Enigma of Comparing Styles

[Adonis]

Bushido man, I see your point now.

Tallegese, there is so many you tube video's of street fights, some one could watch and make an educated guess. Goes back to why I see bushido Mans point now.

Dwx, first UFC's had so few rules it is a good indicator. Even if some one takes out Groin strikes, throat strikes and eye gouging or even biting. Those "dirty tactics" in my opinion of a styles only effectivess is use those techniques then its pretty limited style and says alot about the effectiveness of there striking in general if they can't finish a fight with out those techniques. Even so it goes back to teh training method of alive training of having a fully resistent parnter. I wouldn't say MMA is the be all end all. Or any thing like that.

My point however is if you want to say UFC isn't a good argument back them. Thats fine however with out any contact or reistent opponent style is just theory and probably not very effective for its practioners. IMO

[DWx]

Bushido man, I see your point now.

Tallegese, there is so many you tube video's of street fights, some one could watch and make an educated guess. Goes back to why I see bushido Mans point now.

Dwx, first UFC's had so few rules it is a good indicator. Even if some one takes out Groin strikes, throat strikes and eye gouging or even biting. Those "dirty tactics" in my opinion of a styles only effectivess is use those techniques then its pretty limited style and says alot about the effectiveness of there striking in general if they can't finish a fight with out those techniques. Even so it goes back to teh training method of alive training of having a fully resistent parnter. I wouldn't say MMA is the be all end all. Or any thing like that.

My point however is if you want to say UFC isn't a good argument back them. Thats fine however with out any contact or reistent opponent style is just theory and probably not very effective for its practioners. IMO

I'm not saying UFC isn't a way to compare fighting styles, I just think that maybe it isn't the best way. Sure UFC is good if you want to compare how effective a style is in the ring or how effective a style is in that particular environment, but what about self defense? What about pure combat where its a question of life or death? Winning a MMA fight and surviving an altercation aren't neccessarily the same thing. If a style's principle is to get you in a position where you can run away from your assailant and using this method you survive, is it not effective? Just because the style in question did not get you that KO or the submission it doesn't mean it isn't effective as a Martial Art. Most likely such a style would be pretty ineffective in UFC style matches.

And as for the ruleset, IMO "dirty tactics" are more than valid for the a style's effectiveness in pure combat. If I based my own style 100% on groin strikes, eye gouges and other techniques which are disallowed under UFC rules it doesn't mean the style is any less effective at saving my life. IMO they are perfectly valid in a non-sport combat situation but such a style would clearly be severly disadvantaged under UFC conditions.

Even so it goes back to teh training method of alive training of having a fully resistent parnter.

UFC isn't the only way to acheive that.

[bushido_man96]

UFC competitions may have limits, but so does TKD competitions. And, there are many TKD schools out there that only focus on the competition sparring. The UFC does offer combat that takes place in all ranges, and at full strength and speed.

[bushido_man96]

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.

I think in the end, you are not trying to compare style vs. style. You are addressing survival. As you and tallgeese mention, the goal of survival is going to be to get away from the threat.

And then, it depends on what the goals of your particular combat are. If you are a civlian, then you want to get away. If you are a soldier, it may be to incapacitate and detain, or kill. Here, the option to turn and run are gone. So, your goals can change things a bit.

[DWx]

UFC competitions may have limits, but so does TKD competitions. And, there are many TKD schools out there that only focus on the competition sparring. The UFC does offer combat that takes place in all ranges, and at full strength and speed.

In a TKD competition you are comparing TKDers to other TKDers not neccessarily style vs. style. If you wanted to I suppose you could use it as a base to compare a style's competition to another style's competition but its a fairly limited comparision if you were interested in more than the sport side of things. Often the competition side doesn't represent the majority of the style, it represents a small part of it that someone has taken and made into a competition.

I think in the end, you are not trying to compare style vs. style. You are addressing survival. As you and tallgeese mention, the goal of survival is going to be to get away from the threat.

And then, it depends on what the goals of your particular combat are. If you are a civlian, then you want to get away. If you are a soldier, it may be to incapacitate and detain, or kill. Here, the option to turn and run are gone. So, your goals can change things a bit.

Isn't survival a valid way of comparing a style? After all most styles were designed and developed not for the ring but for a self defense or military purpose. I would have thought that more styles were developed for survival rather than developed to see how well it would fare against another style. And if the goal of survival is to get away from a threat then isn't it valid to compare two styles on how they can get away from a threat or how they deal with a threat rather on how well they do when pitted against each other?

Maybe we should define in what terms we are comparing them by?

If you want to compare how a style deals with another style then go ahead and use UFC but not all martial arts are going to flourish under those conditions. For some styles they would be largely ineffective in a UFC environment as they were not created with the sole purpose of defeating another style.

A fight in the ring is different to a fight in a bar which is different to a fight as a soldier. UFC is not the most effective way to compare styles in terms of the latter two and I’m sure there are plenty more factors which wouldn’t be compared very well using an example from UFC. I think it would be far more prudent to take that style and put it in that situation for what you want to compare it in terms of. UFC wont show you how that style deals with someone such as an untrained attacker or how that style works for multiple opponents.

[bushido_man96]

If you count Tank Abbot as untrained, then the UFC has shown a piece of the untrained attacker bit.

I don't think that the UFC demonstrate style vs. style; not anymore. They are opponent vs. opponent. These opponents learn various ways of defeating each other.

Here is the main problem that I see with the arguement: we bring in the fact that other styles are made for survival, and may not work well in the UFC. The fact of the matter is that these survival styles, like TKD or Karate for instance, still have rules-based competitions in which certain techniques are not allowed. So, when you look at it from this standpoint, you can get a viable comparison.

Also, I believe that not all MMAers out there are learning for competiton. Therefore, you will have some people who train in MMA gyms who will also practice the eye gouges, the face raking, the groin kicking, etc. techniques that are "too dangerous for competition."

In the end, what makes a style more appropriate for the MMA competition style is the way you train. You have to be in good physical shape, for one thing. Then, you work your strategies, and improve or learn to defend your weaknesses.

In the end, I don't think that I could be convinced (not that anyone here is trying to convince me) that an MMA competitor could not defend themselves as effectively as another stylist if they needed to on the street.

[Adonis]

I agree MMA now is moe about oponent vs. Opponent's personal style. Ie. (some more favored on there grappling and not as good as three striking, there clinching, take downs, and what not) alot of times it comes down to conditioning, and stratgey to expose a certain weakness in a opponents game.

How ever you do get some what of a style type of matches example would be striker vs grappler. Where you have a glaring weakness in some ones game. Ie. A BJJ guy who is really good on the ground but not good on there take downs or strikign. Where you may find a good boxer/Muay thai fighter with good take down defense. Or vice versa may have a striker who isn't good on the gorund or have great take down defense get taken down and then submited or GnP.

[Adonis]

Any way Dwx, I didn't clerify my point in my post about the UFC. Since you braught it up. No a person doesn't have to train for MMA competion to have there style work for them in self defesne scerio. However realist training methods of a resistant parnter is needed to test to find where the person is at. So yes scenerio training full contact type trainging, and non compliant and semi non compliant partners is needed to dertmine effectiveness, and to hone ones skills.

There is a fast diffrence in training methods between military, civilian self defense, law enforcement work. However Alive training is the key to effectiveness in my opinon. So if we go into Civlian self defense to defend against attacker for just enough time to run away that is fine. Brings on another subject of the importance of phsycial conditioning IMO. Any way again goes back to realistic training methods. That is my point of the ufc but I will bring that up later on.

Now regarding dirty tactics or illegal moves. If style shows many arrays of techniques kicking, striking but the only effective ones that will work for you is IF your able to pull of so called "dirty tactics" Then yes over all the style lacks effectives. Why? Because the develop of timing, speed, and power ect... is the reason why the striking/grappling is a failure. So doesn't leave much room that the person will be effective with the "dirty tactics/techniques"

Now however a person who has developed there basic striking techniques to where they do lan effectively because they spent the time to develop the attributes to make the work. Such as the timeing, distance, speed, power ect... Then they would have more use and skill in the so called "dirty tactics"

I hope this clears up what I was saying earlier.

[bushido_man96]

Any way Dwx, I didn't clerify my point in my post about the UFC. Since you braught it up. No a person doesn't have to train for MMA competion to have there style work for them in self defesne scerio. However realist training methods of a resistant parnter is needed to test to find where the person is at. So yes scenerio training full contact type trainging, and non compliant and semi non compliant partners is needed to dertmine effectiveness, and to hone ones skills.

Much like the description given in NightOwl's article.

How ever you do get some what of a style type of matches example would be striker vs grappler. Where you have a glaring weakness in some ones game. Ie. A BJJ guy who is really good on the ground but not good on there take downs or strikign. Where you may find a good boxer/Muay thai fighter with good take down defense. Or vice versa may have a striker who isn't good on the gorund or have great take down defense get taken down and then submited or GnP.

The MMA competition has evolved so much now that it is impossible to be successful without having at least some knowledge of all 3 ranges of combat. This was demonstrated when Royce Gracie came back to fight Matt Hughes. Is there a fighter amongst the current ranks of the UFC on par with the knowledge of Royce concerning BJJ? I doubt it; they guy has dedicated his life to it. However, with Hughes' knowledge of Wrestling, and his striking abilities, being more well-rounded was a distinct advantage noticible in his victory.

[Adonis]

Very true but you do see disparties not every one is well rounded. GSP is a good example of well rounded from take downs, striking, and on the ground. However look at Anderson Siva another point who is extremely good on the ground and while striking, as well as striking and controling from the clinch. However his take downs aren't strong. Any way there are those that aren't as well rounded.