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

[Sagacious Lu]

Most MMA guys won't do it because it actually takes SKILL that takes time to acquire and not just toughness and professional athlete level conditioning to win.

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

[Uke]

Obviously. But it's pretty close, and it's certainly the closest humane way to train for combat to date.

Bullshit.

You could go out and learn more about combat by attending the Dog Brother's open tournaments a few times than you could doing MMA for years. But guess what? Most MMA guys won't do it because it actually takes SKILL that takes time to acquire and not just toughness and professional athlete level conditioning to win.

This is a great point because most people who want to learn how to protect themselves won't be in the shape that a professional athlete is in. But they CAN still be effective if they use the most efficient methods and 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.

If a guy who is 150lbs fights a guy who is 225lbs using MMA, he's going to get into trouble. He can get lucky and I STRESS luck, but the odds are against him. He'd be basically kickboxing the bigger guy, as those are the skills that MMA push for in their fighters. Once the bigger guy landed one solid shot the smaller guy would not only be hurt, but even if he wasn't he'd be hesitant to continue fighting.

And by the way J-Luck, I'm not underestimating anyone or anything. Whatever MMA fighters do, there's a traditional martial artist that does it better. Put an MMA fighter in a kickboxing event and they get knocked out. Put them in a grappling tournament and they get tapped or choked out. Put them in the boxing ring and they'll catch a terrible beating.

So where is it that I'm underestimating something, J-Luck?

So much so that the Army has already adopted it as it's empty handed combatitives and even uses Bjj techniques to fight against knives

The army has adopted everything as some point or another. Boxing. Kickboxing. Kung fu. Karate. Judo. Jujitsu. Ninjitsu for stealth methods. Wrestling. So don't go on about MMA being special because the army took a stab at it. People train in MMA to be competitive, not to learn to survive. And by the way, every newaza technique you see isn't BJJ. Newaza was jujitsu way before the Brazilians knew what jujitsu was.

No boxing champs yet cuz of money issue

And there probably won't be boxing champs for decades. Not only because of the money, but because boxers, unlike MMA fighters, know who they are. They don't pretend to be something that they're not. They know that just because they can throw a decent kick doesn't make them a thai boxer. They know that just because they can fall backwards with someone in their guard doesn't make them a BJJ player. They know who they are and master their craft, something MMA fighters never seem to do. Jack of all trades but master of none.

A cougar can paint all the stripes he wants on himself, but he'll never be a tiger.

[J-Luck]

Exactly. Its like a Civil War reenactment. Its as close as you can come to reality without the reality. You've got the uniforms and guns with no bullets.

Let me ask you something: What's the difference between kickboxing in the old days of Chuck Norris and Bill Wallace and MMA of today aside from the BJJ thrown in? The answer is that there is no difference except kickboxers were better at standup. They still are today, as we see MMA fighters getting knocked out left and right once they venture out of the waters of mediocrity and into elite kickboxing events like K-1.

The same thing happens once MMA fighters wander over to elite grappling events like the Abu Dhabi.

In other words, the so called evolution that is MMA is great as long as they stay in the pond where their talents are about equal.



Now you've made it clear that you full of shit. How is everything in MMA geared towards practicality and they will circle each other for sometimes over a minute before engaging each other? That's practical? Is that supposed to be "as close to reality as you can get"? Are flying armbars and flopping to the guard a part of that practicality too? Is shooting in practical when you don't know what you're shooting into?



Get the hell out of here. Those are the exception, not the rule. For every MMA match that ended quickly you've got 20 more than went to the cards. I've seen Gracie have a match that lasted over 20 minutes. His match was Severn was a classic case of what I'm talking about. You'd call Gracie's fight with Severn reality? It was a submission wrestling match, not the kind of encounter you'd see in a street environment.



How many times have we seen two MMA fighters brawl it out in the ring? When Wanderlei Silva got his ass beat by Vitor Belfort, he knew Belfort was the superior striker, but he attacked strength anyway. When Ken Shamrock fought Don Frye, he knew Don Frye was the bigger and stronger man, and he knew his own strength was NOT striking, but he attacked strength anyway. Same when Minowa decided to duke it out with Baroni. Minowa knew he was over-matched but wanted to show how tough he was. The list goes on and on and on.



First off, in a street fight there is no fight until the people are in striking distance. None of that bullshit that you see in the ring. Until people are within arms reach, there is no fight. And once you're in close quarters, you keep it there as best as you can and finish it. You don't push the guy away, put your hands up and start circling. You seriously watch too much television if that's your idea of reality.

And sorry to burst yet another of your bubbles, but both parties do not always get hurt in street fights. Well, if they're fighting like you they might. That says something about your own training if you think that before even going in you WILL definitely get hurt.

I agree with 2 points here. Fights rarely are over in seconds and if I'm in a fight I'm makin sure I don't get hurt(though it doesn't always work that way).

Other than that... again, you are underestimating MMA.

And your examples of MMA guys are hardly well founded. You're talking STRICTLY MMA guys. Like trained from the beggining MMA. Most MMA guys started off, wrestlers, bjj practioners, judoka, thai boxers, boxers, and such. Some of them(not the majority, but a large enough minority to be taken seriously) are amongst the elite in their respective categories(abu dhabi champions, k-1 champs, and such. No boxing champs yet cuz of money issue).

[J-Luck]

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?

Obviously. But it's pretty close, and it's certainly the closest humane way to train for combat to date. So much so that the Army has already adopted it as it's empty handed combatitives and even uses Bjj techniques to fight against knives(and they do this full contact, using a stungun in place of a knife).

You underestimate MMA too much, but your basic point isn't far from the truth.

[Uke]

MMA is NOT self defense, but it is about as close as it comes to being in an unarmed one on one fight.

Exactly. Its like a Civil War reenactment. Its as close as you can come to reality without the reality. You've got the uniforms and guns with no bullets.

Let me ask you something: What's the difference between kickboxing in the old days of Chuck Norris and Bill Wallace and MMA of today aside from the BJJ thrown in? The answer is that there is no difference except kickboxers were better at standup. They still are today, as we see MMA fighters getting knocked out left and right once they venture out of the waters of mediocrity and into elite kickboxing events like K-1.

The same thing happens once MMA fighters wander over to elite grappling events like the Abu Dhabi.

In other words, the so called evolution that is MMA is great as long as they stay in the pond where their talents are about equal.

MMA seeks to do the exact same thing. Practicality in every component included.

Now you've made it clear that you full of shit. How is everything in MMA geared towards practicality and they will circle each other for sometimes over a minute before engaging each other? That's practical? Is that supposed to be "as close to reality as you can get"? Are flying armbars and flopping to the guard a part of that practicality too? Is shooting in practical when you don't know what you're shooting into?

When you set you people of roughly equal skill together, it will almost undoubtly take time for the one who is either more skilled or more cunning to emerge the victor.
Lets take chess as an example. Suppose you put 2 chess grandmasters in a chess match. It can be hours before a victor emerges. But if you put a beginner agaisnt one of these masters, he/she will undoubtly lose very fast.
How long did each of Royce's opponents last in the first UFC? Not very long.
Heck, lets just take that Karate guy from the first UFC, Gerrad. How long did his opponent last? 30 seconds?
How long did Wanderlei sliva last agaisnt Vitor Belfort? 44 seconds?

Get the hell out of here. Those are the exception, not the rule. For every MMA match that ended quickly you've got 20 more than went to the cards. I've seen Gracie have a match that lasted over 20 minutes. His match was Severn was a classic case of what I'm talking about. You'd call Gracie's fight with Severn reality? It was a submission wrestling match, not the kind of encounter you'd see in a street environment.

You are talking out of your ass here. MMA has never been about strength vs strength. Strength vs Weakness has been the goal everytime. If the former were true, then royce gracie would have never won he first UFC, hell he would have never proceeded past the first fight.
If i know that my strength is in taking my opponent to the ground and submitting him and my opponent's weakness happens to be his inability to fight on the ground, then obviously i will take him down and submit him. Or vice versa (Chuck Liddell anyone?)

How many times have we seen two MMA fighters brawl it out in the ring? When Wanderlei Silva got his ass beat by Vitor Belfort, he knew Belfort was the superior striker, but he attacked strength anyway. When Ken Shamrock fought Don Frye, he knew Don Frye was the bigger and stronger man, and he knew his own strength was NOT striking, but he attacked strength anyway. Same when Minowa decided to duke it out with Baroni. Minowa knew he was over-matched but wanted to show how tough he was. The list goes on and on and on.

So now jabbing and a couple of kicks are dangerous and uncautious actions? I'd hate to see 2 street fighters being "cautious". The very fact that a person is fighting on the street is in it self being the opposite of cautious. By fighting on the street there is only one outcome. You will get hurt. It just boils down to who will get hurt more, you or your opponent?

First off, in a street fight there is no fight until the people are in striking distance. None of that bullshit that you see in the ring. Until people are within arms reach, there is no fight. And once you're in close quarters, you keep it there as best as you can and finish it. You don't push the guy away, put your hands up and start circling. You seriously watch too much television if that's your idea of reality.

And sorry to burst yet another of your bubbles, but both parties do not always get hurt in street fights. Well, if they're fighting like you they might. That says something about your own training if you think that before even going in you WILL definitely get hurt.

[Shard]

Maybe I`l come back to the forum in another 4years and see if you are any further forward caus at the moment your stagnent, like an old pond. I mean there are some really stupid posts out there.

You fail at posting. When you come back in four years please spend some of that time learning how to type. That or kill yourself.

[WuChi]

That reffers to no style btw. The fact that only a moron would say oh, hes a so and so. Unless he is a mindless robot,he will be active and human, when the going gets tough real human nature presents intself.

[WuChi]

style matters somewhat. thats why mma fighters favor training in certain arts over others.

"In the world there are always braggart who Think themselves clever. They say of a fighter boxing that at one glance they know. They do not realise that while the onece knew it if they look again they wont know it."
Chang.
DIY, is what you want but I dont care if you dont believe me, you couldent comprehend.

[WuChi]

Maybe I`l come back to the forum in another 4years and see if you are any further forward caus at the moment your stagnent, like an old pond. I mean there are some really stupid posts out there.

[WuChi]

That being said, MMA is NOT self defense, but it is about as close as it comes to being in an unarmed one on one fight. If you can't even handle yourself in a simple controlled enviroment. What in the blue hell makes you think that anyone will be able to handle themselves out the T3h STr33T? Sure you have groin kicks and weapons and friends, but out there, the other guy probably has those things too.[/QUOTE]

Ok what is self defence, I can defend myself, Iv done hard ma for 7years, but when I was about 14-5 I didnt give a toss, I could still defend myself though. Its about mental preperation , and heart. I would kill someone before they beat me, that is self defence. Even if I done it with a nail gun.

"Out there".... lol, a bet your "IN-There", in the house shitting yer pants because you aint got the danglies.

[WuChi]

2 words: Spell Check.

The reason people quarrel over which martial art is superior is because it is their way of trying to find confirmation that they have picked the right martial art to train in. Also, people have got to stop using the same "it's not the art it's the fighter" bullshit time and time again. True that the fighter's qualities and traits matter but it's his training that teaches him and prepares him for the battle.

what are you on about you clown. Obviously its the training , but its up to the bloody fighter to train and prepare, stop talking trash. Im not saying the journey isnt important, but its the fighter who is more important, no doubt. And you show that you spend more time talking than doing, the reason I dont speel check is because I cant be bothered. And that is becasue anything that is said cant even be understood by people, they will take off on a tangent and mess it up. Im a member of the British Neuro Reaserch formums, and my grammer is just great, probably because the peole im speaking to have sense and respect. Man dont make me laugh.

[Shard]

Fear not. I wasn't writing to get a response from you or anyone else. I wrote just in case someone new read what was written and thought there was actually something noble or ancient about what some of you are trying to liken MMA to these days

.
In that case, i'm writing this just in case someone new reads the thread and thinks what you just said was actually real and not pulled out of your ass.

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.

True enough. MMA as we know it today has only roughly been around still the mid-90's. However, the concept of MMA has been around at least since the time of the Greeks. Your modern olympics was probably born out of the ancient pankration fights that the greeks held. Pankration is more or less MMA. It focused on striking techniques as well as wrestling for dominance on the ground.
In fact, the idea of a martial artist focusing on a single range of combat is a far more modern concept than 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 seeks to do the exact same thing. Practicality in every component included. Why Thai boxing? Because punches and knees are some of the most effective weapons to use a combat situation. And the method by which muay thai trains such techniques are tested and true.
Why does MMA bother with the ground? Because it is dangerous to ignore such a range. Groundwork in MMA is not limited to BJJ. The goal of whatever techniques learnt in MMA is to be able to overcome one's opponent in the fastest time possible.
The techniques in MMA can give the smaller guy an advantage. But there are limits. Weight makes does make a difference whether you like it or not.

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.

When you set you people of roughly equal skill together, it will almost undoubtly take time for the one who is either more skilled or more cunning to emerge the victor.
Lets take chess as an example. Suppose you put 2 chess grandmasters in a chess match. It can be hours before a victor emerges. But if you put a beginner agaisnt one of these masters, he/she will undoubtly lose very fast.
How long did each of Royce's opponents last in the first UFC? Not very long.
Heck, lets just take that Karate guy from the first UFC, Gerrad. How long did his opponent last? 30 seconds?
How long did Wanderlei sliva last agaisnt Vitor Belfort? 44 seconds?

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 fighters do seek to end the fight as quickly as possible. But things are easier said than done. I may try to kick my opponent in the head to knock him out. But that doesn't mean he won't defend agaisnt the kick. If i take him to the ground and attempt to submit him, if he knows what he's doing, he will attempt to defend agaisnt that submission. Its not so simple as just FINISHING 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.

You are talking out of your ass here. MMA has never been about strength vs strength. Strength vs Weakness has been the goal everytime. If the former were true, then royce gracie would have never won he first UFC, hell he would have never proceeded past the first fight.
If i know that my strength is in taking my opponent to the ground and submitting him and my opponent's weakness happens to be his inability to fight on the ground, then obviously i will take him down and submit him. Or vice versa (Chuck Liddell anyone?)

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

So how would mounting a person and pounding his face in not count as "taking advanatge of unawareness" give the opponents unawareness about the ground?

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.

Hmmm...

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.

So now jabbing and a couple of kicks are dangerous and uncautious actions? I'd hate to see 2 street fighters being "cautious". The very fact that a person is fighting on the street is in it self being the opposite of cautious. By fighting on the street there is only one outcome. You will get hurt. It just boils down to who will get hurt more, you or your opponent?



That being said, MMA is NOT self defense, but it is about as close as it comes to being in an unarmed one on one fight. If you can't even handle yourself in a simple controlled enviroment. What in the blue hell makes you think that anyone will be able to handle themselves out the T3h STr33T? Sure you have groin kicks and weapons and friends, but out there, the other guy probably has those things too.

[Juicefree]

Hey, what's wrong with re-enactment ? In Fair England we've been living in the past for 150 years !!

We're forever polising our muskets !

[Uke]

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.

Let me get this straight ... Unless I write something new about something old that hasn't changed in years and is being viewed and accepted as everything I wrote above by any serious non-sportive gym, I'm not supposed to write anything and shut up?

I guess writing about how Bruce Lee would do in the UFC for the past 3 years or discussing how other arts might do in NHB like it was fantasy football appeals to you more?

Fear not. I wasn't writing to get a response from you or anyone else. I wrote just in case someone new read what was written and thought there was actually something noble or ancient about what some of you are trying to liken MMA to these days.

Heheh ... If you don't want people to comment, stop being so damn funny by comparing yourselves to gladiators when you guys are more like a Civil War reenactment shooting blanks.

[Bjjexpertise@be]

Pancrase dates back to the times of ancient Greece and was actually one of the Olympic sports one could compete in. Pancrase was just as popular as Wrestling and Boxing. This sport only began to die out after the Romans took over and tried to make this sport more "interesting" by introducing gloves with spikes into this sport. These gloves removed much of the technical aspect of the game and soon died out (a lot of famous pankrationists even refused to partake in this new 'bloodsport' because of the supposed lack of skill).

As an interesting fact, probably the three most popular sports were Wrestling, Boxing, and Pancration. A competitor in one event would most likely compete in the others as well. The sport that was regarded to be most dangerous wasn't Pancration, however, but boxing. Just about all the competitors requested for their Pancration matches to be first so they could compete in the boxing event without injuries.

Yeah I wrote an english paper on MMA a year ago .