MMA would never work in a real fight.

[Stealthy]

Title says it all...have fun

[Cyriacus]

Are you being Deliberately Provocative to some Gentlemen, Good Sir?

[Chris Parker]

Tell you what, I'm going to try to turn this into a real discussion.

Absolutely correct, it wouldn't. Mainly because it isn't designed to. But the same can be said of every single martial art that I can think of, honestly, as each are designed with a particular environment, situation, and aim in mind, with that environment, situation, and aim being particular to the system itself. MMA, for example, trains for the environment of the competitive engagement, the situation of individual competition, and the aim of winning by submission or knockout against a single opponent. None of which is the same as a real fight.

However, and it's a big "however", the training methodology and technical material that go into making up MMA can be adapted, utilised, or executed in a 'real fight' with great success. Fighting exactly as you would in a ring would be ill-advised, for a range of reasons, but the training can be highly effective when used for the aims of defending yourself. Just don't think that a ref will stop anyone else getting involved with the fight.

[Stealthy]

This is actually a good topic for discussion but if I am to contribute it is not in the For but rather the Against.

I do not believe MMA is no good for real fighting, there may be some bad habits that come from training with sports motivation and training techniques which can be exploited but all in all I would say MMA fighters are some of the most dangerous fighters you could face in a real world situation where weapons are not involved.

[Buka]

I think all training in Martial Arts has great benefits. MMA with it's scope of grappling, striking and endurance training would certainly be high on the list of arts likely to benefit self defense skills. As would any art whose training included an attention to discipline and Bushido.

[Cyriacus]

I think all training in Martial Arts has great benefits. MMA with it's scope of grappling, striking and endurance training would certainly be high on the list of arts likely to benefit self defense skills. As would any art whose training included an attention to discipline and Bushido.
Yes - To Imply that any Style wouldnt work in a Real Fight is perhaps a Fallacy. Some will perhaps be more Applicable than Others, but even the Conditioning would go a long way. Any Stylist who Practitions Contact Sparring will be more used to being Struck than just about anyone else can be, due to the Frequency of it.

[Steve]

What makes a fight "real?"

[Stealthy]

What makes a fight "real?"

You tell me.

[MJS]

I think Chris hit the nail on the head with his 2nd paragraph. Now, and I know some will disagree, which is fine, but I believe that, in addition to what he said, ie: that certain things can be adapted, that if the training is not geared towards a certain goal, the result you're seeking, probably wont happen.

No, IMO, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to kick someone in the groin, or hit someone in the eyes. I'm sure if I spent some time with my wife, a non martial artist, I'm sure I could get her to throw a kick to the groin or finger jab the eyes. But I do feel that training something in a repetitive fashion will allow the person to recall and apply those things more readily than someone who doesnt.

IMO, some of the biggest and most important things that someone trained in MMA will bring to the table is the contact, the aliveness, the resistance, and especially the cardio.

Please dont misunderstand....I'm not implying that someone who trains under Frank Shamrock, will crumble in a fight, but like every art, there are strengths and weaknesses in everything.

As far as whether or not any other art would work...well, IMO, many of the arts were designed for SD/war/fighting purposes, so that said, one would assume that they'd work, though IMO, things should be adapted to todays world. Yeah, I know, everyone still has 2 arms/legs, just like they did hundreds of years ago, however, things have changed, such as application of fighting, body size, athletic ability, etc.

[Steve]

You tell me.i asked first.

[Stealthy]

i asked first.

Okay then, how about any fight against an opponent intent on causing physical harm and not within the confines of an MMA competition or sparring session.

[MA-Caver]

What makes a fight "real?"
How about when the other guy doesn't give a damn about hurting you.

[Omar B]

Nope, only slapping someone with a Salmon works in a real fight.

[MA-Caver]

Nope, only slapping someone with a Salmon works in a real fight. and a rotted salmon to boot!

[JohnEdward]

Prior to MMA/BJJ, fights could to the ground. Usually that meant you got kick and stomped on, or someone sat on you and hit you; remember Christmas story? On the ground meant the a great disadvantage to the person on the ground. Well BJJ comes along and says you don't have to lose if you're on the ground. Then MMA evolves and history is made as it defeats BJJ. Reinstating you now have less of a chance on the ground of winning the fight. The other think MMA isn't exclusive. Anyone one can learn MMA. Keep in my that doesn't guarantee you as a winning street or ring fighter. No art does. What really has changed due to MMA it gives you more of a fighting change, and like any fight the winner is based on ability to perform well in the fight. To answer the question, the clothes make the man.

[Cyriacus]

What makes a fight "real?"
Ive wanted to say this for a while.

Apparently a Real Fight is when a Street Warrior Assaults You, and then you have a Battle, in which there are No Rules, and somehow MUST involve Wrestling at some point :P

[Steve]

If you're not in danger of contracting SARS or the bird/man/pig flu from dirty hypodermics littering the shores of rivers flowing with magma, while fighting gangs of ninja, it's not a real fight.

Anything less, though, and I have to believe that MMA training wouldn't hurt.

[Omar B]

Ive wanted to say this for a while.

Apparently a Real Fight is when a Street Warrior Assaults You, and then you have a Battle, in which there are No Rules, and somehow MUST involve Wrestling at some point :P

No, a real fight involves West Nile Virus.

[elder999]

A real fight:

k0YDuSLXcX8
:lfao:

[elder999]

double post, sorry....

[Stealthy]

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

[elder999]

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

Oh, okay.

ooFSFR2s7Ig

Better yet:

Ym9msqE6oYM

[Cyriacus]

If you're not in danger of contracting SARS or the bird/man/pig flu from dirty hypodermics littering the shores of rivers flowing with magma, while fighting gangs of ninja, it's not a real fight.

Anything less, though, and I have to believe that MMA training wouldn't hurt.

:D


No, a real fight involves West Nile Virus.

:D


A real fight:

k0YDuSLXcX8
:lfao:

Their Skulls, are so well Condi... Oh, wait, you cannot Condition your Skull :P


Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

Not quite what the Question was. The Lethality of a Fight is irrelevant to how the Fight Functions.
Im mainly addressing the Notion of all Street Fighters being Super Warrior Ninjas.


Oh, okay.

ooFSFR2s7Ig

Better yet:

Ym9msqE6oYM

:D



Color me Amused, Gentlemen. Color me Amused.

[frank raud]

Okay then, how about any fight against an opponent intent on causing physical harm and not within the confines of an MMA competition or sparring session.

So, would a judo match qualify?

[frank raud]

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.My personal preference in fights to the death is heavy weaponry and a shield, often my mother in law. Odd, she doesn't want to go out drinking with me anymore. If I can't have heavy weaponry, I find all my advanced training in no rules, no discipline, no structured fighting that I have never taken to the absolute pinnacle of my training(ie the death or either myself or my opponent(s)) is much more effective than the training that folks get by fighting not to the death against non-compliant partners> The big difference being I can take my training to the next level , because I train with no rules, whereas they train strictly under rules which limit them in their effectiveness. That's right I'm the deadly!

[Cyriacus]

My personal preference in fights to the death is heavy weaponry and a shield, often my mother in law. Odd, she doesn't want to go out drinking with me anymore. If I can't have heavy weaponry, I find all my advanced training in no rules, no discipline, no structured fighting that I have never taken to the absolute pinnacle of my training(ie the death or either myself or my opponent(s)) is much more effective than the training that folks get by fighting not to the death against non-compliant partners> The big difference being I can take my training to the next level , because I train with no rules, whereas they train strictly under rules which limit them in their effectiveness. That's right I'm the deadly!
...Until you die, to a Training Partner. :P

[Himura Kenshin]

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

While IMO a "real" fight would include elements of danger that could lead to serious injury or death this does not mean it has to be to the death. Look at Musashi. He didn't kill everyone he fought.

And while I am not the biggest fan of MMA, of course it could work in a real fight. Adapting training methodologies could quickly make the skills aquired in MMA suitable for personal defense, but there does have to be changes made just like with traditional systems.

[JohnEdward]

A real fight...hmmmm been in a few in my day. Knives where always an issue for those I fought. No such things as rules, MMA vs. Traditional. The criminals I fought often had experience, developing their own methodologies. That is what made it really dangerous, the unpredictable methodologies. That is what defines a real fight, is the unpredictabilities and the ability to cope with that. What defines the out come of a real fight isn't talk. A fighter works on several levels, not just one. These levels are attitude and intelligence, skill, experience and talent. The one who often loses is due to not having the right attitude and intelligence, talent, enough proper experience and then adequate skills in that order. It doesn't matter what you train in, MMA or not, there are some things that can't be taught to a person, i.e. natural talent, experience, a fire. It is true a well trained person in MMA is more likely to defeat a traditional martial artist who does it recreationally. That is sport vs. hobby. Sports wins. But that can also go the other way. Not everyone in MMA is a good fighter, MMA isn't a magic bullet. In a real fight does MMA work? Just as good as anything else in the right hands. Real fights are unpredictable, and it depends on who your are fighting. MMA is no different in this regard than any other art. I often refer to mass murders, and convicts too too dangerous to be with the rest of the prison population, and hard core experienced gang members, wise guys, etc. How much time do you think the most dangerous people in society spend training in MMA? The think people forget is MMA is a sport, a “mix of martial arts” practiced for sport. It doesn’t make you superman. MMA is effective, and a great tool. And any poor bastard can learn it. But, it is the person wheedling the art, the opponent being faced, and the situation at hand that makes it effective in a real fight. Just as other fighting methodologies.

[JohnEdward]

Oh and by the way, in here I posted recently a video showing an old MMA fight. Kimura Masahiko MMA before the 199Os and in Japan? (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?98392-Kimura-Masahiko-MMA-before-the-199Os-and-in-Japan) Where Kimura fights a guy and wins. Read the thread and it's comments. It was indicated by one poster that Kimura changed the fight from a pro to a real fight and that wasn't considered an MMA fight, by another poster. I beg to differ as it illustrates the points in my last post of a real fight is unpredictable as well as the others.

[Cyriacus]

A real fight...hmmmm been in a few in my day. Knives where always an issue for those I fought. No such things as rules, MMA vs. Traditional. The criminals I fought often had experience, developing their own methodologies. That is what made it really dangerous, the unpredictable methodologies. That is what defines a real fight, is the unpredictabilities and the ability to cope with that. What defines the out come of a real fight isn't talk. A fighter works on several levels, not just one. These levels are attitude and intelligence, skill, experience and talent. The one who often loses is due to not having the right attitude and intelligence, talent, enough proper experience and then adequate skills in that order. It doesn't matter what you train in, MMA or not, there are some things that can't be taught to a person, i.e. natural talent, experience, a fire. It is true a well trained person in MMA is more likely to defeat a traditional martial artist who does it recreationally. That is sport vs. hobby. Sports wins. But that can also go the other way. Not everyone in MMA is a good fighter, MMA isn't a magic bullet. In a real fight does MMA work? Just as good as anything else in the right hands. Real fights are unpredictable, and it depends on who your are fighting. MMA is no different in this regard than any other art. I often refer to mass murders, and convicts too too dangerous to be with the rest of the prison population, and hard core experienced gang members, wise guys, etc. How much time do you think the most dangerous people in society spend training in MMA? The think people forget is MMA is a sport, a “mix of martial arts” practiced for sport. It doesn’t make you superman. MMA is effective, and a great tool. And any poor bastard can learn it. But, it is the person wheedling the art, the opponent being faced, and the situation at hand that makes it effective in a real fight. Just as other fighting methodologies.

That, is very well phrased, I do say.
Very well Phrased Indeed.

[frank raud]

Oh and by the way, in here I posted recently a video showing an old MMA fight. Kimura Masahiko MMA before the 199Os and in Japan? (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?98392-Kimura-Masahiko-MMA-before-the-199Os-and-in-Japan) Where Kimura fights a guy and wins. Read the thread and it's comments. It was indicated by one poster that Kimura changed the fight from a pro to a real fight and that wasn't considered an MMA fight, by another poster. I beg to differ as it illustrates the points in my last post of a real fight is unpredictable as well as the others.

Kimura didn't changed the fight from a PRO WRESTLING match to a real fight, it was his opponent RIKIDOZAN. A MMA fight implies that it is fought under MMA rules, not that you ignore the script and do whatever you want.

[Sanke]

Look at Musashi. He didn't kill everyone he fought.

Haha, I like that. He didn't kill ALL of them... Just most :P
Then again, the ones he didn't kill were mostly in duels that were not to the death in the first place.
One of them where it was to the death, Musashi struck him on the head, which might have killed him, but he lived. His opponent soon after renounced his status, shaved his head and became a monk, living in isolation (at least, that's how it went from memory), so even when he didn't kill, he sure left an impression :P

[Sanke]

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic. It can happen when someone mentions Musashi :)
But to the topic at hand...


Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

I disagree completely. While there is certainly the chance of death or injury, I doubt your average drunkard who just happens to pick a fight with you cuz you looked at him funny is really going to attack you with the mindset of 'I'm going to kill this person'. He more likely just doesn't care how much he hurts you.

I also disagree with the idea of a fight being to the death from the perspective of the defender. If you have that mentality that every encounter is to the death, then you may resort to using more force than is nessisary, like, say, grabbing a nearby sharp object, bottle, etc, as you're fearing for your life.
Doesn't look to good on a police report if your reponce to someone throwing a punch is botling them in the face.
Of course, having not really had much experience in combat, this is all just so much opinion, but I do beleave that the mindset you have while training is what's gonna come out in a 'real' situation, and if you train with the idea that every attacker is aiming to kill you, you may end up becoming the attacker yourself.

[JohnEdward]

Kimura didn't changed the fight from a PRO WRESTLING match to a real fight, it was his opponent RIKIDOZAN.

Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet -Shakespeare

[Mz1]

I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets.

[Kong Soo Do]

I've posted the following here, my own board and on our association website. It has been well received and is intended to be informative and not verbally combative towards sports oriented practitioners. It assumes for the sake of discussion that 'MMA' is the type designed for competition rather than a cross-training venue in two or more SD related martial arts.



Self Defense Training MethodologyThere has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).


Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
The opponent is unarmed.
The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.


As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
There are no rules.
There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.


When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
Is the student required to observe certain rules?
Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.

This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.


Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;

Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.


Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

[MJS]

Prior to MMA/BJJ, fights could to the ground. Usually that meant you got kick and stomped on, or someone sat on you and hit you; remember Christmas story? On the ground meant the a great disadvantage to the person on the ground. Well BJJ comes along and says you don't have to lose if you're on the ground. Then MMA evolves and history is made as it defeats BJJ. Reinstating you now have less of a chance on the ground of winning the fight. The other think MMA isn't exclusive. Anyone one can learn MMA. Keep in my that doesn't guarantee you as a winning street or ring fighter. No art does. What really has changed due to MMA it gives you more of a fighting change, and like any fight the winner is based on ability to perform well in the fight. To answer the question, the clothes make the man.

Underlined part mine. Couldn't agree more with that!

[MJS]

Okay well it seems there is still a little confusion as to just exactly what a "real" fight is.

A "real" fight is to the Death.

I'll disagree with that.

[frank raud]

Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet -Shakespeare Twice I asked on the other thread, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? So I will ask again here, as you raise the previous thread as an example, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? What are the elements that make this MMA as opposed to two Judoka? When Ken Shamrock left the UFC and went to pbecome a pro wrestler, was he still doing MMa in your opinion, or was he doing pro wrestling?

[Cyriacus]

Twice I asked on the other thread, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? So I will ask again here, as you raise the previous thread as an example, What is it you are seeing that makes you think this is MMA or BJJ? What are the elements that make this MMA as opposed to two Judoka? When Ken Shamrock left the UFC and went to pbecome a pro wrestler, was he still doing MMa in your opinion, or was he doing pro wrestling?

Pro Wrestlers use MA Techniques.
The Comparison can be made, besides the fact that Wrestling is meant to be orchestrated.

[Cyriacus]

I think that people who are scared to fight, scared to spar hard, etc. are usually the ones thinking that MMA won't work on the streets.

Not exactly.
Thats similar to the Logic that Kata wouldnt work, due to a Lack of Full Contact during Practicing them, despite perhaps Partaking in Seperate Contact Sparring, which ought be the same thing.
Or that Side Kicks dont work in Kickboxing, without realising how sheerly many Variations of the Side Kick there are, and that any Heel Kick Variation can be quite Ruthless.

MMA is highly Subjective.
Like anything, its the Person Training it.
Theres a Thread in the MMA Forum here, asking why theres less Ground Game in MMA - To which I still reply, that MMA is not BJJ with Striking.
The thing is though, is that thats exactly how SOME People Train in it.

MMA, as someone else said, is not a Magical Win Button.
Its a Sport Style, which Mixs Martial Arts to suit its Purpose.

Ultimately, its Whos Learning it.

Now, I can understand your wanting to Defend MMA - And to clarify, I think it would Work in Fighting.
But Defend with the Right Reasoning in mind.
Not just an, "If he doesnt think MMA would work, it must be because hes Scared of it."

Thats my Contribution.

[frank raud]

Pro Wrestlers use MA Techniques.
The Comparison can be made, besides the fact that Wrestling is meant to be orchestrated.

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?

[JohnEdward]

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?

Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there. :)

[Chris Parker]

Thanks for the correction. In relation to the other thread, I still stand by: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet -Shakespeare

You seem to have missed the point of the Shakespeare quote you're using there, John. It's from Romeo and Juliet, when Juliet has realised that the dashing young lad she met at the party that night (he was actually looking for someone else, dog that he is...) is a member of a family that is the sworn enemy of her own. So she laments that fate has dealt such a cruel blow, and rails against the idea that his name is an obstacle. The quote in question is her whining, frankly, and she realises that it is unrealistic of her to hope for such things. It is not a statement, it is a fanciful wish from her.

MMA and BJJ are definitions referring to specific things, same as Montague was a specific name referring to members of a certain family, and no amount of "a rose by any other name" changes that.


Frank as wonderfully enchanting as this is, at this point we cross into thread drift and there is a thread already for this topic let's discuss it there. :)

Except that in the other thread you ducked Frank's question twice, and then said:

I think there is no need to continue.

So how about you answer the question, either here or there? What, in the clip you posted over there, do you identify as BJJ or MMA? If you answer here, then we can get an idea of what you think of when you refer to MMA (for the record, I don't think you get what it is), and if you answer there, then we can get an idea of what you think BJJ is (for the record, I don't think you get what that is, either), as well as correcting your history.

[Cyriacus]

Am I to understand the only difference between pro wrestling and MMA is wrestling is orchestrated? If any sport or organization uses MA techniques, does that automatically make them MMA sport or organizations? So Olympic wrestling, judo, muay thai and BJJ matches are automatically MMA as the techniques are used in MMA?
Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

[JohnEdward]

Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here. And again, there is a thread for that discussion.

[frank raud]

Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

[Chris Parker]

Do Wrestlers only use ONE Style?
If not, then they are Mixing Martial Arts.

Its all a matter of the Venue.

No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).


Chris, I prefer to stay on topic here. And again, there is a thread for that discussion.

Except that you refused to discuss it there, and it is on topic as the topic is MMA and it's applicability to a "real" fight. If you cannot define what it is that makes you think the clip you posted is MMA, how can we take any comment you make about MMA as informed, especially when it goes against what most others would call MMA.

[JohnEdward]

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

Based on the above Frank, you see that a real fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight and a real fight are not the same. But what if both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't be a real fight. But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?" Now that I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters, training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.

[Cyriacus]

For your benefit, here is the wikipedia entry on MMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts MMA has been recognised as a separate and distinct sport for about 18 years now. Just because a fighter(or "sport entertainment figure" in the case of pro wrestling) uses a technique that can be used in MMA, does not mean they are participating in MMA. Combining two or more martial arts does not make MMA, if it did such traditional arts as Judo(Kito-ryu and Tenshin-ryu), Wado-ryu (Shindo Yoshin-ryu and several forms of Karate, mainly Shotokan) would be considered MMA. The venue does not dictate the arts, the rules and traditions, however modern they may be, define the art. Two martial arts can be similar, that does not make them the same.

I should mention that I am not Referring to the Sport of MMA, but rather to MMA as a Whole.
Of Course MMA didnt "Exist" in the Past, in the Sense that it does now.
But the Point was never if it was or was not something which wasnt Technically Coined until later.
Enough about that, anyway. This isnt the Thread for it.

The Venue Decides Which MA they are Mixing.
And what I meant before, is that Wrestlers dont just Wrestle. It isnt just Wrestling, in the sense of Catch-As-Catch-Can, Collar-And-Elbow, or any other such thing. Its largely Organised Visualistic Performances, which can Incorporate Numerous Martial Arts or Styles.

Though at the same time, the Formal Naming of Combinations is seperable to Forms being Mixed.
I can see how you came to the conclusion you did - Such is merely a Flaw in the way Text may be Interprited.
I said that they were Mixing Martial Arts. Not that it was MMA.
I was being a bit more Literal than it may Perhaps seem. And to elaborate on that, the First Two Lines of this Reply ought do Swell.


No, as Frank said, it's not. Wrestling is a system based around a rule set, MMA is a system based around a different rule set. That makes them different systems. The question is more are they using the same rule set (or basic rule set, as it were).

I shall Reiterate that I was Likening Wrestling for Blending Styles, to Mixing Martial Arts, similar to how MMA does.
Not saying that Wrestling = MMA, or Using Multiple Styles = MMA.

This is perhaps more Obvious with Context, however.


Based on the above Frank, you see that a real fight is recognized as a distinct thing separate from MMA. Yep I would agree, MMA sport/entertainment fight and a real fight are not the same. But what if both people are fighting are using MMA, which are the arts constitute what is seen in the UFC venues, then as you see it wouldn't be a real fight. But instead it becomes an non-promoted MMA fight, and hence not being a real fight. So, MMA wouldn't not work in a real fight because MMA is "recognized as a distinct and separate sport?" Now that I would see differently, as a real fight isn't an entertainment/spectator sport like Pro MMA, Pro wrestling, using your train of thought that it has a specific distinct recognition. In a real fight, there is no ring or cage, paid fighters, referees, promoters, training camps, no paying audience and all the other things that makes MMA, separated, recognize and make it distinct sports event. So I agree MMA being separate, recognized and distinct sporting event would not work in a real fight. Going by your opined comments of course, in relation to your post. Let me stress, my comments are to take your line of thinking, and your post and place in back into a context of this thread so it can be discussed properly in the right context.

Now Swinging Away from what I *Think* is a Misunderstanding caused by Phrasology;

I am Inclined to Agree.

[OwlMatt]

This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.

For the purposes of this conversation:

A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.

Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?

[Kong Soo Do]

This conversation can't really go anywhere unless we agree about what a "real fight" is. I propose the following criteria for what qualifies as a "real fight". Tell me what you think; if enough of us agree, we have a starting point.

For the purposes of this conversation:

A "real fight" is an instance of actual physical violence (I don't see a point to debating the usefulness of MMA in a conflict in which the participants do not actually touch each other).
A "real fight" is initiated with the intent of causing bodily harm.
A "real fight" is not a duel; it is not the result of a mutual agreement, and is not extensively planned in advance (I am aware that this limits the scope of the discussion a bit, but I think it's a sensible limit).
A "real fight" is not initiated by the theoretical martial artist in question (otherwise we're talking about how to attack people).
A "real fight" is not constrained by procedural rules or arbitrary boundaries.
A "real fight" is not a matter of certainty: there is no guarantee that there is no weapon, there is no guarantee the fight will not be joined by others, and there is no guarantee that the setting will be favorable to any particular kind of technique.
A "real fight" does not have arbitrary criteria defining an ending. It is over when it cannot continue (for example, because of escape or incapacitation) or when both sides choose to stop fighting.

Can we agree on that? Is there something that should be added or changed before we continue?

I have to once again restate my quote from page three to go along with what you've stated above;


Self Defense Training MethodologyThere has been much discussion on the differences between self-defense training methodology vs. sport training methodology. It isn't necessarily a this vs. that since an individual is free to pursue either as the focus of their personal training. The purpose of this thread is to go into the differences in training methodology. It isnt' to say one is better or superior to the other as each has a different focus and a different goal. So from the very beginning I want to make it clear that this isnt' an 'us' vs. 'them' thread. It isn't a we're great and you suck thread. It is only to discuss the SD training methodology in and of itself and how it differs from the sport model.

For the sport-only instructor/practitioner that has only the focus or goal of sport competition, this thread will probably be of little value. And there is nothing wrong with being a sport only instructor/practitiner as long as that goal is clearly stated up front.

For the sport only instructor/practitioner that wants to take a look at some SD options for possible inclusion into the training, this thread may hold some value for you.

For the SD only instructor/practitioner this would be a good thread to 'talk shop'.

For the purposes of this thread we can define self-defense as the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones from and attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.

To begin with, most types of sport traing/competions revolve around some/most/all of the following considerations (be they TKD specific or a more general MMA).


Has a referee that enforces rules that both parties are required to abide by for the match.
The match is in a well-lit, dry, level, soft venue.
The opponent is unarmed.
The opponent is alone with no chance others will join in.
Some sort of safety gear is usually involved i.e. cup, mouth piece, gloves etc.
The opponent isn't trying to kill, maim or severely injure you.
You get a break in-between rounds to catch your breath, get a drink, get some advice or a pep talk.
If you've had enough, you can call a time out or tap out or simply quit and walk away.
There is often an incentive or reward for competing and/or winning such as rank advancement, a prize or maybe cash.


As a comparison, self-defense training is for situations;

Situational awareness i.e. be aware of your surroundings.
Factors such as avoidance, evasion, escape and de-escalation need to be taken into consideration and trained for where appropriate.
Where there is no referee enforcing rules.
You are likely alone and/or at some sort of a place or position of disadvantage.
There are no rules.
There are no breaks, water, advice or anything to assist you.
The assault can occur in a parking lot, elevator, side street, your car, your bedroom, in the woods etc. It will likely occur in dim light conditions in any type of weather.
The attacker may be armed, and should be assumed to be armed.
The attacker may have friends more than willing to jump in.
There is no safety gear, but likely a plethora of person-unfriendly objects like broken glass, traffic, walls etc.
The attacker is looking to cause as much damage to you as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time possible.
To quit is to die (or something possibly worse i.e. rape, love one killed etc)
The goal is survival, the method is whatever it takes and is appropriate to the situation.


When looking at the difference in training methodologies, consider for the student and scenario;

Do they always 'go for the knock-out', for points, for a submission? Is so, they've limited there response options.
Do they have the option and/or opportunity to avoid or evade the potential conflice. Or escape or practice an verbal de-escalation skills?
Do they have the option of using an improvised weapon?
Does there opponent have the option of pulling a weapon (planned or improvised)?
Does there opponent have the option of having his buddies jump in to help?
Is the student required to observe certain rules?
Do your students always train inside the Dojang? Are opportunities provided to train inside a vehicle, stairs, elevator, hallway, small room, on grass, on asphalt, on a sloping or wet or slippery surface?
Do your students always where their uniform? Are they familar with what it would be like to be wearing tight clothing, foot wear, shorts and a T-shirt, a dress etc? Tt is one thing to be warmed up and stretched out and wearing loose clothing in the Dojang. It is quite another to try it in a dress in high heels, a pair of tight jeans, with a handful of groceries, a duty belt etc when you're not warmed up and stretched out.
Have they ever trained in dim light conditions?
Have they trained with visual/auditory distractions?
Do we always use a closed fist when striking at the head while wearing gloves and padded helmets? A blow to the head with a fist in a SD situation may not be the wisest tactic. The chance of injuring the hand on someone’s head is fairly substantial even with a well-placed strike. That is why boxer as an example tape their hands and wear gloves. I'll say it again; the chance of injuring your hand on someone's head/face is fairly substantial. If this occurs, depending on the severity of the injury, it could very well limit your options for further SD. Anyone here ever try to manipulate a weapon with broken knuckles? Or a cell phone, or car keys? I've broken a knuckle before and my range of motion in that hand was limited for an extended period of time. Given that manual dexterity is already limited while under duress, you've just made it even harder by busting a knuckle or two, or spraining your wrist on someone's face. And there is no way to know ahead of time whether or not he'll actually be knocked out.

This also doesn't touch on the possibility of blood borne pathogens the bad guy may be carrying. And now you've put yourself in a position of cutting your knuckles on his teeth or 'bleeding' him from the mouth or nose.


Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the state statutes of force and deadly force? In consideration like bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death? Subject factors? What a reasonable person would do in the same situation? Are you required to retreat in your state? Does your state have a 'Castle Doctrine'? An instructor doesn't need to be an attorney, but providing the resources for the student to check into it and touching on some of the topics during class time.

Is the student (or the instructor) well versed in the O.O.D.A. loop? Fight or flight? Flinch resonse? Adrenaline responses such as tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of manual dexterity in the extremities? Considerations can include;

Even powerful strikes in non-lethal areas can fail.
A situation which starts out at less-than-lethal levels can quickly escalate.
A proper joint lock, at the appropriate time, 'can' immobilize even an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) even if strikes fail and if properly applied.
Be as patient as possible for the situation, look for openings.
The attack will probably take place at the most advantageous time to the attacker and the least advantageous to us. We may be tired, sick, distracted etc yet still be forced into a situation.
Some of these predators come in packs which backs them bold. And even being physically big isn't always a deterent.


Physical conditioning is also helpful during training, or at least encouraging it. Being physically fit can help us in several areas of a SD situation. It can also help if an injury has been sustained.

That is hopefully a good start for consideration/discussion. Be safe.

[Indie12]

This is actually a good topic for discussion but if I am to contribute it is not in the For but rather the Against.

I do not believe MMA is no good for real fighting, there may be some bad habits that come from training with sports motivation and training techniques which can be exploited but all in all I would say MMA fighters are some of the most dangerous fighters you could face in a real world situation where weapons are not involved.

Then the question should also be, 'Is Mixed Martial Arts, Martial Arts?'

And yes, I do agree with this opinion! There's a difference between sport fighting and street/combat fighting! How you train effects how you'll respond!

[Indie12]

Underlined part mine. Couldn't agree more with that!

Are we talking from a sport view or self defense/combat view? There is a difference!

[Tez3]

MMA is a sport, we don't go around saying that if you can do MMA this is all the self defence you need. It's those, most often outside MMA, who insist on this discussion about whether MMA is good for ' a real fight'. In a real fight whatever that maybe ( as opposed to a 'play fight' perhaps with friendly drunks just trying to bruise you rather than bashing your head in?) we do the same as everyone else...whatever is necessary to get out of that fight in one piece.