Mixed Martial Arts, One of the oldest forms of fighting.

[Uke]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

It's strange, Uke. I think that concern with how one art stacks up against another is both the single greatest failing and the single greatest strength within the martial arts world. It's a paradox, I know, but think about it. By being so concerned about which art or style is better, you get a collection of people who'll likely never reach any measure of their potential because they're always doubting their own path. You also develop the mindset that it must be one way or another. Asking which style is better assumes that one must be worse, and that keeps people from taking what works for them from anywhere they find it. That is, after all, what any real warrior throughout history has done, isn't it? Learned anything that would give him an advantage in battle, regardless of where it came from?

At the same time, competition spurs evolution. We wouldn't see nearly as many people cross training and trying to become well-rounded fighters today were it not for MMA popping up. Bruce Lee tried it, but even he couldn't win over the masses like MMA did. Now everyone - even non-fighters - will tell you you have to be well rounded to win a fight. They're still in competition mindset, but it's a step in the right direction. After all, I think we can both agree that there's no fightsport more limited by the rules of its conduct than boxing, but we can both still get on board there, right? Why should MMA be any different? It encourages people to "mix" their martial arts, and I think in the long run, that's a good thing.

This topic is getting interesting...

A couple of things.

I am not discussing what is better. I am pointing out some details to those who preach that MMA is the sum of all combat.

Warriors have learned what will help them in combat. But being that it is the consensus that MMA is not combat, but a sportive mock-reality event that pits kickboxers against each other with an element of ground submission wrestling, this becomes a point to debate only if we wish to waste each other's time.

Competition does NOT spur evolution, Mike Brewer. Necessity does. That's why you haven't seen any changes in MMA since NHB events spawned it. The entire reason that MMA came to be is because fighters needed a way to be able to find a way to deal with brazilian jujitsu while continuing to hone their stand up skills. Hence, the crash course that is MMA was born. But you haven't seen any innovations since because there was no need for one. That's why SD and UC systems are much more intricate, thorough and practical. Systems like FMA were fighting against knives, which meant they were fighting for survival. Not some quick fix answer to do better in mock competitions.

Its a known fact that when there is a necessity, an art will evolve and flourish to meet the needs of the people. Judo was brutal until Kano refined it and made it sportive. Aikijitsu was a maiming art before Ueshiba found religion and made it Aikido. Karate was a vicious fighting style where everything was full contact and the sparring alone was as intense as today's MMA. Now we're just talking about the sparring.

Last but not least, the creators of MMA did not do what Bruce Lee was attempting to do. Actually, they're doing the opposite. Bruce was an advocate of each man finding his own way, and his own methods while adhering to certain scientific and common sense principles. When you look at Bruce's students, their movements were different because they had different body types. You can't teach Kareem Abdul Jabbar to fight like Dan Inosanto, because they're two way different body types with different attributes. People are unique. So, he enhanced what was strong about those men and attempted to compensate for what was weak. MMA just teaches kickboxing with some submission wrestling, and because those two ranges are different they called it mixed martial arts. Its hardly the same thing.

In eclectic arts, the system may borrow certain strikes and techniques from other styles, but the methods are completely different. Just because a style uses a low thai roundhouse or knees doesn't mean that your approach to fighting will be that of a thai fighter. Just because you system uses hooks and uppercuts doesn't mean that you use a boxer's approach to fighting.

In MMA, when they adopt techniques, they also adopt the approach of using the technique from the system of its origin. If they want to call it reality, they should make the ring the size of an office elevator. They should have to stay in close quarters and forget about the posturing bullshit, because in the street there is no range except for CQ unless you're in a shoot out. But guess what? That would take away the entertainment value and they would lose money. And in the end, that's what its all about to the men who own these events.

[Mike Brewer]

I agree with you but your point is equally valid for all sportsmen although for some reason Uke wants to exclude MMA. MMA fighters as a whole don't worry whether they can beat a judoka in a judo comp. or a boxer in a boxing match because they train for their rule set.

Nonsense. I can point out dozens of examples of kickboxers who moved over to MMA, Wrestlers who moved to Sambo, MMA, or Pride, and all manner of martial artisits from different disciplines who felt they had to prove something beyond their style. Ken Shamrock, Keith Hackney, and plenty of others fit this bill. Lu, I don't know if you've ever trained regularly at a boxing gym or not, and I won't make assumptions. But I can tell you that in all the gyms and with all the boxers I've ever trained, no boxer has ever showed the same concern for whether or not his skills would measure up in some other sport as almost every martial artist out there. If you need proof, just can through or do a search in any martial arts forum on the web for posts like "Which art would win in a fight?" Then go look for anything of the sort on a boxing forum.

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by pUke

If they want to call it reality, they should make the ring the size of an office elevator.

.......................

[Mike Brewer]

And Uke, I think you're losing me. You're vastly oversimplifying MMA, my friend. It has developed, and there have been major evolutions in how the game is played. I can cite for you a very clear example using one man as the common denominator - Matt Hughes. Gracie used to beat everyone, and Matt proved that conditioning and a familiarity with srtiking could supplement the ground game and provide an serious advantage. He ruined the guy who built the sport. Then, along comes St. Pierre. St. Pierre was even more well-rounded, but instead of going to the ground, he preferred to gear his strategy toward shutting it down and hone his strikes. His well roundedness and conditioning paid off. That's not only a difference in strategy - it's an evolution within a sport. The good strikers from even two or three years ago are being outpaced by the good strikers of today. Look at Rich Franklin. Look at Hughes. Saying that MMA is not evolving is like saying boxing hasn't evolved since Dempsey's heyday.

And competition does indeed stimulate evolution because it provides a cross section of the training public with the very neccesity you're referring to.

The last thing I want to do is rekindle a tired old debate about the value of MMA. But the fact is, if you can see some combative value for boxing, then it shouldn't be much of a stretch for you to see some in MMA as well. Both are sports, after all, and one is vastly more limited than the other.

[J-Luck]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

J-Luck,
I'm not trying to take sides here, I swear. I have agreed with the majority of things you post here, and I have seen eye to eye with Uke (especially about sport fighting) on many occasions as well, so I have no dog in this fight.

However, I'd like to submit a comment for your consideration. Uke mentioned that boxers don't care about how their skills match up outside their own sport. He also mentioned that most MMA guys get beaten when they try their hand at events like K-1 where the rules are specifically tailored to a different kind of fighting. I don't think he's contesting that MMA guys have lots of impressive achievements in their backgrounds. I think the point (or one of them) is that once a fighter chooses MMA, that's really all his skill set supports. Sure, a good MMA guy can be average at boxing or kickboxing, but he's still best at MMA. Slap a different set of rules on him, and he loses something. It's true that only a limited number of MMA guys have done well in events like K-1, and fewer (none that I'm aware of, although Berto comes from an MMA family) have parlayed their athleticism or hand skills into success in the much higher paying world of boxing.

I don't think the argument is that MMA guys can't fight outside their own set of rules. Rather, I think it's that they will always fight better within them. Most streetfighters would fail miserably in a MMA event. Most boxers would lose pitifully at a sport BJJ event. Those are things that we can accept without egos being bruised, so why get defensive about someone saying that MMA guys are the same as the rest of us?

I agree 100%! My only point was that I could name plenty of wrestlers, sub grapplers, bjj practioners, judoka, kickboxers, muay thai fighters, sambo fighters, and so on that have done very well within those systems, and THEN IN MMA. I firmly believe in order to learn true self defense one cross-trains. Maybe I mean MY brand of MMA is truly effective(by that I mean training in multiple arts in order to become proficient in them all... not dabling here and there hoping to pick up a move or two as you progress. I believe that's what Uke is assuming MMA is. Where most MMA guys fall is somewhere in the middle of what him and I think.

[Mike Brewer]

Originally Posted by J-Luck

I agree 100%! My only point was that I could name plenty of wrestlers, sub grapplers, bjj practioners, judoka, kickboxers, muay thai fighters, sambo fighters, and so on that have done very well within those systems, and THEN IN MMA. I firmly believe in order to learn true self defense one cross-trains. Maybe I mean MY brand of MMA is truly effective(by that I mean training in multiple arts in order to become proficient in them all... not dabling here and there hoping to pick up a move or two as you progress. I believe that's what Uke is assuming MMA is. Where most MMA guys fall is somewhere in the middle of what him and I think.

Fair enough, and I think you're right. Cross training is essential, and I agree with you that in microcosym, MMA has shown that well.

[J-Luck]

Originally Posted by Uke

A couple of things.

I am not discussing what is better. I am pointing out some details to those who preach that MMA is the sum of all combat.

Warriors have learned what will help them in combat. But being that it is the consensus that MMA is not combat, but a sportive mock-reality event that pits kickboxers against each other with an element of ground submission wrestling, this becomes a point to debate only if we wish to waste each other's time.

Competition does NOT spur evolution, Mike Brewer. Necessity does. That's why you haven't seen any changes in MMA since NHB events spawned it. The entire reason that MMA came to be is because fighters needed a way to be able to find a way to deal with brazilian jujitsu while continuing to hone their stand up skills. Hence, the crash course that is MMA was born. But you haven't seen any innovations since because there was no need for one. That's why SD and UC systems are much more intricate, thorough and practical. Systems like FMA were fighting against knives, which meant they were fighting for survival. Not some quick fix answer to do better in mock competitions.

Its a known fact that when there is a necessity, an art will evolve and flourish to meet the needs of the people. Judo was brutal until Kano refined it and made it sportive. Aikijitsu was a maiming art before Ueshiba found religion and made it Aikido. Karate was a vicious fighting style where everything was full contact and the sparring alone was as intense as today's MMA. Now we're just talking about the sparring.

Last but not least, the creators of MMA did not do what Bruce Lee was attempting to do. Actually, they're doing the opposite. Bruce was an advocate of each man finding his own way, and his own methods while adhering to certain scientific and common sense principles. When you look at Bruce's students, their movements were different because they had different body types. You can't teach Kareem Abdul Jabbar to fight like Dan Inosanto, because they're two way different body types with different attributes. People are unique. So, he enhanced what was strong about those men and attempted to compensate for what was weak. MMA just teaches kickboxing with some submission wrestling, and because those two ranges are different they called it mixed martial arts. Its hardly the same thing.

In eclectic arts, the system may borrow certain strikes and techniques from other styles, but the methods are completely different. Just because a style uses a low thai roundhouse or knees doesn't mean that your approach to fighting will be that of a thai fighter. Just because you system uses hooks and uppercuts doesn't mean that you use a boxer's approach to fighting.

In MMA, when they adopt techniques, they also adopt the approach of using the technique from the system of its origin. If they want to call it reality, they should make the ring the size of an office elevator. They should have to stay in close quarters and forget about the posturing bullshit, because in the street there is no range except for CQ unless you're in a shoot out. But guess what? That would take away the entertainment value and they would lose money. And in the end, that's what its all about to the men who own these events.

It's not 100% reality. But again, it's the closest thing. You're losing the whole point. Do you contend that a MMA who is proficient in lets say... bjj, wrestling, boxing, and kickbowing would not be able to come out of a situation in an elevator with a TMA ???? If so... you are truly out of your mind.

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by Bjjexpertise@be

3 years on these boards and it's always been the same sh*t, same argument. -sigh- all these argument have been argued to death. If you are not presenting a new argument please just shut up and don't post.

Very well said!

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by WuChi

Maybe I`l come back to the forum in another 4years .

Don't hurry. Make it ten years.

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by pUke

Most MMA guys won't do it because it actually takes SKILL that takes time to acquire

don't waste energy wrestling with a guy who might be twice their size. Proof that MMA isn't an efficient method is that it doesn't work once you're fighting someone significantly bigger than you.

Did you take an extra 'stupid' pill today, pUke?

[Uke]

Originally Posted by J-Luck

Your first point is just your opinion... and only a sub-par opinion at that. MMA is the sport version of Jeet Kun Do(though it has never been marketed that way, and didn't start off that way).

I have already addressed that, but its still just as stupid an uninformed as before.

Originally Posted by J-Luck

I already stated that there are plenty of elite in MMA. You can't see that, then you need to take your bias clouded goggles off.

The elite who participate in NHB events are NOT MMA fighter. They are traditional fighters who compete in NHB. Crocop is a TMA. Fedor Emelianenko is a TMA. Nogueira is a TMA. Kevin Randleman is a TMA. Mark Coleman is a TMA. Hidehiko Yoshida is a TMA.

Originally Posted by J-Luck

The army never adopted those. You are wrong. They adopted elements FROM them. Trained with their instructors. Never adopted them. This is official now. Bjj on the ground and stand up. Also MMA elements.

So now we're getting into semantics now? BJJ is NOT the official combat art of the armed forces. Do you know how many different systems and tactics the army goes through? This is not even a point worth debating.

Originally Posted by J-Luck

Lol again wrong. They don't join becuase of the reason I stated. Not because of your idiot antics.

If you read more carefully, you would have seen that I agreed with your point about the money. But its not just money.

I know you think you've dropped some knowledge here, but you haven't, Lucky. You haven't refuted even one point. You're repeating yourself and looking foolish doing it. I believe Mike Brewer was pretty much telling you this, but in a much more diplomatic manner. Read what he wrote to you reaaaaaaal slowly.

[Uke]

Originally Posted by jubaji

Did you take an extra 'stupid' pill today, pUke?

Wow, you're back Jubbi? You were so quiet for so long I thought you were on hiatus after you got embarrassed on that last topic.

Back with more one liners?

[Uke]

Originally Posted by J-Luck

It's not 100% reality. But again, it's the closest thing. You're losing the whole point. Do you contend that a MMA who is proficient in lets say... bjj, wrestling, boxing, and kickbowing would not be able to come out of a situation in an elevator with a TMA ???? If so... you are truly out of your mind.

That's not what I wrote or implied. You need to really work on your reading comprehension.

[WuChi]

Originally Posted by Sagacious Lu

This is, without exageration, one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on the internet.

I totally agree with you on that mate. as for the rest of you wanabe, why is it that you say things like. "boxers dont care how their STYLe fares out of the ring", thats fucking nonsense., if his life depended on it he would. And another point, I dont think peole are stupid enough these days to say hez a boxer, karate etc. He is a fucking human being, and the way he trained is important, but it will never change what he is. More corect way of saying it would be a " a fighter who trains in boxing", can you buy boxing, taekwon do etc? Theydont exist, only knowledge and abilities do. You dumbasses, with the exeption of Dick and a few others. The forum is full of intellegnet people, adn children unfortunately.

[jubaji]

Originally Posted by pUke

So now we're getting into semantics now? .

Oh, that's a funny charge coming from the likes of you!