UFC proves KF useless

[7starmantis]

I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?

What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?


7sm

 

[zDom]

:deadhorse:

 

[PeaceWarrior]

I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them? Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true?

What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?


7sm

Ho boy...um, well, without seeing the actual fights its kind of hard to tell what they are doing wrong. It could be lack of experience, lack of competent teaching, lack of time devoted to resistance training, or a combination of these things. It could also be due to the fact that TMA's dont train "UFC fighting". That is, if youre going to enter a UFC tournament, you train with that in mind. You want to be athletically gifted first off, plus train as many facets of MA's in as little time as possible. You train for takedowns and submissions, grappling and striking, etc. I think that is something that sort of goes against the grain of most TMA's, where it becomes a way of life, and skill is developed gradually over many years. Its like a star hitter for a baseball team entering a golf tournament; he is going to fail horribly, not because he isnt good at what he does, but because he simply has not trained for the competition he entered. Or even a wing chun practitioner entering a pro boxing tournament; with those big gloves he isnt going to be able to pull of a lot of real wing chun, so chances are while he will do better than the average joe, he's still gonna get beat. Plus I think that most traditional martial artists (from the old school) are kind of turned off by the ufc mentality, and they pass that down to their students. anyways, much more could be said (and Im sure it will) but I have to go!

Good topic 7star! Peace

Keith

 

[Flying Crane]

It's my belief that in order to do well in an event such as the UFC, you need to train in specific ways to prepare for that event, regardless of style. I suspect that most traditional KF people do not do this, even tho they train in other ways that also build effective skills.

Regardless of UFC records, that does not mean that traditional KF is not effective as a form of fighting and self defense. I think using events like the UFC as THE yardstick against which to measure the worth of a fighting art is really quite silly. Using any single criteria as THE yardstick is misguided and myopic. If I get attacked and get my butt kicked, or even if I win, I certainly don't think my art is either worthless, or better, than others. It is a product of how well I have trained. I don't decide that I need to go join the nearest MMA school and start competing in the UFC in order to believe I could defend myself on the street.

It is also important to remember that a successful UFC fighter is an elite athlete in his prime. These guys tend to be big, strong, and conditioned to take a lot of abuse, as well as having a lot of heavy experience in full contact fighting. As individuals, I suspect not many people of any style could do well against them, if they haven't also trained and conditioned themselves in a similar manner. But these are not the kind of people that I think you would typically need to defend yourself against on the street. I'm not saying that a street thug should be taken lightly. Certainly they can be tough and dangerous as well, but I don't think they are going to be on the same level as a successful UFC fighter, if weapons are not part of the equation. On the street, any traditional art, if well trained, would serve you well.

 

[JasonASmith]

I don't believe that the UFC is the benchmark on the "what style is better/works best/isn't practical in modern combat" arguement...
It's a show...it's a competitive sport...Kung Fu is millenia old, argueably the oldest form of martial art, and it(or any other TMA, for that matter) doesn't need to be validated by a bunch of gorillas beating the crap out of each other inside of a ring...If a TMA has saved even one person's life in its time on the planet(and they have saved many more than that!) then it's viable, it's not useless...I(and hopefully most of the readers/posters here) have faith in my system....I have faith in the martial arts in general...That's why I don't watch UFC or any of the other FC's, because even though I like zoos, I am not prepared mentally to see the dominance/submissive roles played out be humans...I'll leave that to the REAL animals, thanks...If you like Kung Fu or any other TMA, than keep doing it...

 

[matt.m]

I agree with Scott....:deadhorse . I have always said that if you train hard you will be able to defend yourself.

 

[Rook]

IMO KF is not so much useless as not the best for the task being evaluated.

One analogy I used is one of a classic car. In 1927 when the Model A came out, people rushed to buy it. They didn't want anything besides the quick transportation, but if you still have one today, it would be a valuable collectors item worth having for the historical value. The model A set off a whole bunch of amateur drag racing, as people discovered that a cheap car with some cheap improvements could go pretty fast. If you want to beat the pants off people at the race track today, a Model A would by no means be a good choice - you want a stripped down multimillion dollar fiberglass car with a modern engine.

I see martial arts the same way. I am interested in knowing about the martial systems of the past in the same way some people are interested in historic cars. No one in their right mind would claim that a Model A in good condition would sweep the Formula 1 series, and I find claims that various CMA practitioners could do any better to MMA champions equally dubious.

If you practice kung fu, you get a bunch of Chinese culture, you get a slice of history and a chance to be a part of a tradition. You might even, if you land a good teacher and train hard, be able to fight better than the overwhelming majority of the population. It is not the optimum way to fight unarmed and if that is all you are interested in, you would be far better off training MMA.

 

[zDom]

IMO KF is not so much useless as not the best for the task being evaluated.

One analogy I used is one of a classic car. In 1927 when the Model A came out, people rushed to buy it. They didn't want anything besides the quick transportation, but if you still have one today, it would be a valuable collectors item worth having for the historical value. The model A set off a whole bunch of amateur drag racing, as people discovered that a cheap car with some cheap improvements could go pretty fast. If you want to beat the pants off people at the race track today, a Model A would by no means be a good choice - you want a stripped down multimillion dollar fiberglass car with a modern engine.

Using this car analogy, TMAs are not necessarily 1927s. Couldn't a TMA also be a 1969 GTO? Or a '76 vette?

Not necessarily as fast and as the professional fiberglass racing car with a modern engine, but still fast enough to beat the vast majority: mini-vans, luxury cars, four-doors, etc.

And it has things the pro car no longer has - things like radio, air conditioning, a fuel tank large enough to go 200 miles -- etc. Useful for things other than running the quarter mile.

Stripping down for "optimum" performance means losing options.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Useless? No. Not suited for Mixed Martial Arts competitions, yes. Why? Because ALL arts limited to stand-up work are open to the grappling that competitions like the UFC have made popular.

How to combat this? Take two years of college wrestling, Judo or BJJ. I'd also recommend at least a short boxing or fencing course in order to learn quicker, more mobile footwork.

Take pride in your Kung Fu training and realize that the dividends in physical coordination, stamina, fitness and discipline will pay lifelong dividends and also recognize that a sociopath with a firearm can cancel out ANY unarmed martial arts training.

 

[Hand Sword]

I am curious as to the opinions of the people here about somethign that is really gaining some big publicity. With the explosion of the UFC and the MMA "style" of fighting, why is it we do not see kung fu practitioners in these fights? Or why do we not see them doing well in them?

We see them, or their primary style is listed in their pre-fight profiles. In short, they don't do well, as the other TMA's don't, due to their ways of dealing with the inevitable grappling situations, which are illegal, under the MMA rules. Ripping, tearing, raking, poking, biting, illegal in MMA, would very quickly escape a mount or guard position, the primary holds of MMA.

[qoute=7starmantis;663615]
Has the modern MMA style of fighting finally proven kung fu to be useless and outdated? Articles are being presented using the terms "reality" and "full ground curriculum" as synonymous. Is this true? [/quote]

No. In competion, yes, for real, each is as applicable as the other. For reality sake, one must have a ground game (street applicable= no rules) to be effective. MMA adresses it a bit better, than the stand up oriented TMA's.

What do you think? Why do you feel kung fu or CMA guys are not doing well in these competitions? What is it that takes thier effectivenss away? In true reality based fighting, does the UFC or MMA style of fighting truly retire kung fu or chinese martial arts? I'm not trying to start a fire here and I'm not really interested in ego at all. But serious response to this question I'm interested in. Seriously, why do you feel this is happening? The fact that kung fu does horrible in these fights is true, its fact....I'm interested in your thoughts as to why that is so. Also, what can CMAist do to combat this? Or is there anything we can do to survive this evolution of fighting if you will?

I think the TMA'ers have trouble, due to the nature of fighting in general, which is why eclectic styles emerged. (even they do to a point also) They seem to be based off of dealing with a one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt by an opponent, maybe a quick grab or hold, also. It's also primarily stand up oriented. Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, then to grappling holds, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used.

IMHO none of the TMA's are being retired, I think, it's about ranges of combat, and the tactics in those ranges that are different. Boxing is best defended against Boxing type tactics, instead of TMA blocking and standing, with flat footed movements. To combat it, do some cross training, or practice under MMA rules, and adapt to it.

 

[7starmantis]

While I agree that this topic has been done many times, I don’t know that it’s really a dead horse just yet. There is an article in one of the most recent publications of Martial Arts Professional (or one of those magazines) about Frank Shamrock’s Complete Ground System. Now, while it’s an obvious advertisement it has an article about reality training. I didn’t mean to use the term UFC to simply mean just UFC registered fights, but rather the MMA scene as made popular by the UFC. It seems the consensus of even this thread is that Kung Fu (or TMA as a whole) is lacking in reality of dealing with grapplers or “ground game”. Is that really so? Why is that? Did fights never end up on the ground 300 years ago? Is grappling such a new thing? Did the ancient civilizations not learn and even compete in wrestling? Maybe is a modern thing that leaves dealing with the “ground game” out of TMA teachings. Of course fighting in certain rules, the one who trains those rules will always win, but what about self defense? What about reality fighting using the modern MMA methods or the “traditional” methods of systems like kung fu?

That is, if youre going to enter a UFC tournament, you train with that in mind. You want to be athletically gifted first off, plus train as many facets of MA's in as little time as possible. You train for takedowns and submissions, grappling and striking, etc. I think that is something that sort of goes against the grain of most TMA's, where it becomes a way of life, and skill is developed gradually over many years.

Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? I’m not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words “traditional martial arts”. I’m not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is “traditional” really so far from fighting? It seems to me “traditional” kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most “traditional” schools I’ve ever seen. I’m not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting. Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the “seriousness” of kung fu techniques or principles?

I see martial arts the same way. I am interested in knowing about the martial systems of the past in the same way some people are interested in historic cars. No one in their right mind would claim that a Model A in good condition would sweep the Formula 1 series, and I find claims that various CMA practitioners could do any better to MMA champions equally dubious.

I’m not really interested in knowing about martial systems of the past, I mean its interesting I guess, but I’m just not really into it that much. I’m more concerned with realistic fighting and that’s why I’m curious as to some of your statements here. Why exactly would you find it dubious that a CMA practitioner could do well against a MMA practitioner? What give the MMA person a better chance of winning? What does the MMA fighter have that allows them to dominate so heavily over the CMA fighter? I’m really interested in seeing your opinions here, I’m not interested in starting a fight, I find it fascinating really.

If you practice kung fu, you get a bunch of Chinese culture, you get a slice of history and a chance to be a part of a tradition. You might even, if you land a good teacher and train hard, be able to fight better than the overwhelming majority of the population. It is not the optimum way to fight unarmed and if that is all you are interested in, you would be far better off training MMA.

I get absolutely no Chinese culture, and at the risk of offending some of my CMA brothers, I’m simply not that interested. I have my own culture to learn about. I don’t see myself as a part of any tradition really either, except maybe the family I have now from my brothers and sisters I have sweat and bled with. I think you may be right in a vast majority of CMA schools but there are those that are focused on fighting. I would be very interested in hearing why you believe it not to be the optimum way to fight unarmed. Could you explain that a bit? What makes is less optimum than another way of fighting and what way of fighting would you consider optimum?

Useless? No. Not suited for Mixed Martial Arts competitions, yes. Why? Because ALL arts limited to stand-up work are open to the grappling that competitions like the UFC have made popular.

How to combat this? Take two years of college wrestling, Judo or BJJ. I'd also recommend at least a short boxing or fencing course in order to learn quicker, more mobile footwork.

So you believe kung fu to be lacking in these areas? Why do you feel CMA is limited to stand-up? What about grappling makes CMA so useless there? So to beat something you must learn it? Do you feel kung fu has slower less mobile footwork? Why is that? What makes the footwork of kung fu slower and less mobile? I’m really interested in knowing what you see as the flaws here.

IMHO none of the TMA's are being retired, I think, it's about ranges of combat, and the tactics in those ranges that are different. Boxing is best defended against Boxing type tactics, instead of TMA blocking and standing, with flat footed movements. To combat it, do some cross training, or practice under MMA rules, and adapt to it.

I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didn’t mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?

Sorry to make such a long post with so many questions, I’m seriously interested in learning what you guys feel is lacking in CMA that is trained in MMA. I think this is a great discussion so far, I would love to hear more opinions on it.


7sm

 

[The Kidd]

Nice progression in the thread, several topics have been touched on:

You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).

Just training in one discipline like we have discussed in several threads before this gives you a great base but it helps to widen your perspective all styles have their strengths and weaknesses and to broaden your knowledge only makes you a better MA.

 

[Andrew Green]

You cannot call UFC reality fighting, it was originally set up to see which style of artist was the best but still it had limited rules and has increasingly increased those rules which nullifies many arts self defenses. So the UFC is not a true test of MA unlike a street fight where it is no holds bar. In UFC you train for the ring (Octagon).

I see this sort of claim all the time, that Kung Fu was not meant for matches, but yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitai

Similar in intent, just less organized and somewhat different rules. But at one time Kung Fu WAS used for one on one challenges and tournaments in the same way.

 

[funnytiger]

Using this car analogy, TMAs are not necessarily 1927s. Couldn't a TMA also be a 1969 GTO? Or a '76 vette?

Not necessarily as fast and as the professional fiberglass racing car with a modern engine, but still fast enough to beat the vast majority: mini-vans, luxury cars, four-doors, etc.

And it has things the pro car no longer has - things like radio, air conditioning, a fuel tank large enough to go 200 miles -- etc. Useful for things other than running the quarter mile.

Stripping down for "optimum" performance means losing options.

I just wanted to say that was really well stated! Kudos!

 

[zDom]

Great point and post, Andrew.

Makes me wonder: how much of a difference in tactics and techniques would we see in the UFC if it was held on a raised platform instead of an Octagon or in Pride if the ropes were removed?

Also, how much would things change if it were a hard, stone or concrete surface?

 

[funnytiger]

They seem to be based off of dealing with a one big punch, or maybe a quick two strike attempt by an opponent, maybe a quick grab or hold, also. It's also primarily stand up oriented.

I have a hard time picturing this statement since my style's MO is "continuous fighting". In other words, combo after combo until the other guy doesn't get up. So is my particular art the odd man out because of that mode of thinking, or is this statement a sweeping generalization?

Fights, especially in the MMA, don't always occur this way. It's kick boxing range (too far for the fancier CMA style kicking, and circular striking), with multible, fast, combinations, then to grappling holds, not practiced alot by TMA, and rules against what would be used.

I have always thought this was a load of bunk. If I had a quarter for every person on these boards who said, "every (or most) fights end on the ground" I would be a wealthy woman. However, if I was to get a quarter for every fight that I have witnessed with my own eyes that actually ended up on the ground I wouldn't be able to make a telephone call in a phone booth.

I probably haven't seen as many fights as some, but I've seen my fair share. On second thought, I would say that statment is a half-truth. In the fights I have seen one person always ends up on the ground. Usually ending up the recipient of a boot in the face, and sometimes just unconsciousness.

 

[Rook]

While I agree that this topic has been done many times, I don’t know that it’s really a dead horse just yet. There is an article in one of the most recent publications of Martial Arts Professional (or one of those magazines) about Frank Shamrock’s Complete Ground System. Now, while it’s an obvious advertisement it has an article about reality training. I didn’t mean to use the term UFC to simply mean just UFC registered fights, but rather the MMA scene as made popular by the UFC. It seems the consensus of even this thread is that Kung Fu (or TMA as a whole) is lacking in reality of dealing with grapplers or “ground game”. Is that really so? Why is that? Did fights never end up on the ground 300 years ago? Is grappling such a new thing? Did the ancient civilizations not learn and even compete in wrestling? Maybe is a modern thing that leaves dealing with the “ground game” out of TMA teachings. Of course fighting in certain rules, the one who trains those rules will always win, but what about self defense? What about reality fighting using the modern MMA methods or the “traditional” methods of systems like kung fu?

While I don't doubt that ancient China had its share of people who wanted to grapple on the ground, they don't seem to have developed the complex and nuanced groundwork of systems like catch wrestling, SAMBO or BJJ. Perhaps this has something to do with the idea of rolling on the ground as dishonorable, but for whatever reason, the Chinese ground work that shows up in some Shui Chiao systems, as well as in the Dog Boxing tends to be a fairly simple affiar.

Is the goal of TMA really to put off skill to longer periods of learning? I’m not sure I can completely agree with the common usage of the words “traditional martial arts”. I’m not trying to slam your post as I agree with you quite a lot, but it brings up a good point. Is “traditional” really so far from fighting?

The power of some systems, like TJQ, can really only be achieved after alot of development in things like soft movement and precise shifts of weight. The beauty of some martial arts to me has always been that most of them are simple to begin to learn, but they have alot of depth to them.

It seems to me “traditional” kung fu is actually more violent and focused more on fighting than most “traditional” schools I’ve ever seen. I’m not really talking about the weekend warrior type of martial artist, but one who seriously trains hard for realistic self defense type fighting. Does the grappling and ground tactics (arm bars, chokes, triangle holds, BJJ) really negate the tools a kung fu or CMAist would have? A trained grappler is not going to play around with the fight, a choke or armbar means certain death or serious injury in a real situation. Does that overtake the “seriousness” of kung fu techniques or principles?

This is a good statement.

I’m not really interested in knowing about martial systems of the past, I mean its interesting I guess, but I’m just not really into it that much. I’m more concerned with realistic fighting and that’s why I’m curious as to some of your statements here. Why exactly would you find it dubious that a CMA practitioner could do well against a MMA practitioner?

To date, their track record. In the end, MMA has been based around the idea of having competition, both with and without rules in order to test various means of fighting against each other. The MMAist trains in the style that seems to have emerged on top... it just represents a higher stage in the evolution of the martial arts.

What give the MMA person a better chance of winning? What does the MMA fighter have that allows them to dominate so heavily over the CMA fighter? I’m really interested in seeing your opinions here, I’m not interested in starting a fight, I find it fascinating really.

If I had to guess at the reasons behind the track record, which is probably what you are getting at here, I would say the combination of the style itself and the training methods - full speed, full contact, freeform, fully resistant - which allow a person to experiance a whole spectrum of uncooperativeness not available to someone who trains with compliant or semicompliant partners. The style itself is just very refined for what works - because we have so much video and statistical data, its much easier to figure out what is more effective and why, and the fighers work with a system based on this.

I get absolutely no Chinese culture, and at the risk of offending some of my CMA brothers, I’m simply not that interested. I have my own culture to learn about. I don’t see myself as a part of any tradition really either, except maybe the family I have now from my brothers and sisters I have sweat and bled with. I think you may be right in a vast majority of CMA schools but there are those that are focused on fighting. I would be very interested in hearing why you believe it not to be the optimum way to fight unarmed. Could you explain that a bit? What makes is less optimum than another way of fighting and what way of fighting would you consider optimum?

I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed. The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.

So you believe kung fu to be lacking in these areas? Why do you feel CMA is limited to stand-up? What about grappling makes CMA so useless there?

Well, the lack of kung fu people winning grappling tournaments suggests that the "use our forms principles on the ground" and "we have our own groundwork" and "fukien dog boxing is a lethal groundwork system" doesn't hold up all that well... they seem to be totally incapable of sucessfully engaging other grapplers.

So to beat something you must learn it? Do you feel kung fu has slower less mobile footwork? Why is that? What makes the footwork of kung fu slower and less mobile? I’m really interested in knowing what you see as the flaws here.

In theory, the footwork should be equally mobile. In practice, look at a pro boxer and then at any kung fu practitioner and you will probably notice the ussual difference. Very few kung fu people have their footwork down like boxers do.

I really agreed with a lot of your post. Here is the exact mentality I was attempting to discuss using the UFC term. I didn’t mean to imply simply UFC sanctioned fights, but the mentality of MMA (mixed martial arts) or cross training. Is the best way to beat a boxer really learning to box? Will I ever really reach the same level of boxing that my opponent would? Is CMA or kung fu really outdated or ineffective against other styles? Is kung fu only effective against kung fu? What do you feel is lacking that needs to be picked up with cross training?

Sorry to make such a long post with so many questions, I’m seriously interested in learning what you guys feel is lacking in CMA that is trained in MMA. I think this is a great discussion so far, I would love to hear more opinions on it.


7sm

I personally think that it is outdated as a fighting system.

 

[MJS]

I do not train in, or know much about CMAs, so I'll refrain from comment on whats incorporated into their material. I can comment though on the arts that I train in. As I've said every time this debate comes up, I personally feel that there is something that can be gained from both the MMA and TMA style of fighting. I've 'borrowed' a number of things from the MMA school of thought, and added it into my own workouts.

I'd like to post this, for discussion.

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

These are the current fouls taken directly from the UFC homepage. Now, I don't feel that because someone can't eye gouge, hit the groin, etc., that they should say, "See, if I can't do those, I can't win." However, it is one less tool, that someone has to work with. And if that tool is the one thats going to make or break the outcome, well, that should speak for itself. The UFC and MMA events are sports, held in a controlled environment. If the saying, "You fight like you train" holds true, is the MMA fighter, in the street, going to fall back on that eye gouge, or are they mentally conditioned not to, due to the way they train for the ring? I've rolled and have tapped people, without having to fall back on an eye gouge. But, had this been a life and death struggle, it'd be nice to fall back on the eye gouge. Pretty much, its going to come down to who has the better skill of the two.

Mike

 

[MJS]

I would consider MMA to be the optimum known manner of fighting unarmed. The reason I believe this is simply the track record which is nearly 100% MMA over TMA to date.

That being said, what are your thoughts on MMA and weapons?

Mike

 

[shesulsa]

The task at hand is the issue with self-defense.

MMA/UFC/NHB is out-and-out brawling, if you classify the fight. Fighting and self-defense are different.

I think we can all agree that there are different types of attack based upon intention. In the *real world* :barf: people are attacked for various reasons, some of which are attempted abduction, intended assault, property theft, personal property theft, hostage-taking. And then there's combat - is it a snipe situation, a control situation, a police situation? We mustn't forget turf wars, supremacy issues, terrorism ....

What we must do in evaluating the type of training required is OUR PURPOSE IN DEFENSE OR SPORT.

If we are going to compete in brawling pugilism, then we must train for it. If we are going to train for law enforcement on a patrol level, we must train for contain and control. If we are going to live in or near gang territory and intend on mixing it up on the street, then we must train for that. If we're going into combat, we must train in H2H/CQC.

We must also have some sort of character development with which we may monitor ourselves such that we are responsible with the weapons we have.

Whatever suits our NEED ... THAT should be the focus of one's study.

Not all kung fu students are suited to the ring - pure and simple. I'm likely not suited to the ring, have no interest in it and don't train for it. But if I'm going down, someone's going to remember who they took down ... and someone else will know I was there.