MMA, UFC, The Cage, what does it prove?

[Joab]

Lousy title, sorry, couldn't come up with much with the space allowed. The topic really is what does being successful in the MMA, UFC, The Cage prove? Are these indeed the best fighters, or are the best styles "proven" by looking at what styles succeed more often? Is it more the best athletes who do will in the confines of the environement and the rules allowed? Or would only no holds barred, no rules, fight to the deaths be the only way to really show who was the best or what styles are the best?

I think the latter would be a better indicator, although totally barbaric, and would result in a lot of needless deaths. Perhaps what works on the streets and/or battlefields as indicated in police reports and after action battle reports would be a better indicator? Of course weapons attacks, especially those using guns would win hands down if that was used. What do you think? All opinons appreciated.

 

[Andrew Green]

Perhaps what works on the streets and/or battlefields as indicated in police reports and after action battle reports would be a better indicator? Of course weapons attacks, especially those using guns would win hands down if that was used. What do you think? All opinons appreciated.

Completely different from sport fighting / "dueling".

In a MMA fight both fighters are well trained and in good shape. They are going one-on-one within a specific environment.

Go to a battlefield and you have a whole bunch of guys with weapons against a whole bunch of other guys with weapons. Even if you look at unarmed stuff only, it will be rare and chances are they are not as well trained in it (why would they be? Weapons training is more useful)

You can't use ANY set of data and state which system is the best across the board. There is simply too many possible situations for one system to be the best at everything.

MMA takes one-on-one fighting with minimal rules in a enclosed environment and does that very well. Under those conditions it is "the best", and if anything is discovered to be better it is quickly integrated. Those skills and that training will carry over into other sorts of situations, but those other situations are not the goal and MMA is probably not the optimal solution, even if it is a good one.

 

[Guardian]

Even fights to the death would not be a good indicator of a style/system was better then another. On any given day as proved in most professional sporting events and even in fights outside the ring, anyone can be beat on a given day, not good for indicators in reality.

The events you listed are good for sports, good for those making money, good for those who enjoy watching them, other then that, they prove nothing more then what is already known. On any given day.

 

[MJS]

Lousy title, sorry, couldn't come up with much with the space allowed. The topic really is what does being successful in the MMA, UFC, The Cage prove? Are these indeed the best fighters, or are the best styles "proven" by looking at what styles succeed more often? Is it more the best athletes who do will in the confines of the environement and the rules allowed? Or would only no holds barred, no rules, fight to the deaths be the only way to really show who was the best or what styles are the best?

I think the latter would be a better indicator, although totally barbaric, and would result in a lot of needless deaths. Perhaps what works on the streets and/or battlefields as indicated in police reports and after action battle reports would be a better indicator? Of course weapons attacks, especially those using guns would win hands down if that was used. What do you think? All opinons appreciated.

Well, one thing it shows, is that the people who get into the ring, have alot of guts. I certainly tip my hat to those that do get in there. Does it prove that they are the best fighters or what is done are the best techniques? No. I say no for a few reasons. One, even the best fighters have lost. Two, just because fighter A doesnt do a certain tech or a tech isn't seen in the ring, does not mean that its useless. Perhaps its not done because its against the rule set or perhaps because the fighter does not train it.

Now, this isn't to say that MMA training is bad. I've borrowed many things and added them to my training. It has also made be re-evaluate my training and techs. and test how they would work against a grappler, if I was on the ground, etc. It has also shown the importance of having at least a basic understanding of the ground.

 

[Tez3]

I don't think it sets out to prove anything and I think if you expect it to you'll be disappointed.
No one asked what boxing proves or if throwing a javelin means you can carry a spear into a warzone and fight the enemy.
Guardian is correct,if it proves anything it's that it's great fun and enjoyable from whatever way you approach it.
Andrew has nailed the other bits making my posting redundant lol!

 

[Joab]

Good answers by all. yeah, I'm sure your right, on any given day anybody can be beaten, everybody has their good days and bad days. I appreciate your answers, go to the bullshido forum for example and many will say "your system sucks!" if it doesn't do well in MMA, or UFC or The Cage, or is a system that really can't be a sport, like many RBSD styles.

 

[Tez3]

Good answers by all. yeah, I'm sure your right, on any given day anybody can be beaten, everybody has their good days and bad days. I appreciate your answers, go to the bullshido forum for example and many will say "your system sucks!" if it doesn't do well in MMA, or UFC or The Cage, or is a system that really can't be a sport, like many RBSD styles.

Shhh! we don't mention that name lol!:barf:

 

[Joab]

Shhh! we don't mention that name lol!:barf:

Yeah, it's a rather obnoxious website to be sure.

 

[BLACK LION]

Lousy title, sorry, couldn't come up with much with the space allowed. The topic really is what does being successful in the MMA, UFC, The Cage prove? Are these indeed the best fighters, or are the best styles "proven" by looking at what styles succeed more often? Is it more the best athletes who do will in the confines of the environement and the rules allowed? Or would only no holds barred, no rules, fight to the deaths be the only way to really show who was the best or what styles are the best? I think it proves who had the will to win at that point in time. Does it prove who is the "best"... I dont think it does. Especially not now with the rules and regs of combat sports. I feel like the original UFC was better in that there werent so many regs and classification between fighters.... I think its impossible to tell who would ultimately win if life and limb were at risk in the confines of social-sport combat-competition.

I think the latter would be a better indicator, although totally barbaric, and would result in a lot of needless deaths. Perhaps what works on the streets and/or battlefields as indicated in police reports and after action battle reports would be a better indicator? Of course weapons attacks, especially those using guns would win hands down if that was used. What do you think? All opinons appreciated.

Throw sticks and knives and guns into a UFC ring and it isnt UFC...Its oficially a death match .
If we dropped 10 UFC fighters onto a prision yard and put them against 10 violent convicts serving life...allow them to stash tools upon thier person and around the "yard" that would be a very good start... We would definately see the full extent of the training and ultimately who wants it the most...

 

[seasoned]

Anytime there is a third party in close proximity, ready to stop the match, then that is what it is, a match. Matches and contests require rules and standards. Self defense in the true sense, is a fight for one's life. This fight for life does not require you to be on that day, it only requires, in your mind, what you are willing to die for.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I think in its ultimate state, which I believe we are nowhere near at this point, it will show who has a combination of the best strategies, best conditioning, and knowledge of the ranges of combat.

Currently I think its a combination of who is the better conditioned athlete, and who can use thier limited knowledge in the different ranges to their benefit. I think there is only a small group of truely well rounded fighters that are in that top tier level.

I think one great thing it has proven is that all martial arts need to understand the weapons of any given range and have some answer for them. Not necessarily add in all ranges to their art, but at least have a way to work avoiding those ranges they do not work, or the opposite getting and keeping the fight in ranges they do study.

I love seeing well rounded fighters use their skills, I can not wait to see a huge stable of well rounded fighters all pitted against each other over time and having to employ some great strategies into their games... that is going to be incredible to watch.

 

[searcher]

Good answers by all. yeah, I'm sure your right, on any given day anybody can be beaten, everybody has their good days and bad days. I appreciate your answers, go to the bullshido forum for example and many will say "your system sucks!" if it doesn't do well in MMA, or UFC or The Cage, or is a system that really can't be a sport, like many RBSD styles.

The reason they are like that is because of phrost. You all know him, the guy with a big mouth that can't fight. It is kinda funny, I train at the same place he does with a different instructor and most people don't even know who he is. With those that do, not really wanting to acknowledge his anything more than a loudmouth.


As to your original question, it proves that one person was a better fighter on that given day and time, in that particular style of fighting. Nothing more. In the "old days" itwas supposed to prove which style was the best, but now itis almost impossible to tell one style from the next. It ismore about fighters finding what works for them, over style differences or superiority.

 

[Franc0]

I feel that MMA shows that in it's restrictive sense, i.e. "rules applications", it makes you work towards sharpening those "legal" applications (chokes, subs, ground-n-pound etc.).
The bottom line is "what do you train for, street or comp?"
Concentrate on what your skill set is oriented towards.
What does the UFC prove? Some of your stuff works and some does'nt. Nothing like a non-compliant partner to show you what didn't work and what you need to work on. Thats what training is about. What works in UFC applications, what works in the studio and what works on the street? 3 different monsters to face. Gluing it all together, thats my gaol.
Franco

 

[Tez3]

Throw sticks and knives and guns into a UFC ring and it isnt UFC...Its oficially a death match .
If we dropped 10 UFC fighters onto a prision yard and put them against 10 violent convicts serving life...allow them to stash tools upon thier person and around the "yard" that would be a very good start... We would definately see the full extent of the training and ultimately who wants it the most...

Why would you want to do that to athletes? Would you try it with boxers or Olympic TKDists and Judoka?
Tbh, thats just silly. MMA is a sport why try to make it anything else?

 

[searcher]

Throw sticks and knives and guns into a UFC ring and it isnt UFC...Its oficially a death match .
If we dropped 10 UFC fighters onto a prision yard and put them against 10 violent convicts serving life...allow them to stash tools upon thier person and around the "yard" that would be a very good start... We would definately see the full extent of the training and ultimately who wants it the most...

Actually, they wanted the DogBrothers to do a full-contact stick match back in the day, but the DB declined. And it would not be a death match. As anyone can see at a Gatheringof The Pack.

Why would you want to do that to athletes? Would you try it with boxers or Olympic TKDists and Judoka?
Tbh, thats just silly. MMA is a sport why try to make it anything else?

Right on girl. MMA IS a sport. In the past it may have been close to a street fight, but it has changed to become a very exciting sporting event.

 

[Tez3]

Actually, they wanted the DogBrothers to do a full-contact stick match back in the day, but the DB declined. And it would not be a death match. As anyone can see at a Gatheringof The Pack.





Right on girl. MMA IS a sport. In the past it may have been close to a street fight, but it has changed to become a very exciting sporting event.

Ta! Even if it were still close to street fighting which frankly to a lot of people is a sport also, you still wouldn't go chucking people at prisoners!

 

[Andrew Green]

Actually, they wanted the DogBrothers to do a full-contact stick match back in the day, but the DB declined. And it would not be a death match. As anyone can see at a Gatheringof The Pack.

Actually you got that a little backwards. The Dog Brothers where in, the UFC decided against it as they where already having trouble with the public perception and legal issues around MMA at the time.

 

[Ronin74]

Throw sticks and knives and guns into a UFC ring and it isnt UFC...Its oficially a death match .
If we dropped 10 UFC fighters onto a prision yard and put them against 10 violent convicts serving life...allow them to stash tools upon thier person and around the "yard" that would be a very good start... We would definately see the full extent of the training and ultimately who wants it the most...

LOL... I actually found that kinda funny.

I think when UFC first hit the stage, it was billed/advertised as finding out what was the "ultimate martial art". Realistically, I think they knew that would be next to impossible.

As far as being good at MMA, I think it's a great way for fighters to test themselves on a leveled playing field. In the aspect of differing martial arts backgrounds, fighters now had to contend with other fighters who's disciplines might have focused on different aspects of the game. Sure it's not a great test of self-defense/life-threatening combat situations, but it's a sport where people of martial arts backgrounds can test themselves if they so desire.

For myself, I know I'd have no interest in fighting professionally, but I do have an interest in MMA for the fact that it's as close to no-holds-barred training that a person can do with a margin of safety. It definitely beats the hell out of point-sparring.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I think when UFC first hit the stage, it was billed/advertised as finding out what was the "ultimate martial art". Realistically, I think they knew that would be next to impossible.

Actually I am a firm believer that when the UFC first hit the stage it was designed as a giant commercial for Gracie Jiu Jitsu.
It was designed to make Gracie Jiu Jitsu look like the ultimate martial art. Hand Picked opponents, the few rules were designed to protect the Royce. It worked perfectly as designed, and Gracie Jiu Jitsu is still riding the wave of popularity generated over 16 years ago.

 

[Andrew Green]

Actually I am a firm believer that when the UFC first hit the stage it was designed as a giant commercial for Gracie Jiu Jitsu.
It was designed to make Gracie Jiu Jitsu look like the ultimate martial art. Hand Picked opponents, the few rules were designed to protect the Royce. It worked perfectly as designed, and Gracie Jiu Jitsu is still riding the wave of popularity generated over 16 years ago.

First one was, after that they made the match ups random. But the original intent was definitely to promote the Gracie name.

That said, there where no rules when Royce fought, so there where no rules designed to protect him.

The only two where no eye gouging and no biting. Enforcement was a fine that was paid to the other person after the match, but the match itself would't be stopped for a violation. Royce did get bit in UFC 1 too, and too be honest he was generally in a far better position to use those techniques then his opponent most of the time.