UFC versus Pure Combat

[Johnlogic121]

Many people would agree that the Ultimate Fighting Championship matches on television depict a mode of fighting that is very similiar to what someone might encounter in a streetfight against an assailiant. However, it occurs to me that these bouts might not really be an accurate representation of the kind of pure combat fighting that soldiers do. Soldiers would probably use eye gouge attacks more readily than they would use a jab to the nose or a right cross to the chin, and they would probably make use of the front kick to the groin as a principal fighting weapon. In the UFC, these moves are illegal for obvious safety reasons. If the UFC permitted full power kicks to the groin, the whole sport might become very boring as one fighter after another got tagged with the groin shot and became unable to continue the fight. The UFC also makes hitting the back of the head illegal, but soldiers would likely do this at every opportunity to cause the easy knockout that would result from attacking the top of someone's spine. Because of these and other reasons, I think we could only see pure combat on television if they filmed a true "Death match" tournament between skilled fighters who are willing to possibly get permanantly maimed in the process of killing the other guy. Such fights would be instructive for the military, but they would be as barbaric as Roman gladitorial contests fought to the death. Thus, I don't think we will ever see 'pure combat' on television even though we can specualte to some limited degree about what a lethal martial arts engagement would truly be like. If you are discounting eye gouges and full groin kicks, then you are introducing artificial limitations that result from psychological barriars. Honestly, I don't support the notion that we should introduce 'Blood Sports' that would have people killing each other for spectator pleasure. But don't other people agree that the rules limitations of the UFC make it just another sporting contest, albeit a brutal one? -JL

[TraditionalDan]

It seems as thought there will never be competetive fights to the death legally. I am sure we would see more deaths, and possibly more traditional martial artists.

If you look up the rules of the UFC, the first 17 are all valid karate techniques!

[bushido_man96]

If I remember right, the early UFCs allowed groin shots, but it never really seemed to be a major factor in the fights.

Of course, the MMA fights that we see will not be "the real thing," but it is very close in the facts that it is full speed, with many targets available, and with a fully resisting opponent.

As far as military combat goes, it is 90% weapons trained first, with the hand-to-hand concepts used only if need be. Many special forces train a bit more extensively in hand-to-hand, but there again the bulk of their training will be with weapons as well. Military tactics will also use tactics such as stealth to negate detection, in which many attacks will happen from behind or a flank. The military doesn't care if it takes one or three guys to take out the objective, either, so often times a soldier will have assistance with a threat. It really isn't fair to compare the two.

The UFC may not be the most realisitc, but when you train in more of an RBSD setting, you have to tone things down in either speed or resistance levels in order to make the training safe enough for all. There is give and take, no matter which way you practice.

[MMA_Jim]

Many people would agree that the Ultimate Fighting Championship matches on television depict a mode of fighting that is very similiar to what someone might encounter in a streetfight against an assailiant. However, it occurs to me that these bouts might not really be an accurate representation of the kind of pure combat fighting that soldiers do.

This is true because:

-Soldiers fight with weapons

-There are no weight classes in real life

-You will rarely fight another well trained fighter

-modern day mma fighters are far more skilled than a modern day soldier

That being said, modern combatives as taught in the armed forces is essentially MMA (the hand to hand training anyways)

Soldiers would probably use eye gouge attacks more readily than they would use a jab to the nose or a right cross to the chin, and they would probably make use of the front kick to the groin as a principal fighting weapon. In the UFC, these moves are illegal for obvious safety reasons. If the UFC permitted full power kicks to the groin, the whole sport might become very boring as one fighter after another got tagged with the groin shot and became unable to continue the fight. The UFC also makes hitting the back of the head illegal, but soldiers would likely do this at every opportunity to cause the easy knockout that would result from attacking the top of someone's spine.

A swift jab will do much more damage than a poke in the eyes. For one, if you dont hit the eyes dead on, you're very likely to injure your fingers. It requires such fine motor movements, that which your body loses under the stress of fight or flight. The same is said of a front kick to the groin. Its not a very reliable technique and its very easy to block. Strikes to the back of the head require some sort of positional dominance (i.e. achieving back mount).

These techniques have been made illegal to protect the fighters careers. Eye gouges have been used many times in early MMA, and have shown almost no success. The risk being that the other fighter risks losing his vision. In a real fight, the other fighter (having lost) would be dead. Groin kicks still happen in modern day MMA, with refs not always spotting the foul. Once again, a fighter doesnt want to chance having to need surgery on his groin or possibly being unable to have children because of a fight. Strikes to the back of the head have been made illegal due to the build up of damage to the spine-but this attack was almost exclusive to BJJ fighters who had the skill to get to their opponents back.

These techniques dont do much to change the tide of a fight, but they're illegal because the chances are high that after a few fights, a fighter would lose vision, his "tender" organs, or full mobility from constant spine attacks.

If you are discounting eye gouges and full groin kicks, then you are introducing artificial limitations that result from psychological barriars. Honestly, I don't support the notion that we should introduce 'Blood Sports' that would have people killing each other for spectator pleasure. But don't other people agree that the rules limitations of the UFC make it just another sporting contest, albeit a brutal one? -JL

We arent discounting eye gouges or groin shots, its just that most people severely overrate them. Eye gouges and groin shots are not fight enders- they are most often annoying. I have been involved in situations when people have attempted to bite, eye gouge, and attack my groin, none of which helped them any.

Closing my eyes took care of most eye gouges, and any that got through simply hurt and blurred my vision, but once a grappler has a hold of you he doesnt need this. Groin attacks once again hurt, but didnt stop me from grabbing ahold of the attacker and paying him back. Biting is probably the more ineffective thing. Human teeth arent very strong, and theres really no situation that a bite would be more desirable when you consider the power and leverage one can get throwing elbows and punches instead.

[bushido_man96]

Biting can be useful when the rest of your limbs are tied up, and it is your only option. However, if you could bite, you could probably head butt, too. This is another effective move, if performed correctly.

The effectiveness of the eye gouge would be dependent on how deep you can dig your finger into the opponent's head. You can get results ranging anywhere from just grazing the eyes, to sticking your finger up the the 3rd joint in the socket. You have to be close to get that accomplished, though.

[Adonis]

Regarding soldiers combatives training, there is alot of mma training going on, mainly do to diffrent ranges of fighting, alive training ( a full resisting partner - which is key to basically seeing what is working and what needs to really be worked on.)

regarding eye gouges, and groin strikes its hard to test a indviduals abiality to make these techniques work with out injury to another. Quickest way to get programs shut down in the military is a bunch of soldiers injured, and unable to perform there war time missions. Besides I think those are common since moves any way.

[Adonis]

Regarding MMA events. They have rules! There is other factors that MMA fighters don't trani on for MMA events, such as multiple opponents, weapons. In a real fight there is all the above as well as objects in the way, for example bar fight, you may have pool table, table, chairs, bar, or other objects in the way detering from the effectiveness of certain techniques, in may help with techniques as well though it all depends, either way they are a factor, so enviroment would be another condsideration. Any way I am rambing now so I am going to stop.

[tallgeese]

True, mma is bound by sport specific regulations. Still, given the contact levels that are utilized in training, and the more realistic simulations often incorportaed, you can't discount an mma fighter in a street brawl.

Consider the conditioning alone is formidable, there is also the fact that mma training doees mentally prepare you to hurt someone in a way that many traditional MA's don't (training methodology dependant, of course). Further, just because the average mma-er isn't routinly using eye gouges or groin kicks in the ring doesen't mean that they won't, in desperation, use them in the street.

I know, they don't train for them and it's a valid point. However, most gougeing, groin attacks, hair pulling, ect. is pretty basic, and automatic in nature. This means that they are easier to utilize on a limited training basis. It's part of the reason that they are popularly utilized in self-defense only courses. Plus, they are reasonably effective.

Obviously, this dosent' exactly count for the multiple attacker scenario, ect. Still, your average mma-er probibly stands as good, if not better, chance agaisnt this scenario as a more traditional ma er does.

I'm certainly not saying that it's the best form of defensive art. In fact, we've often seen good mma'ers lacking in sd skills. But it's not a bad base and is often discounted too early in discuaaions like these.

[Treebranch]

I think MMA is a thing of pure beauty and that's how feel about many of the arts. The aim of true combat is to kill. That kind of fight would look really different. Most street fights are basically two people fighting for their pride, not their lives. If someone attacks me on the street I assume they want to kill me and I won't fight unless I'm attacked. MMA is a sport with rules, money on the line and fighters that want to keep fighting to make money. They are extremely talented and trained and in a fair fight can wipe the floor with me, but combat is another story.

[bushido_man96]

Combat is more about mindset than anything. If you get into it with someone, thinking "I am going to kick his butt," and the other guy/girl is thinking "I am going to do everything in my power to kill this person," then you may be setting yourself up for a real world of hurt.