Disqualifications in MMA are Reality on the Streets

[Alan Armstrong]

As long as cage fighters are taking out their aggression on each other, go for it; they can knock them selves out doing it; I will gladly cheer them on.

But when they start (the few) trying to disparage traditional martial arts, when their testosterone level is getting low, with cheap shot statements, just to boost their insecure side, do they contemplate or wonder where milk comes from...? Before it was in the supermarket!

They would not exist if it wasn't for traditional martial arts.

Another point being; what they are doing is supermarket martial arts, that has a short shelf life, whereas tradition martial arts is natural, intended to last a lifetime and has been here for many generations in the past and will continue to be here in the future.

[Tempest]

The problem with the idea of "traditional martial arts" is that:

1. There is no such thing. Not really. Judo and BJJ have as old a lineage in Dr. Kano as just about any of the so called "traditional" martial arts, and wrestling and boxing are FAR older.

2. Most of the things that characterize traditional martial arts are silly customs from a culture that, in America anyway, we barely understand and are likely using incorrectly anyway.

3. The claims of combat effectiveness of these arts are VERY disputable, not because of the techniques, but because of the training methodologies. There is VERY strong evidence that different training methodologies were in play during the time when these arts, or more accurately, the ancestors of these arts, were used for fighting.

The dispute is not one of lineage and tradition, it is one of fighting effectiveness. Many traditional martial artists believe, really believe, the demonstrably silly idea that they can repeat a technique over and over again against a compliant opponent reacting in a programmed way and that somehow makes them more effective in a fight than someone that repeats a technique and then does it against resistance because the technique is supposedly more "deadly".

Allow me to dispel a myth of fighting for everyone here. You CANNOT know what your opponents reaction to any given technique will be. If you punch someone in the groin, they might double over, or they MIGHT smile and kick your teeth in. You don't know until you have done it against an adrenaline driven, intelligently resisting opponent, what your move will do. And even then, it is no guarantee for the next time.

Because you don't know what your move will do, and you don't know what your opponent will do, drilling a specific attack/response sequence over and over is only good for instilling THAT particular sequence in to muscle memory, that's it. It doesn't give you all of the other things required to become an effective fighter.

The problem becomes when the TMA practitioners start making ridiculous claims like because they practice eye gouges it makes them more effective in "real fights". The issue is, because they don't actually gouge anybodies eye's out, when it comes right down to it, they can't actually DO that.

[Alan Armstrong]

Good points to consider Tempest.

[MatsuShinshii]

Sure. That's an accurate statement. Here's a couple of things to think about.

First, training methodology matters. Like REALLY matters. It's almost, note: almost, more important that what you're learning. MMA excels in it's methods. Fighters that walk in the door within 6 months will have had endless rounds on the pads, hit hard with their hands, have some decent kicks, be able to shoot a single and defend it, and will (most importantly) sparred heavily quite a bit. That's a tactical advantage on many (not all) trad artists who within 6 months will have very static movements and a couple of katas.

Second, as a result of the sparring, they KNOW what it's like to get hit, stuffed, and fight from bad positions. In fact, they've done this not only against other strikers, but wrestlers and grapplers. They've faced multiple modes of aggression already is a huge equalizer.

Last, any MMA gym you walk into places a high premium on conditioning. Making the body harder to kill cannot be understated. Sure, trad arts condition, but the average MMA gym will be light years ahead on this than your run of the mill trad school. It just has to do with the level of movement and stress they place the fighters under.

Now, please note I'm not arguing that MMA is some ultimate self defense art, I'm just pointing out that MMA builds attributes that WORK in conflict. It's lack of "illegal" techniqes is so over sold it's not funny. Here's the thing about illegal tactics, they are illegal in completion for a reason. Now, how hard to you practice these in trad arts? Ever really gouge someone's eye out to train? Over and over again to make it perfect? Of course not. How many times has an MMA fighter thrown a jab? Literally hundreds of thousands? Likely. Which tool will be more prepared for combat? Repetition matters.

Again, no one is better, but to sell a system short because of a lack of illegal tactics is selling it short.

Solid Post. I'd have to agree with a lot of what you said. And I don't think the majority of us "traditionalist were selling MMA short by any means. For the sake of discussion differences were pointed out. Having said that I hate to agree with your premise concerning conditioning but in today's Dojo's contact for many is not an option.

IMHO contact is the only way to train. Hit and be hit. That way you know what it feels like on both accords. Fear of the unknown cripples fighters when they actually get into a conflict and it's even worse if they have never been hit before and they get rocked for the first time. However it is next to impossible to convince Modern day schools that this is not only the way most of us trained but that it has major benefits. They fall back on the fact that most of the original guys bringing the arts back to the states were military and point out that this is the reason for the contact. Most say this has no place in the arts.

I wonder if they rethink this position the first time they meet up with a hoodlum intent on pounding them? Either way I tend to agree with your statements.

[singularity6]

The problem with the idea of "traditional martial arts" is that:

1. There is no such thing. Not really. Judo and BJJ have as old a lineage in Dr. Kano as just about any of the so called "traditional" martial arts, and wrestling and boxing are FAR older.

2. Most of the things that characterize traditional martial arts are silly customs from a culture that, in America anyway, we barely understand and are likely using incorrectly anyway.

3. The claims of combat effectiveness of these arts are VERY disputable, not because of the techniques, but because of the training methodologies. There is VERY strong evidence that different training methodologies were in play during the time when these arts, or more accurately, the ancestors of these arts, were used for fighting.

The dispute is not one of lineage and tradition, it is one of fighting effectiveness. Many traditional martial artists believe, really believe, the demonstrably silly idea that they can repeat a technique over and over again against a compliant opponent reacting in a programmed way and that somehow makes them more effective in a fight than someone that repeats a technique and then does it against resistance because the technique is supposedly more "deadly".

Allow me to dispel a myth of fighting for everyone here. You CANNOT know what your opponents reaction to any given technique will be. If you punch someone in the groin, they might double over, or they MIGHT smile and kick your teeth in. You don't know until you have done it against an adrenaline driven, intelligently resisting opponent, what your move will do. And even then, it is no guarantee for the next time.

Because you don't know what your move will do, and you don't know what your opponent will do, drilling a specific attack/response sequence over and over is only good for instilling THAT particular sequence in to muscle memory, that's it. It doesn't give you all of the other things required to become an effective fighter.

The problem becomes when the TMA practitioners start making ridiculous claims like because they practice eye gouges it makes them more effective in "real fights". The issue is, because they don't actually gouge anybodies eye's out, when it comes right down to it, they can't actually DO that.

This post made me really happy.

I strongly agree! We do tend to abuse the word traditional. As another member pointed out somewhere else, traditional basically means "we've been around and doing it this way for over X years."

[Alan Armstrong]

Is MMA a style or a set of rules, or both?

[singularity6]

I'm not an expert, but it seems that MMA took sport martial art (boxing, wrestling, kick boxing) in a direction that Bruce Lee took "traditional" martial arts. MMA essentially combines a bunch of different styles in a "free style" form, set some rules, and made a product that a lot of people enjoy watching and participating in. I think this thread actually helped me find more respect for the sport!

[Alan Armstrong]

There are those that say "Bruce Lee is the father of MMA" while others consider Bruce Lee as the opposite of MMA.

I don't have a clear grasp of what MMA is. Many martial artists have done multiple styles and have one base style with add ons, to fill what they consider to be gaps or holes; but they don't consider themselves connected to MMA.

MMA could be considered as a combat sport, that any style is acceptable?

The Gracie's are BJJ and MMA?

[Tempest]

Is MMA a style or a set of rules, or both?

MMA is a concept. It is also a codified rule-set. The idea behind the rule-set being to avoid forbidding as many martially valid techniques as possible and still have a valid sport that the public can watch.

The early UFC's, and before them the Gracie Challenges, had few if any real rules, as has already been stated. What's interesting is the fact that, other than the quality of what is being done, the rules that have been added have not significantly affected "what works" in the cage.

The idea here is put up or shut up. If you want to make a claim about how effective a martial art is for it's intended purpose, which for most of them is either fighting, self defense, or warfare, then put your money where your mouth is and fight.

The truth is, MMA gives every martial art a roughly even chance as long as it is based on martially valid principles. The top athletes rise to the top, but just about anybody can compete at the lower levels, with the caveat that whatever you have been doing will be put to a much more extreme test than most people ever face, so you will need to be ready for that.

If you think compliant training is going to get you ready for a fight on it's own, be prepared for a rude awakening when you step in to a real encounter.

I have seen everything from simple punches, complex ground combinations, and even jump, spinning roundhouse kicks off the side of the fence, ALL work in the cage, but they all had one thing in common.

The people practicing them trained in an alive manner consistently against intelligently resisting opponents.

That's it. That's the super secret sauce right there.

Link to article on aliveness:

http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

[MatsuShinshii]

1. There is no such thing. Not really. Judo and BJJ have as old a lineage in Dr. Kano as just about any of the so called "traditional" martial arts, and wrestling and boxing are FAR older.

I have to disagree with this statement. Again I go back to the definition of "traditional. Toudi and Ti or Ti'gwa (the name of Karate before it was changed along with most of the original art by the Itosu and later the Japanese) IMHO would be considered traditional in the true sense of the word. Those founders and successors that refused to change their training practices or to join the Butokukai and continued to pass down the original COMBAT intent of the art would IMO be considered true traditional MA.

I agree that wrestling pre-dates pretty much most martial arts but Ti or the original percussive art of Okinawa most certainly pre-dates western boxing.

Sorry I'm a major history buff so I had to make this correction.

2. Most of the things that characterize traditional martial arts are silly customs from a culture that, in America anyway, we barely understand and are likely using incorrectly anyway.

I could not agree with you more on this. Most Americans haven't the foggiest clue. To go one step further most "Traditions" are not originally from the founders of the art but rather injected into the art by other cultures i.e. Japan and the western world.

3. The claims of combat effectiveness of these arts are VERY disputable, not because of the techniques, but because of the training methodologies. There is VERY strong evidence that different training methodologies were in play during the time when these arts, or more accurately, the ancestors of these arts, were used for fighting.

Again you are absolutely right. I go back to my previous statement concerning Itosu and Japan. The original art of Toudi (China Hand) and Ti'gwa (Original percussive art and Muay Boran) that was handed down to the next generation of students was for all intents and purposes changed in order to expand the art to school children. Itosu was the master mind behind re-inventing the art to suite this purpose. Obviously you can not pass on combat effective skills to children so they were disguised or removed. The art was further corrupted when Funakoshi brought it to Japan since the Japanese people despised everything Chinese and wanted it to fit into the sport or DO of other arts like Judo, Aikido and Kendo.

In fact I'll make the following statement that will upset most that consider themselves traditional, "the vast majority of modern day (post Itosu/Japan) haven't the foggiest notion of what the original combat applications and techniques are".

The dispute is not one of lineage and tradition, it is one of fighting effectiveness. Many traditional martial artists believe, really believe, the demonstrably silly idea that they can repeat a technique over and over again against a compliant opponent reacting in a programmed way and that somehow makes them more effective in a fight than someone that repeats a technique and then does it against resistance because the technique is supposedly more "deadly".

This one I have to correct you on. The repetition of applications and scenarios is to build muscle memory just like you do when you jab or right cross a million times. This is to develop an almost automatic response. No one, well let me take that back, I would never say that what is taught will happen in every fight. It's the direct opposite most times. People are unpredictable. However if someone throws a right cross and you have trained this counter a million times, the body takes over and it gives you an edge. However your statement about compliant opponents is sadly true in most cases.

However I can not speak for them. For my experience in the arts, we do not rely on an instructor to tell us something works we have to find out for ourselves. This means putting it to the test. I will also say that we are not mind numb robots that do the same thing over and over. Each student must become a critical thinker and thus a critic of the applications in that it must be proven to work. Not all techniques work for all people. Also it is encouraged to experiment with the knowledge you have been taught and to apply what you have learned into finding new ways (your way and what works best for you) in terms of actual resistive training (combative/reality).

Allow me to dispel a myth of fighting for everyone here. You CANNOT know what your opponents reaction to any given technique will be. If you punch someone in the groin, they might double over, or they MIGHT smile and kick your teeth in. You don't know until you have done it against an adrenaline driven, intelligently resisting opponent, what your move will do. And even then, it is no guarantee for the next time.

Agreed. This is why you train in as many possible scenarios as you can. With the multitude of fighting arts and the differences between people there is not way you can prepare for every fight in terms of knowing what your opponent will try or do. The point is to train for as many as possible, build muscle memory, condition your body and the bodies weapons so that you are prepared to meet what ever is thrown at you. Can you or anyone here say that they have seen it all and are prepared for absolutely anything? If you can your a warrior God because I don't believe this is practical or even possible. Having said that I don't think this is the aim of any fighter. The aim is to train yourself and learn how to fight effectively so that you can face the unknown.

Because you don't know what your move will do, and you don't know what your opponent will do, drilling a specific attack/response sequence over and over is only good for instilling THAT particular sequence in to muscle memory, that's it. It doesn't give you all of the other things required to become an effective fighter.

Agreed. And again it's not just the specific applications that are drilled. When training in free form (resistive outside of the box attacks) you adapt just like MMA guys would. I get your point and would agree with a lot of what you say because I have taken other arts and have seen the brain numb robots methodically drilling on line the same thing over and over without ever testing it's validity against a non-compliant opponent.

The new fad for Modern schools is what we call Bunkai. The problem is understanding that just because it's shown a certain way in the Kata does not mean that this is exactly the way it is done in real combat. Example; some instructors adhere to the movements and body positioning exactly ever time. If you step forward and punch at chest height that is the way it is taught.

Problem... not everyone is the same height. Not every attack will be thrown with a particular leg leading. If students are not taught to be critical thinkers and they are not shown that not everything fits into a neat little package then they are doomed to failure. So I agree with your statement in some respects but I think you are tucking all "traditional" training into the same little neat box. Can't be done.

The problem becomes when the TMA practitioners start making ridiculous claims like because they practice eye gouges it makes them more effective in "real fights". The issue is, because they don't actually gouge anybodies eye's out, when it comes right down to it, they can't actually DO that.

I must of missed the post on eye gouges.

Either way it comes down to training methodology again. You are putting every "traditional" art into a neat little box.

There are those (not going to say more) that were rough in their earlier years and would put to practice what they learned to find out if things really work or not. So a broad statement that "you don't know because you haven't done" doesn't exactly fit all.

However you are right in terms of techniques like eye gouges. No instructor would willfully allow their students to gouge out another students eyes. However there are other ways to train as you probably well know. I'm not taking about in the air against no resistance. 1. you can condition the weapon by use of Hojo Undo (makiwara, Jaribako to name a few). 2. you can practice with the use of a target on a rope or focus mitts to develop the timing. 3.you can target a specific small target on your opponents chest while in resistive training. You get my point.

I don't know if this makes one more effective or not. However I will say that because these are within the curriculum that is practiced, they are a tool in the arsenal.

Look I know there are a huge amount of ridiculous claims of "deadly techniques" out there and most of them are perpetrated by absolute frauds. However this does not negate the fact that there are techniques that are taught that are deadly IF you are able to use them against a resistive fighter. But just because an art teaches these does not mean one knows how to use them OR can actually use them effectively against a moving resisting target bent on tearing your face off. Like any other technique or application it must be practiced both in the learning stages and under duress in order to be able to use it effectively. But then again I think this rings true with just about any technique from a simple punch to a choke hold. Practice makes perfect.

Look there is nothing mystical about traditional arts. If practiced as they were invented they are an effective combat method to protect yourself. And I don't think there should be this competition between MMA and any other art. They are both fighting methodologies. And both have advantages and disadvantages. No fighting method is perfect. If it were there would be no other form of fighting taught. Everyone gets beat sooner or later.

I have nothing against MMA. In fact I would love to learn how to ground fight. It's my biggest weakness. And for me at my age, the last thing I would ever do is get into the ring with someone that would turn me into a human pretzel. However I think that most MMA guys sell old school arts short based on examples of modern day examples.

I would point out that the arts (minus BJJ) in MMA are traditional arts. They have a place at the warriors table. But I would conceed that most including myself do not train for what most would call a work day everyday of the week and most do not get into a cage. However that does not detract the fact that someone that has dedicated their lives, or most of it, to learning a combative art is any less than any other practitioner. Training methods might differ, methods of attack and defense might differ, and the methodology might differ between arts but when all is said and done they are effective as they were invented based on what was learned on the field of battle during struggles for life.

We all have strengths and weaknesses. If MMA has no weaknesses how is it that someone with relatively no training in any other art can dominate (albeit for a short time) and why is there not a specified grouping of arts that make up a super art that is undefeatable?

It's simple because it comes down to the fighter themselves. Their mentality, natural abilities, knowledge, and their uniqueness. An art is only as good as the one utilizing it. So the argument over which art is the best is pointless to me. In the end it falls on the individual using the art(s) not the art(s) themselves. BJJ would not have been so successful if Royce lost. It's an unbelievably effective art that has changed the way fighter view the ground game.

However if he was mediocre the UFC would have dwindled into oblivion and we wouldn't be able to have this lively discussion.