UFC versus Pure Combat

[tallgeese]

Agreed, mindset is everything in combat.

Given that, an mma-er is as likely as anyone else to prevail. Maybe more so due to the methodolgy of training used by many serious students. Many knock down-drag out's I've been exposed to look much like an ugly mma fight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make the point that mma is the best sd from out there. I really don't think it is. It overlooks many effective movements that I've seen utilized successfully. I'm just saying that mma practitioners are often charaterized as not being able to defend themselvs outisde of their narrow rules confines and I don't think that's true at all.

I think that more important than what is being trained is the methodology behind that training. Is it developing a combat oriented mindset? Can skills be applied without forthought? Can adaptations be made when primary movements prove uneffective? A wholy combative art, designed to be a sd art should consist of , in my opinion, good defensive movements,striking, ground fighting, standing joint movmements, clinch fighting, and wepons training and defenses. Mma-ers work on many of these and can't be brushed aside in the "how would x do in a real fight" debates.

[Treebranch]

Agreed

[bushido_man96]

Agreed

I second as well, tallgeese. All too often, it seems like the MMAers get the raw end of the arguement, because they choose to compete.

[TraditionalDan]

I think to MMAers and TMAers can learn from each other. But there are also areas of self defence that can be neglected by both.

Such as verbal engagement (and many others) etc, even some self defence classes neglect these things.

[Adonis]

I think to MMAers and TMAers can learn from each other. But there are also areas of self defence that can be neglected by both.

Such as verbal engagement (and many others) etc, even some self defence classes neglect these things.

I agree, good post!

[bushido_man96]

I think to MMAers and TMAers can learn from each other. But there are also areas of self defence that can be neglected by both.

Such as verbal engagement (and many others) etc, even some self defence classes neglect these things.

I agree, good post!

I think so, too. Instead of butting heads all the time, they/we should sit and share information, and help each other out.

[TraditionalDan]

I'm glad we agree, if people want to learn self defence, then we need to find it from a good source.

If we want to learn self defence, we need someone who has plenty of martial arts and self defence experience.

These people are often hard to find, but if we do research we can find out alot.

If anyone reading is seriously considering real self defence, they should check out some of Geoff Thompson's work. He has some excellent books, backed up with plenty of experience.

That's just a start, and I know there are plenty of others.

[ShoriKid]

Is Thompson the British martial artist who has had articles on "the fence" as his pre-liminary self-defense set up? If so, I can say what little I've found by the man is good, solid stuff.

[TraditionalDan]

That's the guy!

[MMA_Jim]

I dont think that MMA'ers have ever gotten the stereotype of not being able to defend themselves in a real life situation. Ironically, its the other way around. Because of the creation of UFC and various other fight organizations, traditional martial artists seem to have gotten that stereotype.

The biggest thing that differentiates mma fighters from traditional is that mma fighters are willing to fight to prove what they've got. Many traditional fighters dont, for whatever reason, and theres nothing wrong with that. Lets make up two examples for the sake of argument- one mma'er who fights and one traditional ma'er who doesnt. Please dont read into this argument as an attack on karate, tkd, or kung fu. MMA IS NOT A STYLE. As such, consider our mma fighter to be trained in whatever you like to imagine him being trained in- hes a karate fighter, a tkd'er, a judoka, or a kung fu expert. But bottom line is he fights.

The mma'er who fights is average at best, but hes had plenty of fights and hes 12-10 in the cage. The traditional ma'er never fought, but hes a high ranking black belt in a traditional system, call it any kind of karate, tkd, or kung fu. He only trains, and doesnt teach.

Problem with this situation here is that it leaves us with one conclusion: We have documented evidence that the mma'er is an accomplished fighter and have proven that his techniques work against a fully resisting opponent intent on defeating him. He's also got experience, which counts for alot as any former fighter or sports player would tell you.

At the other end, we have no documented evidence of the tma'er ever using what he has in an actual fighting/self defense scenario. The term "evidence" here means a video. Many people point to stories of great feats, or bar brawls or street fights against numerous opponents as being credible resources, but I'll address that in a minute.

What we now have is one fighter whos proven, and another whos not. One fighter who we know, from videotape, has the capacity to choke someone out, knock someone out, or take someone down. We know nothing about the other. So, when someone questions our mma'er as whether or not something hes teaching is practical or real, he can throw in a tape and say "yep- it worked right here, and you can see and judge for yourself."

Now many people like to use the "street fight" card as the ultimate proving ground, and I'll explain the flaws with this.

First off, we need a definition of a "street fighter." Many seem to think that a street fighter is a down and dirty fighter whos brutal to the utmost degree and will stoop to any level to win a fight.

A more accurate definition: someone who has no formal training in the science (not art) of fighting. A novice or complete beginner if you will. Every beginner student that comes into your school would otherwise be labeled a "street fighter" for the simple fact that he has no experience in any system of fighting.

Hopefully you'll see where this argument is going. We now have stories of so and so beating up someone at the bar using his techniques, but we're forced to ask the following questions:

1: Who was this person fighting? Was he capable of fighting in the first place?

2: Was he athletically the equivalent of the person who so technically defeated him?

3: What was the weight disparity?

4: Who's reporting this story? Do they even have any knowledge of fighting? Imagine if Joe Schmo started commentating the UFC and had no idea what hes watching- he cant explain technically what was done and why it was done. Then take Joe Rogan. Regardless of your personal thoughts, Rogan knows whats going on, can explain what move is being done and WHY its being done. Perhaps most importantly, he can explain why its even working.

Now the multiple opponents card gets put into this same category. How good were the people this person was fighting? Did they even fight back? Was the story embellished if it wasnt fabricated to begin with? Aside from that, we dont have a pure experiment to judge this with. Tell someone you're going to choke them unconcious regardless of what they do to stop you, and you do it- thats a show of technique. Sucker attack someone who's not even a fighter and knock them out- what have you proven? For

example- the popular mike valley vs 4 people street fight on you tube. Someone uneducated would tell the story that he defended himself from and beat up 4 attackers at once. Watch the video, and you'll see that he none of the 4 "attackers" in the video even throw a punch at him, with the exception of 1 frail looking character who is slapping at him at the end. Hopefully, you'll begin to understand the point Im trying to make

So, since a street fighter is a novice fighter who does not regularly partake in fights (regardless of how his persona may reflect otherwise) hes already at a great disadvantage. What happens when a black belt fights a white belt? This is the same thing, the exception being that we're not wearing uniforms or in a dojo. So for all we know, we may have a 185lb karate master who's in great physical condition who gets into a fight with a 170 college student who drinks with his buddies every weekend. With a 15 lb advantage, physical superiority, and experience with striking, we could be content that such a fight could have been won on athleticism alone, and no technique was required.

A UFC fight on the other hand, pairs fighters based on weight so that size and strength are as close as can be. Both fighters are athletes and should be in great physical condition. Both are fighters, and have knowledge of the science of fighting, both on the feet and on the ground. Both are proven, having reputable records from fights in the past. We're left now with the best possible pairing of natrual ability we can do. This leaves us to see one thing now: technique!