Ultimate Fighting

[AndrewGreen]

These rules seriously change the nature of a fight. They basically take the "lethal" out of it.

So, in order to be more lethal we need to adopt MORE rules...? Or do you fspar with less?

Of course BJJ and other grappling arts are going to have an advantage. The UFC rule list reads like a striking arts handbook on what to do if you meet a grappler.

No it doesn't, nowadays the UFC rules favour striking, rounds, time limits, standups, even the scorring is all biased towards standing up and punching.

On top of this, what kind of traditional martial artist would want to do what was necessary (likely killing) an opponent in a ring just to prove a point? Certainly not anyone of any repute or skill.

Don't get me wrong, I think BJJ is great. But the UFC is not an arena made for traditional arts. It can't be.

...hair pulling? -> Grappling

...trachea crushing? -> Grappling

...attacks on the spine? -> Bit of both, you got to get behind the guy first.

...groin strikes/removal? -> Grappling / Striking

...throat strikes? -> Given the close range needed to effectively hit, as most fighters keep there chin down I'd say this would happen far more on the ground.

...striking downward using the point of the elbow? -> Grappling

...neck breaks? -> Grappling

...strikes to the back of the skull? -> Grappling

...hooking under the neck? -> Grappling

...small joint manipulation/breaking? -> Grappling

...removing or popping the ears? -> Grappling

...clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh? -> Grappling

These are all things that are most likely to happen on the ground, or at least in a clinch. Therefore the person with the better grappling skills will be the one in a better position to make use of them.

UFC's rules are biased against grappling, Grappling makes poor tv watching. And the UFC needs to sell PPV's.

There are some that dissadvantage a striker, but most go against the guy that wants a submission.

[SubGrappler]

Eye gouging and biting? What about...

...hair pulling?

...trachea crushing?

...attacks on the spine?

...groin strikes/removal?

...throat strikes?

...striking downward using the point of the elbow?

...neck breaks?

...strikes to the back of the skull?

...hooking under the neck?

...small joint manipulation/breaking?

...removing or popping the ears?

...clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh?

Andrew went ahead and explained how each of these is basically a grapplers tool. Bear in mind that UFC is only the premiere MMA event in AMERICA. There are many other events which still hold true to only the basic ruleset of UFC (no biting, no eye gouging). Mecca in Brazil is one such popular event.

To briefly explain whats illegal, small joint manipulation never proved effective,

hair pulling only works if your opponent has hair (these guys have buzz cuts)

pinching someone in a fight is a laughable offense (dont look at the UFC, Nevada State Athletic commision made the rules),

headbutts and elbows both produce cuts exceptionally well (and shown by wrestlers/grapplers Mark Coleman, Don Frye, and Matt Hughes)

trachea crushing is a paper rule- chokes can do this often

neck breaks are legal

hooking under the neck is legal

popping the ears is legal

These rules seriously change the nature of a fight. They basically take the "lethal" out of it.

The "lethal" is taken out of it by the referee who stops the fight when a clear cut winner has been established.

Of course BJJ and other grappling arts are going to have an advantage. The UFC rule list reads like a striking arts handbook on what to do if you meet a grappler.

As was stated, most of these rules inhibit a grapplers fighting style, while few inhibit a strikers style. Elbows, headbutts, strikes to the spine are ALL grappler tools. What should you do when you fight a grappler? SPRAWL- not eye gouge, not bite, not elbow- these things often end up with you on your back.

On top of this, what kind of traditional martial artist would want to do what was necessary (likely killing) an opponent in a ring just to prove a point? Certainly not anyone of any repute or skill.

There have been many tradtitional martial artists who have tried their luck in the cage. You dont see BJJ'er, wrestlers, or anyone else killing someone in there do you? Many people theorize how deadly their hands are, and when actually put to the test, they find many of there techniques are not as reliable as once thought. I have trained in traditional martial arts too- they've got kicks and punches just like everyone else. Do you mean to suggest that a traditional martial artists attacks are so severely limited to deadly techniques that everything else is useless? Bear in mind that with these rules, not only can a traditional martial artist NOT use these deadly techinques, but neither can the other mixed martial artist hes fighting on the other side of the cage.

SubGrappler wrote:

And martial arts, while not intially designed for sport, have advanced, improved, and become more efficient when they were developed into sporting competitions. The most popular styles used in today's MMA are all sports (Boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Sambo).

You know this is definately a matter of opinion. Myself and a lot of other traditionalists that have been around for a while believe the exact opposite.

In martial arts, popularity is almost never a good thing for long

True, it is an opinion, however its a heavily supported opinion. It is a FACT however, that traditional martial artists were far from succeeding as much as the other more sportive martial artists were.

I also completely agree about what you said about popularity- you forget that traditional martial arts are much more popular and widespread than mixed martial arts.

[Adonis]

I think both have a point. UFC has rules and rules make fights. Take pride for example and sakaraba he shot alot for the single leg and most of the time got it. Until he met silva who sprawled on him and messed him up. Then later on they added you can knee some one even if they are on the "four points" so silva and others have messed up peopole bad kneeing people to the top of the head KOing them.

Rules does change the fight game. athletics helps a person control there body more. Being in shape and trained gives you more of an advantage as opposed to those who just train.

On another note MMA events prepare you for the rules of that event. Streets are diffrent. Better not to get into a fight in the first place.

Competivness does help bring warrior out of some one. To push them selves to be better.

So arguments can both sides can be said. I seen people claim they don't compete they just use there for self defense. Well thats fine but they weren't good at there moves. They looked good they can do the moves on a partner that goes with them or a semi resiting partner but alot of the techniques they couldn't pull off except when they spar only a few punch and kick techniques.

Either way, I enjoy training to enjoy training some much can happen on the street and you prepare y our best but no one is trianed to deal with ever circumstance you do your best to adapt but so many variables are out there. I feel MMA fighters would do better over all against average TMA fightes. Just my opinion.

Oh and the comment that your martail art is only for self defense to defend your life and that of your loved ones and if you mess up you better adjust your training. IF you mess up? your probably dead if its to save your life. LOL!

I think MMA events against other training opponents is a great way to test your ability's out. Or that type of training with other trianign partners and diffrent people who wnat to do that.

Okay enough of my ramblings for now

[Sauzin]

These rules seriously change the nature of a fight. They basically take the "lethal" out of it.

The "lethal" is taken out of it by the referee who stops the fight when a clear cut winner has been established.

Good point, the ref is another thing traditional arts don't train for.

As was stated, most of these rules inhibit a grapplers fighting style, while few inhibit a strikers style. Elbows, headbutts, strikes to the spine are ALL grappler tools. What should you do when you fight a grappler? SPRAWL- not eye gouge, not bite, not elbow- these things often end up with you on your back.

You see I think when I refer to a primarily striking based art vs a primarily grappling based art I am reffering to something different then what you and the other gentleman are reffering to. I'd consider karate a primarily striking based art even though it contains grappling and at least 40% of the art (traditionally) is taugth with it. Strikers grapple enough to get to a position to strike some more. Quick things like what are spelled out as foul in the UFC are practiced all over the place in kata or forms. From my perspective this puts a striker at a real disadvantage when you say he can't use them. It's integrated into the art. Plus it's a lot easier for a grappler to be non-leathal or to stop a fight before he finishes a chock, then it is for a striker to play it safe. One good hit and a guy can go down. Not just out but dead. You make these strikes illegal and a striker is severly handicapped.

As far as spawling when you meet a grappler, well I'll just say there are plenty of things to do depending upon your position.

There have been many tradtitional martial artists who have tried their luck in the cage. You dont see BJJ'er, wrestlers, or anyone else killing someone in there do you? Many people theorize how deadly their hands are, and when actually put to the test, they find many of there techniques are not as reliable as once thought. I have trained in traditional martial arts too- they've got kicks and punches just like everyone else. Do you mean to suggest that a traditional martial artists attacks are so severely limited to deadly techniques that everything else is useless? Bear in mind that with these rules, not only can a traditional martial artist NOT use these deadly techinques, but neither can the other mixed martial artist hes fighting on the other side of the cage.

Not everyone theorizes. People do die in fights. I find it intersting that there have been so few deaths in the UFC. But I guess that wouldn't be good for buisness at least not in the long term. Still I firmly believe that if you told both the fighters in the "cage" that only one guy was comming out alive, you'd see a very different fight.

True, it is an opinion, however its a heavily supported opinion. It is a FACT however, that traditional martial artists were far from succeeding as much as the other more sportive martial artists were.

Funny that in the UFC, an arena with rules and a ref that other sport arts (ones that also trained in an arena with rules and ref) did better in that arena then arts that trained solely for the street. I'll just say that it doesn't come as a big surprise.

I also completely agree about what you said about popularity- you forget that traditional martial arts are much more popular and widespread than mixed martial arts.

While there are many arts that people consider traditional gaining wide spread popularitly, they cease to be traditional when they begin to cater to the masses. Still even in these arts you can find those who cling to the old ways. They are always the minority though.

[Adonis]

People keep talking about the MMA and its rules. Which is some point. But regular martial art training isn't much better.

Bottom line street is unpredicatble. You train to hopefully be better prepared then you were before. but bottom line guns, knves, multiple attackers, there are many complications and variables. Disgruntled employee walks into work and shoots you the mma fighter and co-worker highly trained traditional artist. Doesn't matter both of you die. There are many scenerio's and stuff to deal with in conflinct from the street.

Either way on that note. You got to have a test of your skills. two opponents going at it. That are well trained is a good test for each other.

All I have to say is if you can say you can do something where is the proof. So where's the deadly technique. Its nothing but unproven theory. Unless you as indvidual can pull it off consitantly then its theory.

So where is the test?

[viskous]

the test is if you can achieve what you train for, which is a situation most people hope to never face, if you train to fight multiple attackers nhb, then become a bouncer, i'd classify a bathroom braul alot more dangerous then the ufc...........but that beside the point.......im not gonna get into the tma vs mma because i think theres alot of foolishness in most of these arguments on both sides

[Adonis]

my point is there should be stages for your testing grounds. You can have your opponent punch in on you you test the moves okay you go through the pattern you know you can go do it with speed and power but the idea some one steps forward and holds there punch out there for you to do a technique on them and stand there while you hit them is unrealistic training.

So picking up the trianing you have the guy throw 2 punches at you one from one hand pulling back and throwing from the other, a little more better and you work the technique off of that, then pick it up have him move, gague the distance nad use that, change it up some more adding in harder contact and more realistic like movement. To test it out, to eventually sparring all out with it. How many people can make there moves work in sparring accept for a few back fists, reverse punches, some kicks and a few take downs thats it. Even then not solid comapred to mma fighters.

My point is if your not testing your training out on a coninious basis. But I hear lame excuses of instead testing out moves. They say "of course they work they been aorund for years, that is the test of time" No its not! Because a peron doesn't know if some one changed the techniques along the way deleted things. Or maybe that person pulled them off based on certain variables. but how can "YOU" as an indvidual do the same.

Or other excuses as "techniques to deadly" Okay to a certain point. but doesn't hold much water what you going to do to a regular drunk or jsut a relative bieng jerk trying to slam you around. KILL them! Yeah okay! Have fun with bubba in jail is all I got to say. those excuses are garbage. If you aren't testing yuour moves, and tesitng them from people with other styles, you can fully say your stuff works. based off of what?

thats my point got to be able to test them. I know styles don't just have kililng techniques or to deadly becaue they are based off self defense. So make it work there is diffrent levels of escualation. Only thing y ou got to work for you is a throat chop of death. Not going to stand much to some one who has basics down who can throw punches to hurt you, who can take you down, sub you, and what not. If your basic kicks and punches don't work with you. not much those so called killing techniques are going to do either as far as fighting a trained opponent.

Either way thats my rant and I am sticking to it.

THAT IS ALL!

The K25

[White Warlock]

My comments, relevant to these discussions, all from the same thread:

Presentation and debate -

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=22242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=29

More debate -

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=22242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=39

Conclusion -

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=22242&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=58

[Adonis]

white warlock, that jaged rock argument is okay but I have trained on dirty and gravel doing army combatives which is the base is BJJ. I rolled hard on the ground and it didn't much to me at all.

Besides it would be the grappler who is more likely to be slaming or dragging some one accross the ground.

[SubGrappler]

These rules seriously change the nature of a fight. They basically take the "lethal" out of it.

The "lethal" is taken out of it by the referee who stops the fight when a clear cut winner has been established.

Good point, the ref is another thing traditional arts don't train for.

The ref is there to keep the other guy from being injured beyond what is required to win the fight. If Im in the process of battering my opponents head against the ground and hes on the verge of unconciousness, then we have a clear cut winner. The ref's job is to acknowledge this and break the fighters apart to prevent any further injury.

As was stated, most of these rules inhibit a grapplers fighting style, while few inhibit a strikers style. Elbows, headbutts, strikes to the spine are ALL grappler tools. What should you do when you fight a grappler? SPRAWL- not eye gouge, not bite, not elbow- these things often end up with you on your back.

You see I think when I refer to a primarily striking based art vs a primarily grappling based art I am reffering to something different then what you and the other gentleman are reffering to. I'd consider karate a primarily striking based art even though it contains grappling and at least 40% of the art (traditionally) is taugth with it. Strikers grapple enough to get to a position to strike some more.

The saying goes that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Karate may teach grappling to an extent, and it may work against other people who do karate or are untrained. The problem is, most people who teach karate grappling have less experience than say a 3 month white belt. It doesnt matter whether it not its "in the curriculim" but rather on the expertise of the instructor. Strikes are in the BJJ and Judo curriculum, but you dont hear anyone claiming that they got their striking skills from those arts.

Quick things like what are spelled out as foul in the UFC are practiced all over the place in kata or forms. From my perspective this puts a striker at a real disadvantage when you say he can't use them.

The striker is at the same disadvantage as the grappler is- the rules apply to both. Its much easier for a grappler to eye gouge and bite on the ground than it is for a striker to do the same on the feet, simply because on the feet you have NO control of your opponent (you grab a pressure point or poke an eye, he simply retreats). In order to control your opponent you HAVE to grab him in some manner.

Consider also that things such as eye gouges and pressure point attacks require the use of fine motor movements- something easy to address in a controlled setting (your dojo) against an unresisting opponent when everyone is relaxed. As your heart rate increases above say, 120, your fine motor movement skills GREATLY begin to diminish in favor of gross motor movements. Fine motor movements refers to small muscle groups such as those in your hands and fingers- gross refers to large muscle groups, such as your quads, lats, pecs, etc.

Basically what this means is that beyond obvious difficulties in performing these moves (i.e. your opponent closes his eyes, hits you back) you've got a whole other set of problems brought on by the adrenaline in your system.

The other issue is that people often say "you fight how you train" claiming that MMA'ists dont train deadly techniques therefore dont know how to use them- many fail to look in the mirror- people who practice these techniques only do so against unresisting opponents, which according to the same argument posed by them means they can only pull these moves off when an attacker doesnt resist. How many times have they ACTUALLY used these moves against a fully resisting opponent? Most never have, which means that they still never know if these moves will actually work or not.

Plus it's a lot easier for a grappler to be non-leathal or to stop a fight before he finishes a chock, then it is for a striker to play it safe. One good hit and a guy can go down. Not just out but dead. You make these strikes illegal and a striker is severly handicapped.

No argument on your first statement- a striker cant play it safe. If he wants to finish someone, hes got to put some power behind his strikes. As far as hitting those deadly targets and killing your opponent, consider an analogy. In boxing everyone looks for the sweet shot- right on the button of the chin. Now, in order for this technique (or your own for example) to be effective, it has to be in the right spot, at the right time, with the sufficient amount of force. Think about how many punches are thrown in boxing in ratio to how many knockouts/knockdowns you see. Now, it may be possible to make techniques such as a throat strike work in a fight, but they're not going to prove any more effective than a good knockout blow.

As far as spawling when you meet a grappler, well I'll just say there are plenty of things to do depending upon your position.

Of course- I was referring to a specific scenario- if someone shoots on you and you do anything but sprawl, odds greatly favor you getting thrown to the ground.

There have been many tradtitional martial artists who have tried their luck in the cage. You dont see BJJ'er, wrestlers, or anyone else killing someone in there do you? Many people theorize how deadly their hands are, and when actually put to the test, they find many of there techniques are not as reliable as once thought. I have trained in traditional martial arts too- they've got kicks and punches just like everyone else. Do you mean to suggest that a traditional martial artists attacks are so severely limited to deadly techniques that everything else is useless? Bear in mind that with these rules, not only can a traditional martial artist NOT use these deadly techinques, but neither can the other mixed martial artist hes fighting on the other side of the cage.

Not everyone theorizes. People do die in fights. I find it intersting that there have been so few deaths in the UFC. But I guess that wouldn't be good for buisness at least not in the long term. Still I firmly believe that if you told both the fighters in the "cage" that only one guy was comming out alive, you'd see a very different fight.

There have been no deaths in UFC, and thats the job of the referee to stop the fight when someone wins- theres no sense in beating an unconcious victim- we already know who won the fight. As far as having a deathmatch between fighters, you'd merely see more intensity and more heart- the natrual aspects of the fight wouldnt change that much. You'd still see choke holds, joint locks, punches, kicks, throws, standup work, and groundwork.

True, it is an opinion, however its a heavily supported opinion. It is a FACT however, that traditional martial artists were far from succeeding as much as the other more sportive martial artists were.

Funny that in the UFC, an arena with rules and a ref that other sport arts (ones that also trained in an arena with rules and ref) did better in that arena then arts that trained solely for the street. I'll just say that it doesn't come as a big surprise.

Perhaps it'll come as a surprise that the first UFC's werent sporting events, and only after it became popular did it evolve more rules and become more of a sporting event.

There hasnt exactly been 'MMA invasions" into traditional schools, but there certainly has been BJJ challenges. People fought everywhere before the days of the UFC (including "the street") and the fighters (many of whom where traditional) that didnt include resistance training in their regime faired no better then. Their deadly techniques failed time and time again as they were choked out. If you insist that these techniques can only work in life or death situations, does that mean your forever doomed to be severely beaten in any other case (i.e. someone jumps you outside of a bar).

I also completely agree about what you said about popularity- you forget that traditional martial arts are much more popular and widespread than mixed martial arts.

While there are many arts that people consider traditional gaining wide spread popularitly, they cease to be traditional when they begin to cater to the masses. Still even in these arts you can find those who cling to the old ways. They are always the minority though.

Bottom line is that traditional martial artists GREATLY outnumber mixed martial artists and sportive martial artists. You'd think that with such a high number of participants, someone would come forward willing to prove what they taught.