Enigma of Comparing Styles

[MMA_Jim]

Here are my views on the topic:

Comparing styles IS something worth doing. Not all styles are equal, they were all developed over the course of the past 2000 years with different objectives in mind. Not all of their objectives was modern day self defense.

First off, almost all styles of martial arts were devised as a means of teaching ones armies or fighters if you will, how to win on the battlefield. Different cultures fight with different weapons at different periods of time on different landscapes, so you see how so many styles can be in such contrast.

Secondly, comparing fighters as opposed to styles would work if the fighters well equally trained. This is applicable for example, in the UFC because all fighters are trained in the same techniques. This is not applicable when comparing say, a jiu jitsu fighter with a boxer, karateka, or any other standup fighter because one isnt familiar with the others' techniques.

Lets assume you take a world class striker- (Mike Tyson from boxing, Stephan Leko muay thai, and Bill Wallace karate) and we have him do 50 fights to see how skilled a fighter he is, but theres a catch- each of the other 50 fighters is either highly skilled in jiu jitsu or submission wrestling. As such theres a strong possibility that hes not going to win very many matches. So by the end of the experiment he holds a record of 0-50. Does that mean hes a poor fighter despite his winning record in his respective style? Of course not, but what it does strongly suggest was that his style of fighting was severely lacking something when compared to the styles he fought.

Finally, if you were to stage one single fight between two people of opposing styles, you could argue that its a matchup of fighters, not styles. Keep in mind however, that the fighter's style of fighting is influenced by what style he trains in! Nontheless, we could still call it a matchup of fighters, since running the experiment one time is not sufficient for conclusive results. If the experiment is run more than once with different combatants, the results can become more conslusive as far as comparing the styles is concerned.

[Adonis]

Yeah but that is debate through words. Unless action is done to compare. Then the rest is just theory.

[bushido_man96]

Lets assume you take a world class striker- (Mike Tyson from boxing, Stephan Leko muay thai, and Bill Wallace karate) and we have him do 50 fights to see how skilled a fighter he is, but theres a catch- each of the other 50 fighters is either highly skilled in jiu jitsu or submission wrestling. As such theres a strong possibility that hes not going to win very many matches. So by the end of the experiment he holds a record of 0-50. Does that mean hes a poor fighter despite his winning record in his respective style? Of course not, but what it does strongly suggest was that his style of fighting was severely lacking something when compared to the styles he fought.

Yeah but that is debate through words. Unless action is done to compare. Then the rest is just theory.

Not really. Many such "challenge matches" have been conducted over the years, with results not much different than what MMA_Jim has pointed out. I wrote an article that was posted a while back, and it contains a section where it describes some of these challenge matches over the years: MMA: The Marriage of Martial Arts. Look about a quarter of the way down the article, in a section titled "Marriage Counseling." The same results happened in the early UFCs, as well.

[Adonis]

My point is its still just theory until it is proven.

[bushido_man96]

Do the examples that I have listed not count as action, to prove a point? It has been proven to an extent in the past, both distant and recent. I am not saying that it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven itself, though.

[Adonis]

Really its only theory until multiple tests are done to compare the results for a better answer. Thats why I don't find comparing it now worth much. However if you comparing results to what as already been tested then I can understand that. Since multiple tests were already done. However comparing something that hasn't been tested yet isn't worth much unless a test is being planned to see the results.

[bushido_man96]

Early UFC were a fairly accurate test, and they didn't take place all that long ago. The fist was in 1996, I believe, so a bit over 10 years ago. Now, every competitor sees the advantage of both striking and grappling. Sure, we could try to issue a series of challenge matches like this again, but I don't think anyone would be all that interested in them.

[Adonis]

Nov 12th 1993 for UFC 1.

However thats my point. You can use the 1 UFC along with gracie in action and other video's that showed diffrent practioners of an art vs's others to have some sort reason for more accurate comparing. However untested arts you can't really compare how they would actually do. Say monkey kung fu vs, Okinawan Goju ryu. Really there isn't enough video tests of people from both styles against each other to compare the results of the two. Like I said before you can compare what has already been tested.

The rest is speculation. There is some merit to comparing based on which arts or better yet instructors that teach or have resisting partners in there class "alive" training. The rest is based on theroy of assumption.

[tallgeese]

We're all getting stuck here (myslef included) in the fighter vs. fighter trap.

If we are in this for self-presevation, a more accurate test might be how each test does agaisnt a drunk brawler in the local pub, or the mugger you bump into on the way to your car at the end of work. Obviously, this is a bit harder to legally test. I'm not saying anyone from the above metioned scenarios couldnt handle themselves in those incidents, I'm just saying that those scenerios would be the ultimate test of what your doing in class. If what you're doing in class is learing to defend yourself.

Now if what you want to do in class is train to compete,then you have an entirely different criteria on which to judge your success.

[DWx]

Can you really use UFC to compare fighters or fighting styles? Even UFC 1 had a rule set which would put some styles at a disadvantage to others and the ultimate goal of the fighters is different to how they would be in a total free-for-all combat. And I would argue that modern UFC fighters train for the rules and for a "style" that fits within the ruleset. Things like small joint manipulation or pressure points won't be all that effective in the ring but given a self defense or life/death combat situation they may work. If you look at the principles of certain styles some of them wouldn't have you continuing to fight until TKO.. some styles would rather you evade then ran as fast as you could in the opposite direction. Not effective in the ring but effective as a style. And the people you get in UFC aren't your Grandmasters who have been training for a lifetime, they're sportsmen. IMO if you want to compare styles something like tallgeese suggested would be more appropriate than UFC.