Uke

Actually, MMA fighters favor the method that they do because it makes for more competitive fights, not because its the most effective way to end a fight.

MMA has been around since about 1996-1997. Some NHB veterans created a style comprised of ring techniques to make some of the younger guys more competitive. Low thai boxing kicks. Decent boxing hand skills. Decent wrestling and submission skills. They basically made a crash course in boxing and kickboxing along with submission wrestling and taught it to most of the new guys who wanted to compete.

Some people love to say that MMA is predicated and shows what works, but it totally neglects the close quarter range aside from some thai knees. MMA, and systems like say ... kajukenbo are NOT the same.

Kajukenbo is an eclectic style, but it isn't a mixed martial art in the same regard as MMA. Kajukenbo and other styles that are eclectic are combined over time after seeking practicality in every component that they include. These arts were created so that weaker opponents could stand a chance and survive an attack against stronger opponents.

MMA is a system of ring proven techniques including BJJ that are meant to help a fighter pace himself, keep a certain distance and go for a couple of rounds. While every MMA fighter would love to win as quickly as possible, we often see that they don't and such is the necessity for rounds.

Very few styles, including traditional martial arts are 100% of themselves. Most styles borrow ideas and methods from other systems and styles. Whether is a choke, hold, lock or even certain strikes can be seen in many systems, but were borrowed from another source.

But the difference between those TMA's and MMA's is that the TMA's devoted to self defense were always seeking a quick conclusion and developed their methods towards getting them. MMA's create professional athletes that can circle each other for 3 or 4 rounds, jabbing and throwing low kicks and the occasional high roundhouse, until one guy executes a throw or shoots in and tries to make it a ground affair, neither ending the fight.

MMA pits strength against strength, which has NEVER been the goal of combat. You're supposed to attack weakness, not strength. TMA systems have always relied on counter attacking, although there are times when a strong offense needs to be used. But even then it works off surprise, or an explosive, abrupt initiation. This is why so many people have been lost and think that they've reinvented the wheel with MMA. They don't realize that there is a difference between self defense and dueling(MMA).

In self defense, you attack weakness or take advantage of unawareness.

MMA is basically a duel, or mutually agreed upon combat. All your cards are on the table. Your opponent knows you're going to attack. Your opponent knows how you generally fight. You and your opponent both KNOW that the worst that is going to happen is getting knocked unconscious, and therefore don't mind taking unnecessary risks and won't fight as cautiously because you KNOW that your life isn't on the line.

You don't have the luxury of that knowledge beforehand in reality. You don't have the luxury of knowing that you won't get gang stomped if you lay on the ground to work submissions. You can't tap out. You can get stabbed or shot at any point. So you HAVE to fight differently because the combat environment is different.

Combat is about survival against unknown odds.

MMA is about imposing your will against an opponent that has agreed to follow rules so that the damage can only go but so far. No subtleties. No awareness. No weapons, which is as real as it gets.

If anyone thinks that reality fighting is based on mutually agreed combat, then they need to get their money back from whatever gym has been selling them fool's gold. Knowing that the worst that can happen in a fight is something other than death changes everything completely. It becomes a different animal. Its like changing a bull into a cow. They both look similar, but which would you rather play matador with?

__________________
A solar panel 100 miles by 100 miles (161x161km) in the Mojave Desert (USA) could replace all the coal now burned to generate electricity in the entire U.S.