Opinion on UFC

[bushido_man96]

Those are very good points, MizuRyu. I think your point about the rules of the UFC has good merit.

The same conditions kind of arised early on in the existence of Judo, and when the Judo and Jiujitsu practitioners dueled it out in bouts to determine which would be used to train the Japanese police force.

What the UFC/MMA practitioners have going for them is much the same that Judo had as its advantage: training methods. The rule sets allow them to train safely, and at combat speed, without the risk of disabling the training partner. I truly think that is where the advantage of MMA training comes into play.

I also think you are right that it in no way diminishes the value of other martial styles. The advent of MMA competition has caused other MAs to stand up and take notice of the value of being experienced in all ranges of combat.

What should be happening is learning and sharing in the world of MA. Not to be confined with the world of MMA, but to all MAs.

Good post, by the way.

[ninjer]

I'll try to be as PC as possible to avoid an inflammatory arguement

the whole UFC vs. street fighting thing is an ongoing debate with no real winner..

I disagree, the physical evidence heavily supports in favor of the UFC fightser, and its not just ring fights.

To me, it all comes down to training. Those UFC guys excel so well because that's their LIFE, their living. They train hard and work hard to succeed in the ring. ..

Agreed

If a Tang Soo Do guy took so much time and effort, he might succeed, but we don't know. Why? Because the usual formula works. Some arts are simpler, therefor you can become insanely proficient in such a short time. ..

A Tang Soo Doo guy could succeed, but bear in mind there are no style restrictions for the UFC, and there is a vastly larger amount of people that practice korean martial arts (such as TSD and TKD) than there are those that do muay thai. Even those people who have a background in traditional striking arts crosstrain in muay thai and western boxing once they get a foothold in the octagon. You dont see muay thai fighters and boxers doing the reverse, however.

To accuse muay thai and boxing of being "simpler" is also not fair. I have invested alot of time in TKD, TSD, Kung Fu,Karate, and Muay Thai. Let me be the first to tell you that muay thai is in no way shape or form simpler than any of the other styles. As a matter of fact, within the first couple of weeks of muay thai I was being taught simple blocks, parries, and counters that simply did not exist in the traditional styles (and yes my instructors in the previous arts were legit). The combinations run deep, and the footwork can get confusing.

While it is true that all styles of fighting have something to bring to the table, it is also true that if you put two styles of fighting against each other, one is bound to win and the other to lose. Some styles have more to bring to the tables than others.

I've taken Ving Tsun (please don't confuse it with Wing Chun) for a long time, and one thing I notice is that it CAN NOT work in the ring. It's entire purpose is to fight beyond the ring. .

No martial arts system was ever made for the ring. All were created with self defense or martial (war) tendencies in mind. As such, for one style to claim that the same restrictions that are being applied just as well to the other styles prevents that style from being effective is not a valid argument when the other styles are able to adapt just as well. You could actually view this as a flaw and a shortcoming of the style. If you only have two choices, one being not to fight at all and the other being the complete and utter destruction of your opponent, you're not a very skilled martial artist.

The ideal of the technical and skilled martial artist is the one that can subdue his opponent with minimal effort, so what does that say of ones skills if hes unable to do that? Furthermore, do you not see the inherent flaw of making such claims? To claim that a style is of utmost effectiveness, but to be unable or unwilling to prove it as such doesnt leave much on the table in terms of proof

Besides the obvious flaws of such an argument, the deadly techniques philosophy vs the safe techniques philosophy has already been put to the test, and the safe techniques won. Back in the late 1800's, Jigoro Kano put his Judo practitioners with their "safe" techinques against the best Japanese Ju Jitsu schools in Japan with their "deadly" techniques (which included everything you cited- biting, eye gouging, etc etc). The Judo fighters won decisively against their "deadlier" opponents because they were able to train their techniques against resisting opponents. This is one of the reasons that Judo is so much more popular than traditional japanese ju jitsu in Japan (even though JJJ preceeded Judo).

It gouges eyes, pulls hair, snaps knees, DOES groundwork (only enough necessary to finish something brutally and quickly). Because it doesn't work in the UFC, it is disregarded by most..

Every martial art and every fighter prefers to finish his opponent quickly with minimal effort- thats what every style claims to be able to do. Name me a style that suggests dragging the fight on and taking unneccessary amounts of punishment.

The point Im making is that everyone wants to finish a fight quickly and everyone trains to do just that. It becomes more difficult when your opponent is trying to do the same thing, hence the reason its called a fight. I should also note that I have had experience with people attempting eye gouges, fishhooks, and biting on me and its attempts were laughable at best.

I don't believe this is right. You can say that UFC guys can fight dirty too,.

What does it mean to fight "dirty" or to fight "clean?" As was stated, all styles of fighting have martial backgrounds and the idea was to win. Just because people morally choose which is dirty and which is clean doesnt verify how effective a technique is. A knockout punch, while clean, is going to be just as effective as the deadliest bite, eye gouge, or whatever. Once your opponent is unconcious, hes no longer a threat and you have the option of killing him.

but is this trained to be their first reaction? No. When I know I can't win by convential means far before the confrontation starts, I've already decided on my primary techniques. Go for the vital points: the eyes, throat, knees, joints and groin. They work, trust me there, but in the ring there are rules which in no way reflect a life or death brawl..

Other vital points include the ribs, jaw, temple, and spine, all of which such fighters are attempting to hit. If someone takes you down and and you try to eye gouge him, he need only move his head out of the way (or close his eye) because his positional dominance enables him to do just that. Because you are in an inferior position, you are not able to control your opponent to secure your technique. As such, the techniques themselves are not a means to an end and their effectiveness depends heavily on what position they're being applied from and how effective the person is at maintaining that position. Since most people who claim to know such deadly techniques have novice skills at best in grappling, this is why many who train MMA laugh at such claims and make fun of them.

To put it into perspective, imagine if you had the best armbar in the world from the mount, or the best rear naked choke in the world from the back, but you had no idea on how to get to the mount or how to get to the back. Those techniques, as well as you know them, are completely useless to you because you cant get in the proper position to apply them.

[Adonis]

ninjer, outstanding post! I couldn't have said it any better my self.

[bushido_man96]

A Tang Soo Doo guy could succeed, but bear in mind there are no style restrictions for the UFC, and there is a vastly larger amount of people that practice korean martial arts (such as TSD and TKD) than there are those that do muay thai. Even those people who have a background in traditional striking arts crosstrain in muay thai and western boxing once they get a foothold in the octagon. You dont see muay thai fighters and boxers doing the reverse, however.

In the ocatagon, we all see the Thai and boxing influences, and of course, the BJJ. However, I think that many more traditionalists come to the ring with their own styles, and then tweak in the boxing and Thai skills. Each fighter will have his own style, like Liddel with his striking, and of course, there are others.

[baronbvp]

Very articulate and reasoned post, ninjer.

[baronbvp]

And Adonis, congrats on the digital red belt!

[repz]

Theres two worlds in combat. Standing up, an the ground. Back in the early UFC days, no one bothered with ground grappling, it was seen as in-effective for self defense, cause most styles purpose was to defend themselves outside against enemies an possibly multiple enemies at one time, like japanese jujitsu was trained by the samuraii in combat, they wouldnt roll around the ground in a battle field when their oponents come chargeing with weapons drawn, especially when another enemy can come charging to join an gang up on you.

The world of the ground is a very vunerable place, the moves are restrictive an the actual performance of ground grappling heavily favors a suitable envorinment that is relatively safe from interference from other enemies or even objects such as glass shards an conrete flooring. Walk around my area an i can show you why you should avoid the groudn as best as possible, broken bottles urine an crack needles is something you wont want to be rolling on.

So many shunned grappling until ufc. An brazlian jujitsu dominated, they had the clean matted floors facing strikers who had no idea what grappling was... most strikers went down to the ground willingly or stupidly cause they had no idea they were playing ino the bjj game. I will never see UFC as a basis to compare effectiveness in style, i know the difference between sports an actual protection of human life. Protect from the ground game, you need to be well taught in both worlds.

But when it comes to the street, there are no rules an no padded floors.. an the ground should be the last thing on your mind.

An by the way.. when you see BJJ hold self defense courses... they look like basic judo or JJJ ( small joint manipulations an vital strikes )... even they realised how effect these older arts were when it came down to real fighting.

[bushido_man96]

i know the difference between sports an actual protection of human life. Protect from the ground game, you need to be well taught in both worlds.

I agree with this point. There is a difference between sport fighting and self-defense. Most of the time, in self-defense, you don't get to start from the preferred fighting distance, like from a corner. I know that there are some RBSD instructors that tend to teach how to get off the ground, as opposed to keeping the fight on the ground. It is possible to use the MMA training on the street in defense, however, it is still important to realize that competition fighting and self-defense are different.

[gzk]

The world of the ground is a very vunerable place, the moves are restrictive an the actual performance of ground grappling heavily favors a suitable envorinment that is relatively safe from interference from other enemies or even objects such as glass shards an conrete flooring. Walk around my area an i can show you why you should avoid the groudn as best as possible, broken bottles urine an crack needles is something you wont want to be rolling on.

It can be very vulnerable, yes. Fortunately, not all ground is filled with broken glass, AIDS needles, tyre spikes, land-pirhanas and molten lava. Ground frequently does not equal death. Sometimes it does.

An opponent who wants to grab you is someone that you will grapple with, whether you like it or not - unless you knock him out with your first strike. If you can do that first time, every time, great. If not, try a little experiment, with a partner: Your partner stands a normal sparring distance away. You charge in, close the distance and grab him. How quickly did that happen? How many shots did he get in? How many landed properly?

For even more fun, try that experiment at the distance a real fight starts. Unless you are moving in slow motion, you can get a hold of your opponent in under 2 seconds.

Having gone to the clinch, with no ref to break it, chances are that the fight is going to the ground. So, you'd better know how to fight on the ground. If you're on the bottom, you'll want to know how to improve your position. If that's not possible, you'll want to know how to incapacitate the guy. If you don't know either, then you're in big trouble, whether you like fighting on the ground or not.

Sure, I know the UFC is not realistic. There are no chairs, no tables, no concrete, no pavement, no buddies of the other guy, etc. But it is the most realistic thing we have, short of staged street fights (and then, having staged it makes it unrealistic). Guys who pull guard and do nothing get bombed on. Standup specialists must have at least a good takedown defence, and even then, need to know what they're doing on the ground. Hitting your head on the floor still hurts although it probably won't KO (though this has happened) or kill you. Short of multiple attacker scenarios, the things that don't work in the street also don't work in UFC.

[ninjer]

Theres two worlds in combat. Standing up, an the ground. Back in the early UFC days, no one bothered with ground grappling, it was seen as in-effective for self defense, cause most styles purpose was to defend themselves outside against enemies an possibly multiple enemies at one time, like japanese jujitsu was trained by the samuraii in combat, they wouldnt roll around the ground in a battle field when their oponents come chargeing with weapons drawn, especially when another enemy can come charging to join an gang up on you.

People didnt bother with the ground because they believed their strikes were so deadly that no one could get ahold of them. Samurai didnt go to the ground in the middle of a battlefield because they wore extensive armor. This doesnt mean they didnt train in grappling- one of the decisive ways to win in ju jitsu matches (which was adopted by Judo) was a clean throw that put your opponent on his back- this meant defeat because it was assumed that you were at this time able to draw your auxillary weapon and finish your opponent who was on the ground. Times have changed since then.....

The world of the ground is a very vunerable place

Only to those who are unfamiliar with it....

the moves are restrictive an the actual performance of ground grappling heavily favors a suitable envorinment that is relatively safe from interference from other enemies or even objects such as glass shards an conrete flooring. Walk around my area an i can show you why you should avoid the groudn as best as possible, broken bottles urine an crack needles is something you wont want to be rolling on.

Such things are myths in attempts to discourage ground fighting- the world is not littered with broken bottles, syringes, and the like. Do you have any idea how many bottles need to be broken to litter a city block? Beyond that, if such scenarios did exist, they are of no consequence to the ground fighter. Im the one on top and Im the one thats throwing my opponent to his back on the concrete- its actually better for the striker/ untrained fighter to fight on mats than concrete, because hes the one thats going to get thrown on it.

So many shunned grappling until ufc. An brazlian jujitsu dominated, they had the clean matted floors facing strikers who had no idea what grappling was... most strikers went down to the ground willingly or stupidly cause they had no idea they were playing ino the bjj game.

Almost all went down to the ground regardless of their intentions. If you dont train in grappling, you cant be expected to be anything other than a complete novice in it. The way to keep from being taken to the ground is to learn how to grapple. Lack of grappling experience= easy takedown. It wasnt that they were stupid- they just had no choice.

I will never see UFC as a basis to compare effectiveness in style, i know the difference between sports an actual protection of human life. Protect from the ground game, you need to be well taught in both worlds..

UFC may not mimic a real fight, simply because rarely in a real fight will you have two professional athletes well trained in proven martial arts. As far as using it as a comparison of styles- theres really no better way to objectively compare one style against another.

But when it comes to the street, there are no rules an no padded floors.. an the ground should be the last thing on your mind.

....if you dont know how to fight there

If you're not trained in groundfighting, the ground should be the first thing on your mind- if you go there you're severely handicapped.

An by the way.. when you see BJJ hold self defense courses... they look like basic judo or JJJ ( small joint manipulations an vital strikes )... even they realised how effect these older arts were when it came down to real fighting.

Self defense does not equal fighting. Most fights do not start ala UFC "Are you ready? Lets go" and the two fighters come out of their corners. As a result, most self defense is dealing with precursors to a fight, such as escaping or countering common grabs and holds. Somewhat applicable, Im not a fan of alot of self defense, even in BJJ

1: knife defenses are ridiculous- you're going to get sliced up pretty bad

2: fancy looking wristlocks are great for impressing novices and getting them to sign up, but are rarely to sometimes applicable in real life

I try to divide self defense into 3 important aspects:

1: escaping headlocks

2: closing the distance properly

3: defending punches from the bottom

Thats not to say thats only what I address, however.