothing but box at all.

[Menjo]

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.

I see your point, please give others to strentghen your statements.

I understand that its not the real thing and its the closets youll get, however its not even actually close to real life. Just because its more real doesnt make it close to real, thats what i have been tring say. I also dont see how MMA is so effective, I trained in muay thai for a year and a half and faught people around the city. I seriouly think its over rated, but thats only using me as a statistic but its all i know really.

[elbows_and_knees]

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

The flaw here is that you are limiting yourself by time. The other flaw with this analogy is that you are talking about something that doesn't require multi faceted skill - If I am learning to speak german, the learning japanese will not help me at all. My german will not become any more effective by learning japanese.

On the other hand, my MA will become much stronger if I am learning both grappling and striking. Moreso than if you only focus on one. Since you train kempo, let's use it as an example. How much grappling is associated with kempo? it's not a grappling style. Consequently, it will not be a focus. you can train kempo for 10 years and will likely get out grappled by someone who has only been doing mma for 2 years. Why? because they have a large focus on grappling. The thing that most people don't seem to understand is that mma isn't about "sampling and tasting" each as many styles as they can. it's about making your game well rounded - striking and grappling. period. By taking the time to figure out your style's "secrets" you are only succeeding in re-inventing the wheel. Why spend time trying to figure out how to use your kempo on the ground when there are arts that have been doing ground work for ages?

[elbows_and_knees]

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.

what is or isn't traditional is in the eye of the beholder. boxing and wrestling can both be considered VERY traditional MA. traditional typically refers to traditional eastern arts, but shouldn't be limited to just that. Also, some people define traditional as styles that don't compete in modern fight sport. Others define it by it's training methods...

I see your point, please give others to strentghen your statements.

I understand that its not the real thing and its the closets youll get, however its not even actually close to real life. Just because its more real doesnt make it close to real, thats what i have been tring say. I also dont see how MMA is so effective, I trained in muay thai for a year and a half and faught people around the city. I seriouly think its over rated, but thats only using me as a statistic but its all i know really.

It may not be what you consider close to real, but it's far more real than what you encounter in many traditional schools. you aren't kicking people full power in the knee of eye gouging them. At least in an mma venue, there is hard contact and resistance. MMA is effective because of it's training methods.

If you were a business person, are you gonna hire a guy fresh out of college with no experience, or the guy fresh out of college who has done internships with major companies his whole college life? you want the intern most likely. Why? he was trained better.

[Menjo]

Ok you have some exellent points there, but i dont remember saying that first qoute because thats really not something i would say..............

[unknownstyle]

ufc is really a great way to see how some techniques can be applied in a practical way

[lapulid2]

the current UFC heavyweight champion Chuck Liddell is a Kempo Master! TMA or MMA, the key here is EDUCATION. its not what u use its how well u use it.

[kzshin]

I think UFC is way over rated, especially in the States.

[Menjo]

I think UFC is way over rated, especially in the States.

Agreed,