Wing Chun vs MMA

[lklawson]

Ask any professional athlete.

I've trained a few. I'll be training one tomorrow night. Your estimation of up to 10% is a great over-estmate.

I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

Anything can happen in warfare.

It can't.

Let's say I am a Samurai

So... um... Are you a samarai?

and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword,

A naginata is a just a shinken with a really really really really really really really long tsuka?

yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well. Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well. Why? Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon. I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.

Anything can happen in real life or death combat.

Just... wrong... <shakes head>

The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue against here.

I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat? They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons.

Ooh, ooh! Is it because Soldiers, LEO, and self defense civilians all have exactly the same goals? Is that it? No... that doesn't sound right. Hmm... Let me lean one cubicle over and ask the soldiers again. But, last time we talked about it, they said, "some BS about rules of engagement and not just being allowed by ROE to shoot everyone. Oh, and some BS about Espirit de Corps and 'warrior mindset' or some crap like that."

They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.

Dramatic and fundamental misunderstandings.

If you were trying to wear me down with bizarre switchback reasoning, you've succeeded.

 

[Chris Parker]

Kirk, you called?

Okay, because I was asked to come along here and add a little input, let's see what we have. Fair warning, this will be largely off topic for the basis of the thread, and seeks to simply address (and hopefully put to rest) a side issue from the last few pages. So… let's see what we have.

Well first a lot of WC guys mix in other arts like say Kali I think the above misses a point. How Martial Arts evolve. Martial Arts, including MMA, evolve based on the environment they find themselves being born and growing in, and also account for the physical attributes of those helping to create/perfect them. I think this is missed.

Okay, yep, fair enough. Not sure how much people have missed it, but, as said, I'm only dealing with the last few pages, so I'm going to say that yes, understanding the cultural conditions of the development of an art is very important to gain an understanding of it (the wherefores and whys of it, as it were).

Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu. It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons. Punching an armed and armored opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs. The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind and developed defenses against multiple avenues of attack in that context.

Er… less agreement here. In fact, this is one of the biggest misconceptions and fallacies when it comes to the "history of jujutsu" (which, of course, isn't really anything like a single codified history at all…). Let's look at it, shall we?

- Jujutsu was developed to fight an armoured opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.

Hmm… well, that is part of the contingency and application potential of some (note here: some!) jujutsu ryu-ha… but that's as far as I'd personally take it. I mean… Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu, and many others don't fit this profile at all, as none of them really factor yoroi into it at all… while yes, there are systems that deal in yoroi, typically those systems themselves also employ yoroi… such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Kito Ryu, Take(no)uchi Ryu, and so on.

- Punching an armed and armoured opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner.

Yeah, you may want to explain that to the practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu… which is a very atemi-heavy system of kattchu-bujutsu (armoured combative methods), including a quite sophisticated array of yawara methods (jujutsu)…

-… so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.

Well, Japan (as a culture) is more geared to prefer a grappling approach (note: stand up, not ground fighting as the term has, rather frustratingly, been adopted to infer), but exactly what that entails varies greatly from system to system… you simply can't be that general about an area with such a wide array of variables.

- The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind…

Oh, you're so close here! Yes, absolutely these systems were designed with specific contexts and purposes… but you need to extend that. What can you tell me about the context and application of Takenouchi Ryu, as compared to Fusen Ryu? How did Takagi Ryu develop, and why? Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu were both instrumental in the formation of Kodokan Judo, but have very different contexts and purposes… can you address those? What is the difference in context between the differing areas of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Yawara (including the Gyoi no Kata)? You've mentioned Aikido and it's origins… what can you say about the history of Daito Ryu? Both claimed and more likely correct? There are different lines of Asayama Ichiden Ryu… what's the biggest difference there? Are there different contexts within a single art? If yes, doesn't that change your point? If no, why would you think that all these arts would then work towards a single context themselves?

This applies to almost all traditional MAs. Now the problem arises when you try to take these MAs out of that original context. You put an art designed for the battle field and tell the art that used small joint manipulation to disable a hand or a thrust to the eye to take down a bigger attacker "you can't do that" the art will be handicapped. As these arts evolved without those rules, MMA evolved into what we see today because they existed.

If you are going to study Martial Arts it should be because it suits your purposes. I do what you say, I actually study practice 3 techniques but I have practical reasons for doing so. I studied, and still practice, certain Aikido techniques because they are "softer" than many arts but still control and I don't want to injure a mental health patient and right out of the gate I don't want to be injuring suspects.

And your problem here is that you're looking at exactly the wrong thing… it's got little to nothing to do with techniques… they're simply the expression of what the real issue is. So no, limiting an art by not allowing certain "techniques" is not the problem for them (oh, and maintaining a few mechanical actions from a particular art is far from them still being "Aikido techniques"… for the record).

So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)

First: So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates. In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other. So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.

Er… no.

What defines a martial system, whether sporting or not, is the context and the tactical approach. This then gives rise to particular technical approaches… which can certainly be easily mistaken for the "art" itself (as they are then the physical, outward appearance of the system), but aren't actually the system itself. In this way, a wrist lock is not Aikido, but Aikido can be done with a wrist lock, if you follow.

What this means in this area is that, no, removing some technical aspects/approaches does not invalidate a system's applicability… to think it does is to too heavily rely on such aspects. Of course, that doesn't mean that all arts are going to be equally applicable to whatever context you want to apply them to (such as an MMA match)… an art who's tactical approach is to cause major damage to end a confrontation a soon as possible will find issues in a situation where that tactical approach is not suited… techniques, on the other hand, simply aren't the biggest factor there.

I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner. That's what PEDs are all about. It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.

Well, you've kinda missed how that works, then… the catch is in your last few words there…

Second:Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai?

Not overtly, no.

Again, you really need to look at individual systems, rather than thinking "jujutsu" is some kind of homogenous whole… very little in the world of jujutsu, particularly Koryu forms, have much in the way of consistency from one system to another… down to even what the form of combative methodology is called. While some systems did, indeed, use the term "jujutsu" (柔術), some would prefer the alternate pronunciation of 柔, "yawara"… then, you'd have variations on that (yawara-gi, yawara-gei)… alternate names, such as "wa", "wajutsu", "goho", "hade", "koshi no mawari" (which, in other arts, would refer to an armed section, rather than a jujutsu-like section), "gyoi-dori", "torite", "te", "tejutsu", "taijutsu", "tai no ken", and many, many more… including the usage of the term "judo" some 150 years prior to Kano by the Jikishinkage Ryu…

You also need to look at whether a system is dominantly a jujutsu ryu-ha, or if it's an art that focuses on something else, but contains jujutsu (or similar)… Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu are both very well known as sword systems… but both contain a jujutsu component to their teachings (known as yawara in both cases). Some of these sogo bujutsu systems (composite arts) would be more in line with the ideas you're putting forth, many jujutsu ryu-ha (as focused systems) simply weren't. Many classical jujutsu ryu-ha were based in the Edo jidai, a period of peacetime, which enabled the type of development necessary for the sophistication found, but also then took them away from the idea of armoured combat, as well as changing entirely the types of weaponry and attacks to be considered.

That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.

Complex subjects are often reduced down to simple generalisations, as they're easier for people to get their heads around, but that doesn't make them true when you really look at it. As mentioned, you can't really have a single "history" of jujutsu, as there wasn't any single start point or single source school. You may look to the mythical origins of unarmed combative rituals in Japan, which would be the origins of sumo… or you might look to schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, often thought to be the first true jujutsu-centric art (although it has quite a large weaponry contingent as well), and, indeed, a large number of ryu-ha trace themselves to that school in different ways… but they then develop independently themselves, moving away from the construct you've described. And then you get other schools, such as the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who don't trace to Takenouchi Ryu at all...

When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor. He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu.

Really? It "must" include the history of jujutsu? A history that, by definition, cannot exist as a single entity? The best he could do would be to look at the history of his own systems… which line of Aikido, and which ryu of Jujutsu would be the question…

Oh, and for the record, I've come across a large number of people who are "huge" on history… but rarely actually know much beyond basic, and somewhat misguided, understandings… often even of their own systems…

It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.

I'm sorry, what? What was "even integrated into Samurai training"? Jujutsu? Er… I don't even know where to start with how little sense that makes…

The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established, namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent. But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book, Google is our friend.

I go a fair bit beyond Google, you know… and you really should get by now, there is no "it" here…

Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc. It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue. WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list. You are correct in that the removing of simply one or two isn't a big deal but the more you remove the greater effect it has and the art designed with these fouls in mind eventually gains a noticeable advantage. That advantage actually becomes more pronounced when you get to the highest levels as well. Why because once you are fit enough, experienced and well trained enough, the number of tools in your arsenal becomes all the more important and the more tools that get removed by the rules the more disadvantaged you become.

Nope. Not the reason that WC (and others) are ill suited to MMA competition… it really has got nothing to do with techniques in this sense…

Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon" and I would say "if I wanted to fight in the Octagon I would."

Sure, and that's valid.

I have no desire to do so however and take away those rules, the gloves, the limits the Octagon itself creates, suddenly many traditional arts find themselves on far more even terms with MMA.

And that's a rather false assumption… it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements.

As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles.

Lovely. How many are you familiar with?

The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.

Er… can you detail the "styles from which Aikido descended from"? Cause… arguments can be made…

You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business I would say you are correct. If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in.

Well, let's clear up a couple of things… typically a "Japanese soldier serving under a samurai" (ashigaru) would not be trained in any form of jujutsu… so that will take that idea out… as far as the samurai themselves, one thing to realise is that many ryu-ha weren't really for mass-soldiering… a number were more for what would be better thought of as "officer training"… some would focus more on battlefield usage (such as some lines of Jigen Ryu, which were very much for mass training), but they typically had little to no jujutsu at all.

In other words, what you're describing was minimalist if anything in terms of being an accurate depiction of the development of jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems. What was more common would be a slight element of some taijutsu elements as part of the weapon usage… but again, it will depend on the system itself. But the bulk of martial systems prior to the Edo jidai were weaponry based… jujutsu, although existing prior to it, was much more a non-battlefield peacetime development.

Were you still at a disadvantage? Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance. The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.

Lovely romanticised impressions you have… thing is, none of this is particularly true. On either side.

Your failure to accept a universal principle of competition between humans, the aggregation of marginal losses or gains is kinda odd. Let's say the marginal losses only = 5%-10% disadvantage, when everything else is equal it is a game changer. Ask any professional athlete.

But we're not talking about professional athletes, are we? If we were, then we'd be discussing similar skill sets, skilled (trained) responses, a different form of preparation, different timelines, and more. For these reasons you can't simply say "WC is let down by not having it's ability to strike this target"… because it's simply not the same thing on any other level either.

I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence.

No, it shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing… or, really, a lacking and misleading thing… oh, and that's not directed at Kirk, of course…

Anything can happen in warfare. Let's say I am a Samurai and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword,

No, you've lost the end of your naginata… you now have a bo…

And, before you think that's me being facetious, that's actually the explanation/origin of bojutsu in many sogo bujutsu systems… it isn't a weapon by itself, it represents a broken naginata or yari.

yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well. Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well.

Some did, some didn't… and some were based around what you'd typically have on you in yoroi, others had other "weapons" at hand (Takenouchi Ryu would include things like an umbrella, or the lid to a cooking pot, and so on…)… it really, really, really depends on which ryu-ha you're trying to discuss.

Why? Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon. I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.

Ha, no. While a common tactic when armed with a shorter weapon is to close distance, the preference is still for the longer weapon.

Anything can happen in real life or death combat.

Sure…

The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place.

Yeah… I wouldn't be so quick to discuss the purposes of such arts here…

I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat?

You want to know something fun? There are a number of military around the world who only have hand-to-hand training for certain specialist groups… in basic they don't do any anymore, as it's considered not a high enough likelihood of usage to justify the loss of training time for other areas.

Police, on the other hand, have very particular need for unarmed methods… but to consider that the same as jujutsu (as described in these posts) is very inaccurate…

They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons. They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.

Hang on, are you saying that martial arts are only unarmed combat? And anything that is unarmed combat is martial arts? Hmm…

 

[Juany118]

Kirk, you called?

Okay, because I was asked to come along here and add a little input, let's see what we have. Fair warning, this will be largely off topic for the basis of the thread, and seeks to simply address (and hopefully put to rest) a side issue from the last few pages. So… let's see what we have.



Okay, yep, fair enough. Not sure how much people have missed it, but, as said, I'm only dealing with the last few pages, so I'm going to say that yes, understanding the cultural conditions of the development of an art is very important to gain an understanding of it (the wherefores and whys of it, as it were).



Er… less agreement here. In fact, this is one of the biggest misconceptions and fallacies when it comes to the "history of jujutsu" (which, of course, isn't really anything like a single codified history at all…). Let's look at it, shall we?

- Jujutsu was developed to fight an armoured opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.

Hmm… well, that is part of the contingency and application potential of some (note here: some!) jujutsu ryu-ha… but that's as far as I'd personally take it. I mean… Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Asayama Ichiden Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, Sekiguchi Shin Shin Ryu, Sho Sho Ryu, Iga Ryuha Katsushin Ryu, and many others don't fit this profile at all, as none of them really factor yoroi into it at all… while yes, there are systems that deal in yoroi, typically those systems themselves also employ yoroi… such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Kito Ryu, Take(no)uchi Ryu, and so on.

- Punching an armed and armoured opponent do diddly but hurt the practitioner.

Yeah, you may want to explain that to the practitioners of Yagyu Shingan Ryu… which is a very atemi-heavy system of kattchu-bujutsu (armoured combative methods), including a quite sophisticated array of yawara methods (jujutsu)…

-… so it includes a lot of grappling and take downs.

Well, Japan (as a culture) is more geared to prefer a grappling approach (note: stand up, not ground fighting as the term has, rather frustratingly, been adopted to infer), but exactly what that entails varies greatly from system to system… you simply can't be that general about an area with such a wide array of variables.

- The art was designed with a specific purpose in mind…

Oh, you're so close here! Yes, absolutely these systems were designed with specific contexts and purposes… but you need to extend that. What can you tell me about the context and application of Takenouchi Ryu, as compared to Fusen Ryu? How did Takagi Ryu develop, and why? Kito Ryu and Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu were both instrumental in the formation of Kodokan Judo, but have very different contexts and purposes… can you address those? What is the difference in context between the differing areas of Yagyu Shingan Ryu Yawara (including the Gyoi no Kata)? You've mentioned Aikido and it's origins… what can you say about the history of Daito Ryu? Both claimed and more likely correct? There are different lines of Asayama Ichiden Ryu… what's the biggest difference there? Are there different contexts within a single art? If yes, doesn't that change your point? If no, why would you think that all these arts would then work towards a single context themselves?



And your problem here is that you're looking at exactly the wrong thing… it's got little to nothing to do with techniques… they're simply the expression of what the real issue is. So no, limiting an art by not allowing certain "techniques" is not the problem for them (oh, and maintaining a few mechanical actions from a particular art is far from them still being "Aikido techniques"… for the record).



Er… no.

What defines a martial system, whether sporting or not, is the context and the tactical approach. This then gives rise to particular technical approaches… which can certainly be easily mistaken for the "art" itself (as they are then the physical, outward appearance of the system), but aren't actually the system itself. In this way, a wrist lock is not Aikido, but Aikido can be done with a wrist lock, if you follow.

What this means in this area is that, no, removing some technical aspects/approaches does not invalidate a system's applicability… to think it does is to too heavily rely on such aspects. Of course, that doesn't mean that all arts are going to be equally applicable to whatever context you want to apply them to (such as an MMA match)… an art who's tactical approach is to cause major damage to end a confrontation a soon as possible will find issues in a situation where that tactical approach is not suited… techniques, on the other hand, simply aren't the biggest factor there.



Well, you've kinda missed how that works, then… the catch is in your last few words there…



Not overtly, no.

Again, you really need to look at individual systems, rather than thinking "jujutsu" is some kind of homogenous whole… very little in the world of jujutsu, particularly Koryu forms, have much in the way of consistency from one system to another… down to even what the form of combative methodology is called. While some systems did, indeed, use the term "jujutsu" (柔術), some would prefer the alternate pronunciation of 柔, "yawara"… then, you'd have variations on that (yawara-gi, yawara-gei)… alternate names, such as "wa", "wajutsu", "goho", "hade", "koshi no mawari" (which, in other arts, would refer to an armed section, rather than a jujutsu-like section), "gyoi-dori", "torite", "te", "tejutsu", "taijutsu", "tai no ken", and many, many more… including the usage of the term "judo" some 150 years prior to Kano by the Jikishinkage Ryu…

You also need to look at whether a system is dominantly a jujutsu ryu-ha, or if it's an art that focuses on something else, but contains jujutsu (or similar)… Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu are both very well known as sword systems… but both contain a jujutsu component to their teachings (known as yawara in both cases). Some of these sogo bujutsu systems (composite arts) would be more in line with the ideas you're putting forth, many jujutsu ryu-ha (as focused systems) simply weren't. Many classical jujutsu ryu-ha were based in the Edo jidai, a period of peacetime, which enabled the type of development necessary for the sophistication found, but also then took them away from the idea of armoured combat, as well as changing entirely the types of weaponry and attacks to be considered.



Complex subjects are often reduced down to simple generalisations, as they're easier for people to get their heads around, but that doesn't make them true when you really look at it. As mentioned, you can't really have a single "history" of jujutsu, as there wasn't any single start point or single source school. You may look to the mythical origins of unarmed combative rituals in Japan, which would be the origins of sumo… or you might look to schools such as Takenouchi Ryu, often thought to be the first true jujutsu-centric art (although it has quite a large weaponry contingent as well), and, indeed, a large number of ryu-ha trace themselves to that school in different ways… but they then develop independently themselves, moving away from the construct you've described. And then you get other schools, such as the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lineages, who don't trace to Takenouchi Ryu at all...



Really? It "must" include the history of jujutsu? A history that, by definition, cannot exist as a single entity? The best he could do would be to look at the history of his own systems… which line of Aikido, and which ryu of Jujutsu would be the question…

Oh, and for the record, I've come across a large number of people who are "huge" on history… but rarely actually know much beyond basic, and somewhat misguided, understandings… often even of their own systems…



I'm sorry, what? What was "even integrated into Samurai training"? Jujutsu? Er… I don't even know where to start with how little sense that makes…



I go a fair bit beyond Google, you know… and you really should get by now, there is no "it" here…



Nope. Not the reason that WC (and others) are ill suited to MMA competition… it really has got nothing to do with techniques in this sense…



Sure, and that's valid.



And that's a rather false assumption… it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements.



Lovely. How many are you familiar with?



Er… can you detail the "styles from which Aikido descended from"? Cause… arguments can be made…



Well, let's clear up a couple of things… typically a "Japanese soldier serving under a samurai" (ashigaru) would not be trained in any form of jujutsu… so that will take that idea out… as far as the samurai themselves, one thing to realise is that many ryu-ha weren't really for mass-soldiering… a number were more for what would be better thought of as "officer training"… some would focus more on battlefield usage (such as some lines of Jigen Ryu, which were very much for mass training), but they typically had little to no jujutsu at all.

In other words, what you're describing was minimalist if anything in terms of being an accurate depiction of the development of jujutsu and jujutsu-like systems. What was more common would be a slight element of some taijutsu elements as part of the weapon usage… but again, it will depend on the system itself. But the bulk of martial systems prior to the Edo jidai were weaponry based… jujutsu, although existing prior to it, was much more a non-battlefield peacetime development.



Lovely romanticised impressions you have… thing is, none of this is particularly true. On either side.



But we're not talking about professional athletes, are we? If we were, then we'd be discussing similar skill sets, skilled (trained) responses, a different form of preparation, different timelines, and more. For these reasons you can't simply say "WC is let down by not having it's ability to strike this target"… because it's simply not the same thing on any other level either.



No, it shows that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing… or, really, a lacking and misleading thing… oh, and that's not directed at Kirk, of course…



No, you've lost the end of your naginata… you now have a bo…

And, before you think that's me being facetious, that's actually the explanation/origin of bojutsu in many sogo bujutsu systems… it isn't a weapon by itself, it represents a broken naginata or yari.



Some did, some didn't… and some were based around what you'd typically have on you in yoroi, others had other "weapons" at hand (Takenouchi Ryu would include things like an umbrella, or the lid to a cooking pot, and so on…)… it really, really, really depends on which ryu-ha you're trying to discuss.



Ha, no. While a common tactic when armed with a shorter weapon is to close distance, the preference is still for the longer weapon.



Sure…



Yeah… I wouldn't be so quick to discuss the purposes of such arts here…



You want to know something fun? There are a number of military around the world who only have hand-to-hand training for certain specialist groups… in basic they don't do any anymore, as it's considered not a high enough likelihood of usage to justify the loss of training time for other areas.

Police, on the other hand, have very particular need for unarmed methods… but to consider that the same as jujutsu (as described in these posts) is very inaccurate…



Hang on, are you saying that martial arts are only unarmed combat? And anything that is unarmed combat is martial arts? Hmm…

First you said here...

"..it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements..."

And this is precisely what I have been saying from the jump. There have been a couple people (including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior", regardless of circumstances and environment. My point was to say that when one strips away to rules and environment of the Octagon it is basically impossible to make such a statement and in the end all the result of a conflict can tell you with any confidence, is who the better fighter was, not which Art was superior. As you said it was complicated as all heck, however this being and internet forum, and my responding via a smart phone, I tried to keep my explanations "short.". This obviously leads to things being messy and seeming "off".

As for the importance of Jujutsu to Aikido, that was my particular Sensei's belief, apologies if I made it sound somehow universal. He was also a History Teacher so it was likely him simply taking his passion for history and bringing it into his martial training. Obviously that would mean the form of Jujutsu that would be relevant would be Daito-ryu (according to my Sensei) not every form.

As for the soldiers under Samurai not learning Jujutsu, my bad, this was a fact I was unaware of and thank you for the correction.

As for the military, my experience is training back in 1991 as a 19d. We were taught, while in OSUT, Judo and we also still donned the helmets and used the padded staves to pound on each other back then. I can't speak to the "regular" Army of today of course. Also I am fully aware that LE today do not get trained in Jujutsu, being a Police Officer for almost 20 years now. They get a simplified training in first control techniques and also the use of a baton or PR-24, depending on what is issued. It's why I spend my own cash on regular MA training (at the Moment WC and Inosanto Kali).

Again, apologies if it got lost in the rush but my reason for mentioning the military and LE was not to draw a parallel to Jujutsu. It was to answer the claim of he who I responding to that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense. It does even though some will see it sadly, as I think you try to point out, as an unnecessary expense. I think we are finding out however (especially as it related to LE at least) that it is far from unnecessary.

And no, unarmed combat does not necessarily = a Martial Art. It's... complicated. You have people that are just naturally gifted street fighters, as an example. I see Krav Maga on many a "martial art" site but when I took it the instructor, who was a former IDF instructor, corrected anyone who called it a MA by saying "no it is a fighting system."

Hope this clears up some of the stuff.

 

[Chris Parker]

First you said here...

"..it's a little more accurate to say that if the context is different, then (based on the context itself), the TMA might be more evenly matched, or better suited than MMA… but the variables are too many to make any such blanket statements..."

And this is precisely what I have been saying from the jump. There have been a couple people (including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior", regardless of circumstances and environment. My point was to say that when one strips away to rules and environment of the Octagon it is basically impossible to make such a statement and in the end all the result of a conflict can tell you with any confidence, is who the better fighter was, not which Art was superior. As you said it was complicated as all heck, however this being and internet forum, and my responding via a smart phone, I tried to keep my explanations "short.". This obviously leads to things being messy and seeming "off".

Sure… but my (and, I'd say, Kirk's) point is that simply allowing some particular techniques is not the actual difference… and it's a lot more involved than just "remove the rules"...

As for the importance of Jujutsu to Aikido, that was my particular Sensei's belief, apologies if I made it sound somehow universal. He was also a History Teacher so it was likely him simply taking his passion for history and bringing it into his martial training. Obviously that would mean the form of Jujutsu that would be relevant would be Daito-ryu not every form.

Well, with regards to Daito Ryu, trying to claim some kind of samurai usage is going to lead you down a particularly slippery path… as, other than the claimed history (note: not necessarily records), there's little to nothing to suggest that that would have been the case at all (it's too young, you see).

The rest of the discussion of the "history of jujutsu" was more the point, though…

As for the military, my experience is training back in 1991 as a 19d. We were taught, while basic, Judo and we also still donned the helmets and used the padded staves to pound on each other back then. I can't speak to the "regular" Army of today of course. Also I am fully aware that LE today do not get trained in Jujutsu, being a Police Officer for almost 20 years now. It's why I spend my own cash on regular military training. Again, apologies if it got lost but my reason for mentioning the military and LE was to answer the claim that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense. It does even though some will see it sadly, as I think you try to point out, as an unnecessary expense. I think we are finding out however (as it related to LE at least) that it is far from unnecessary.

Law Enforcement is a very different category to "military", of course… and in neither case would I make the claim that what is done is close to what I would class as "martial arts"...

And no, unarmed combat does not necessarily = a Martial Art. It's... complicated. You have people that are just naturally gifted street fighters, as an example. I see Krav Maga on many a "martial art" site but when I took it the instructor, who was a former IDF instructor, corrected anyone who called it a MA by saying "no it is a fighting system."

Hope this clears up some of the stuff.

That would be a matter of personal preference… based largely on the instructors distaste for the term, I'd suggest. Not really what I was getting at, but okay.

 

[Juany118]

Sure… but my (and, I'd say, Kirk's) point is that simply allowing some particular techniques is not the actual difference… and it's a lot more involved than just "remove the rules"...



Well, with regards to Daito Ryu, trying to claim some kind of samurai usage is going to lead you down a particularly slippery path… as, other than the claimed history (note: not necessarily records), there's little to nothing to suggest that that would have been the case at all (it's too young, you see).

The rest of the discussion of the "history of jujutsu" was more the point, though…



Law Enforcement is a very different category to "military", of course… and in neither case would I make the claim that what is done is close to what I would class as "martial arts"...



That would be a matter of personal preference… based largely on the instructors distaste for the term, I'd suggest. Not really what I was getting at, but okay.

Well from the beginning, and maybe I was wrong, Kirk appeared to take the stance that circumstances and environment mean little to nothing and that MMA is the superior Art. If I was wrong in that interpretation fine, my bad, but earlier I was simply saying "all we can actually prove on the street is the superiority of the fighter, not the art and the Octagon is not the street. He appeared to call BS on it.

As for slippery slopes I think discussing the history of most, if not all "Traditional" Martial Arts created in the various feudal periods are can be called that. The further back you go the more oral history (and thus myth) comes into play. I will say however "Mae culpa" on being WAY to overly general about the "history" of Jujutsu, I should have been more specific.

LE is sure as heck different than the Miltary, thank goodness.

As for what we may call "martial arts" I think you last line kinda goes to that point, there really is not firm definition. Some will say a Martial Art is simply a codified system of combat, others will narrow it to requiring melee combat, others will further narrow it to saying it must have a certain amount of tradition etc. The term is, imo, to an extent nebulous and open to rather broad interpretation. /Shrug.

That said I did agree I think that LE is not taught Martial Arts, hence why I my own money. While it might have been "YMCA" Quality Judo, when I was in the Army, we were taught that at least as a 19D in 1991. Where to categorize that? Well compared to what I have studied since? Nope. Compared to what 95% of the American populace know however, it's different I think.

 

[Chris Parker]

Daito Ryu was not created in the Feudal Period… that's what I'm getting at. It's late 19th/early 20th Century…

 

[Juany118]

Daito Ryu was not created in the Feudal Period… that's what I'm getting at. It's late 19th/early 20th Century…

Well, maybe it is apocryphal, I will admit to not being a "student" of that particular art, but doesn't it draw a lineage back to Minamoto clan Samurai back in like the year 1000 or something?

 

[Chris Parker]

There are such claims, but realistically, it was formulated by Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century, going into the early 20th. The issues with the old claims are myriad… although still claimed by the practitioners…

This is what I was meaning by pointing out that such ideas (as a basis for understanding the history of jujutsu) wasn't really sending you in the right direction… as it was not created for the samurai, it had nothing to do with being used on a battlefield, or losing your weapons, or… anything you were saying.

 

[Juany118]

There are such claims, but realistically, it was formulated by Sokaku Takeda in the late 19th Century, going into the early 20th. The issues with the old claims are myriad… although still claimed by the practitioners…

Well then I will at least say this, my knowledge of that history comes from one of the teachers who supports that claim. If he is in error (drank some bad kool-aid) again Mae Culpa.

However, to my point throughout this thread... all I have tried to say is that on the street, due to the insane number of variables, unlike a ring/octagon, you can never say universally that one MA is greater than another. Different arts have different strengths. Half of being a martial artists on the street. is deal with real fight or flight stress and the use of tactics that lend to your arts strengths. As such, in the end all you can say with any concurrence is who was the better practitioner and/or who did the circumstances most favor, NOT which is the universally better MA.

Can we agree on this general principle?

 

[Chris Parker]

It's unfortunately still not that easy… the sad fact is that not all arts are "equal"… because no two arts are designed for the same thing. The problem comes up when people expect them to be equally applicable, or that the fact that one context shows success, it automatically then applies to others. What I will say is that a seeming lack of performance (or applicability) to one format does not equal a lack in another area… but this does get very messy to really get to the bottom of.

Of course, I was just summoned to deal with the jujutsu thing… the rest I'll leave to those who want to argue it.

 

[Juany118]

It's unfortunately still not that easy… the sad fact is that not all arts are "equal"… because no two arts are designed for the same thing. The problem comes up when people expect them to be equally applicable, or that the fact that one context shows success, it automatically then applies to others. What I will say is that a seeming lack of performance (or applicability) to one format does not equal a lack in another area… but this does get very messy to really get to the bottom of.

Of course, I was just summoned to deal with the jujutsu thing… the rest I'll leave to those who want to argue it.

That issue you raise is why I spoke of the importance of tactics. As you said, and I even said, all arts are designed with different concepts and for the specific environments in which they are born. Half of a real life fight is using not the art but tactics in order to use your art to the fullest extent, and if possible, disadvantage a different art.

The problem is that when a "sport" and yes when you step into the ring it becomes a "sport", the rules and environment of that sport not only limit certain arts but also tactical considerations. In essence I say, on the street, it's not just messy, you simply can't get to the bottom of it because there are so many more variables. No rounds, no gloves, no fouls. Are you in a wife open space, a bar, a bathroom, an elevator? What are you and the opponent wearing respectively? What is the surface you are standing on? The variables are INSANE in a real life conflict and they cascade to such an extent that the only thing you can do, imo, is wait to see whose standing in the end and say they are the better fighter and not that the winner studied a universally superior martial art.

 

[drop bear]

That issue you raise is why I spoke of the importance of tactics. As you said, and I even said, all arts are designed with different concepts and for the specific environments in which they are born. Half of a real life fight is using not the art but tactics in order to use your art to the fullest extent, and if possible, disadvantage a different art.

The problem is that when a "sport" and yes when you step into the ring it becomes a "sport", the rules and environment of that sport not only limit certain arts but also tactical considerations. In essence I say, on the street, it's not just messy, you simply can't get to the bottom of it because there are so many more variables. No rounds, no gloves, no fouls. Are you in a wife open space, a bar, a bathroom, an elevator? What are you and the opponent wearing respectively? What is the surface you are standing on? The variables are INSANE in a real life conflict and they cascade to such an extent that the only thing you can do, imo, is wait to see whose standing in the end and say they are the better fighter and not that the winner studied a universally superior martial art.

So you can't prepare for a street fight because there are too many variables. And even if you could training does not determine the outcome any way. It is determined by genetics.

So the whole concept of self defence goes out the window.

why does any body train in anything?

 

[Juany118]

So you can't prepare for a street fight because there are too many variables. And even if you could training does not determine the outcome any way. It is determined by genetics.

So the whole concept of self defence goes out the window.

why does any body train in anything?

Hey look, out of context quote yet again.

No, what I said was that all of these variables mean that the practitioner must apply his knowledge their art AND tactics to win the day.

As I said previously and in other threads, you can be awesome on a dummy, in sparring, in the ring/octagon. These are all places where a great many of the myriad of real world variables are greatly reduced. However irl, it is not just about the art or your knowledge of your art, it is about who is the better fighter and a HUGE portion of that is tactical thinking and being able to adapt to the unique circumstances of each rl hostile encounter in order to maximize your effectiveness and hinder your opponent.

In the ring/octagon a lot of these considerations are eliminated, right down to there being regulation clothing and weight classes. You always know the surface you will fighting on, what your opponent is not allowed to do (unless they want to risk a disqualification) etc. It is still a stressful environment to be sure but the x-factors irl fights mean that mindset and tactics are a lot more important.

 

[drop bear]

Hey look, out of context quote yet again.

No, what I said was that all of these variables mean that the practitioner must apply his knowledge their art AND tactics to win the day.

As I said previously and in other threads, you can be awesome on a dummy, in sparring, in the ring/octagon. These are all places where a great many of the myriad of real world variables are greatly reduced. However irl, it is not just about the art or your knowledge of your art, it is about who is the better fighter and a HUGE portion of that is tactical thinking and being able to adapt to the unique circumstances of each rl hostile encounter in order to maximize your effectiveness and hinder your opponent.

In the ring/octagon a lot of these considerations are eliminated, right down to there being regulation clothing and weight classes. You always know the surface you will fighting on, what your opponent is not allowed to do (unless they want to risk a disqualification) etc. It is still a stressful environment to be sure but the x-factors irl fights mean that mindset and tactics are a lot more important.

In every training a lot of these variables are diminished. Variables do not differentiate between street and sport. Both train within a rule set. .

 

[Juany118]

In every training a lot of these variables are diminished. Variables do not differentiate between street and sport. Both train within a rule set. .

And already said but conveniently ignored, it's getting sad. I already said that multiple times, that there are rules in training, such as in the post you quoted, this is I believe the 5th time you attempted to create a circular argument when they point you focused on is already addressed in the very post you are quoting.

 

[lklawson]

(including the one to whom I was responding to, saying "MMA is superior", regardless of circumstances and environment.

You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right? Because I certainly didn't write that.

It was to answer the claim of he who I responding to that learning unarmed martial arts, to deal with an armed opponent, makes no sense.

You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right? Because I certainly didn't write that.

Hope this clears up some of the stuff.

I hope not because it seems that you may still have some, errr..., "misunderstanding" of what was written.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right? Because I certainly didn't write that.

You're thinking of someone else, other than me, here, right? Because I certainly didn't write that.

I hope not because it seems that you may still have some, errr..., "misunderstanding" of what was written.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

As I said, I may be mistaken, with that in mind, below is a repeat of my original point which is also, basically a summary of the idea behind every post I have made.

The circumstances inside the ring/octagon, (even training/organized regulated sparring of various arts against the there other) are fundamentally different when compared to fighting irl hostile encounter. As such simply because MODERN MMA dominates inside the Octagon, that gave birth to it, does NOT mean it is inherently superior outside of that environment in a real life hostile encounter.

There are too many additional variables that compound on one another in such real life hostile encounters. As such the only thing we can ever say in the end, with any degree certainty, is that the winner of a rl hostile encounter was simply the better (and perhaps luckier) practitioner, not that their martial art was superior. Why? Because martial arts is not only about the specific skill in the chosen art. It is also about proper mind set, dealing with stress and knowing how to use tactics, in terms of not only the art itself but the environment/terrain, to maximize your chance of success as every art has different weakness and strengths.

Do you say the above idea is false?

Edit: please note I am talking about today's MMA. The days of professional MMA in the US being about one martial art trying to prove itself against another are done, while there is variation in personal style, due to the rules and such MMA has basically become an art/fighting system, in and of itself, it is this art and NOT the original concept of the competition of the same name, which I refer to.

 

[lklawson]

As I said, I may be mistaken, with that in mind, below is a repeat of my original point which is also, basically a summary of the idea behind every post I have made.

Fair enough.

The circumstances inside the ring/octagon, (even training/organized regulated sparring of various arts against the there other) are fundamentally different when compared to fighting irl hostile encounter. As such simply because MODERN MMA dominates inside the Octagon, that gave birth to it, does NOT mean it is inherently superior outside of that environment in a real life hostile encounter.

There are too many additional variables that compound on one another in such real life hostile encounters. As such the only thing we can ever say in the end, with any degree certainty, is that the winner of a rl hostile encounter was simply the better (and perhaps luckier) practitioner, not that their martial art was superior. Why? Because martial arts is not only about the specific skill in the chosen art. It is also about proper mind set, dealing with stress and knowing how to use tactics, in terms of not only the art itself but the environment/terrain, to maximize your chance of success as every art has different weakness and strengths.

Do you say the above idea is false?

In general, I agree with most of the above two paragraphs. I do, however, have a few quibbles. First, no, I don't think you can say that MMA is "fundamentally different." There are some very important different starting assumptions, such as both fighters being very similar weights for instance, but, fundamentally, it's still fighting. Just because it is a different expression of (trained, codified, systemized) fighting, doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally fighting. So, no, I disagree that MMA is "fundamentally" different from every other martial art in the set [MARTIAL_ARTS].

Second, I'd quibble that the Octagon did not "give birth" to "MODERN MMA," though many people have made the claim. It is more accurate to say that the Octagon was, by far, the most important element in shaping and defining "MODERN MMA." This is because the "MODERN MMA" fighter is usually using somewhere around 2-4 base arts to mix into his training system. Most often (but not always exclusively) drawing from Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, and Mua Thai. These arts have been "mixed" since they existed. In particular it has (since their inception) been dirt common to mix Boxing with Wrestling and/or Judo. So, no, I disagree that the Octagon, "gave birth" to "MODERN MMA."

Your primary premise appears to be that no one martial art is "superior" to any other because there are simply too many variables "irl" to make that determination, including environment and the natural and physical capabilities (regardless of training) of the fighters in question. In general, I agree with that. Many times I have been asked, "what is the best martial art" and I usually reply with some variation of, "best for what?" That said, there are two permutations that I wish to address. First, in those two paragraphs you wrote, and much of what else you wrote, it almost appears that you are subtly suggesting what martial art (or even any at all) you practice doesn't matter because there are too many variables. While I don't believe that was your intent, it should be explicitly stated that, no, training in martial arts very frequently can and does help "irl." Second, it should also be pointed out that "MODERN MMA" and, indeed, most other mix-n-match competitions (such as Vale Tudo and The Gracie Challenge) were, in fact, specifically intended to answer the question of "what martial art style is best." This is not a particularly new question or pursuit. Attempts to answer this question go as far back as I've been able to search. Of course there are modern variations which predate MMA such as the Gene LeBell v Milo Savage match. But, in every culture, with every art, there are examples. French vs English vs Spanish vs Italian Smallsword or Rapier, for instance. "El Rubio Bravo" Col. Monstery made a career out of Smallsword challenge matches as an example. In 1625, Edward Peeke famously bested 3 Spanish Rapier Maestros with a Quarterstaff because he had boasted of his systems superiority. There have been numerous English Boxing vs French Savate matches with an especially famous match in 1911 pitting Jerry Driscoll against M. Charlemont. Heck, half of the draw of Roman Gladiatorial matches was pitting national "styles" and weapons from conquered areas against each other (well stylized "styles" anyhow). There is a long tradition of challenge matches among different "kung fu" schools and, of course, there are the near legendary Judo vs JuJutsu competitions. But even within "styles," various lineages frequently initiate challenge matches to try to decide which "style" is best. One modern illustration is the William Cheung vs Emin Boztepe fight over which lineage, Wing Chun or Ving Tsun, was superior. And yet, it seems to occur within all martial arts with split lineages. IIRC, there was a duel between two different lineages of Spanish Destreza (a system of Rapier fighting).

In short, while you may believe that it is impossible to determine which martial art is "best" you may be in the minority, historically speaking, for that belief. Given the fact that attempts appear to be a historical fixture, the desire to do so, through challenge matches and competitions, it appears that most martial artists throughout history did, in fact, believe that one martial art could be superior and that challenge matches and competitions were the logical way to decide which it was. "MODERN MMA" was at its inception yet another attempt to answer that question.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

And already said but conveniently ignored, it's getting sad. I already said that multiple times, that there are rules in training, such as in the post you quoted, this is I believe the 5th time you attempted to create a circular argument when they point you focused on is already addressed in the very post you are quoting.

Your point seems to be that a street fight won't be determined by the training that someone has done.

And that is plainly false.

 

[Juany118]

Fair enough.

In general, I agree with most of the above two paragraphs. I do, however, have a few quibbles. First, no, I don't think you can say that MMA is "fundamentally different." There are some very important different starting assumptions, such as both fighters being very similar weights for instance, but, fundamentally, it's still fighting. Just because it is a different expression of (trained, codified, systemized) fighting, doesn't mean that it's not fundamentally fighting. So, no, I disagree that MMA is "fundamentally" different from every other martial art in the set [MARTIAL_ARTS].

Second, I'd quibble that the Octagon did not "give birth" to "MODERN MMA," though many people have made the claim. It is more accurate to say that the Octagon was, by far, the most important element in shaping and defining "MODERN MMA." This is because the "MODERN MMA" fighter is usually using somewhere around 2-4 base arts to mix into his training system. Most often (but not always exclusively) drawing from Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, and Mua Thai. These arts have been "mixed" since they existed. In particular it has (since their inception) been dirt common to mix Boxing with Wrestling and/or Judo. So, no, I disagree that the Octagon, "gave birth" to "MODERN MMA."

Your primary premise appears to be that no one martial art is "superior" to any other because there are simply too many variables "irl" to make that determination, including environment and the natural and physical capabilities (regardless of training) of the fighters in question. In general, I agree with that. Many times I have been asked, "what is the best martial art" and I usually reply with some variation of, "best for what?" That said, there are two permutations that I wish to address. First, in those two paragraphs you wrote, and much of what else you wrote, it almost appears that you are subtly suggesting what martial art (or even any at all) you practice doesn't matter because there are too many variables. While I don't believe that was your intent, it should be explicitly stated that, no, training in martial arts very frequently can and does help "irl." Second, it should also be pointed out that "MODERN MMA" and, indeed, most other mix-n-match competitions (such as Vale Tudo and The Gracie Challenge) were, in fact, specifically intended to answer the question of "what martial art style is best." This is not a particularly new question or pursuit. Attempts to answer this question go as far back as I've been able to search. Of course there are modern variations which predate MMA such as the Gene LeBell v Milo Savage match. But, in every culture, with every art, there are examples. French vs English vs Spanish vs Italian Smallsword or Rapier, for instance. "El Rubio Bravo" Col. Monstery made a career out of Smallsword challenge matches as an example. In 1625, Edward Peeke famously bested 3 Spanish Rapier Maestros with a Quarterstaff because he had boasted of his systems superiority. There have been numerous English Boxing vs French Savate matches with an especially famous match in 1911 pitting Jerry Driscoll against M. Charlemont. Heck, half of the draw of Roman Gladiatorial matches was pitting national "styles" and weapons from conquered areas against each other (well stylized "styles" anyhow). There is a long tradition of challenge matches among different "kung fu" schools and, of course, there are the near legendary Judo vs JuJutsu competitions. But even within "styles," various lineages frequently initiate challenge matches to try to decide which "style" is best. One modern illustration is the William Cheung vs Emin Boztepe fight over which lineage, Wing Chun or Ving Tsun, was superior. And yet, it seems to occur within all martial arts with split lineages. IIRC, there was a duel between two different lineages of Spanish Destreza (a system of Rapier fighting).

In short, while you may believe that it is impossible to determine which martial art is "best" you may be in the minority, historically speaking, for that belief. Given the fact that attempts appear to be a historical fixture, the desire to do so, through challenge matches and competitions, it appears that most martial artists throughout history did, in fact, believe that one martial art could be superior and that challenge matches and competitions were the logical way to decide which it was. "MODERN MMA" was at its inception yet another attempt to answer that question.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

First let me clarify. I say "Modern MMA" because I see today's MMA as different. Back when it started MMA was the name of a venue. Different Traditional Martial Arts went to town, largely no holds barred often without time limits. You still had a ring and such but it was much more "free" for lack of a better term. "Modern MMA", for lack of a better term, is not only a venue at this point, it is largely an art unto itself. I think this transition is important.

And no I am not saying the art you study is irrelevant, rather it is the practitioner behind it that is the most important. The following is obviously just a general summary.

Imo it starts with the practitioners body and temperment. While obviously an exaggeration someone my size (5'10, 170 lbs) should not be practicing an art like classic Greco-Roman wrestling IF I never know the size of the opponent I will encounter because while I may be superior technically, I will have issues wrestling the 6'5" 275 lbs guy who bench presses 350 if they know how to use that size and strength, even without formal training. One's natural ability, coordination and flexibility etc. must be considered when someone choses an art. Temperament is important because some arts are not suited to all people. As an example I would not suggest someone who likes to play a waiting game WC. At least how it is taught to me it is an art that rewards aggression, charging into the lion's teeth and trusting that you can deflect or trap enemies blows while you, essentially striking rather relentlessly, overwhelm, or flood, your opponent.

Next if they chose the right art, it's not just about their competency in the art. It's about first, how well they deal with the stresses of a real encounter and second how well they understand tactics and how it applies to their art. As an example two people can study the same art. Person 1 can be the better person in training and sparring, but if person 1 doesn't know how to deal with the stress of a real fight and, based on the dynamics and environment of that real fight, maximize the arts strengths while minimizing it's deficiencies, and person 2 does know how to do these thing person 2 will win even though their skill in the art itself is "less".

The same principle applies between arts (again generalization). If you can see your opponent's strength lies in a range closer than your strength, how good are you at keeping them outside of their ideal range. This doesn't just include using ur art but the environment and situational awareness, not letting them back you into a corner etc. If it is the reverse and your strength lies in close, how good are you at using your skills to penetrate their defenses, how good are you are manipulating them into that corner so they can't back up.

The above is obviously for just a straight up dynamic, live or die fight. If you are looking for arts that do specific things, excel at ground fighting, control a subject with minimal force, specifically kick, specifically punch, extensive, or specific, weapons training, different arts will be better because they all evolved in different cultures, under different philosophies, with different goals in mind.

I am aware that throughout history people have tried to make the determination as to which Art was superior but in the end, it has proven to largely be an endless struggle. When talking about the old school fights that had far fewer rules than our society now expects for "competition" a fight would have someone declaring "art X has proven to be superior" but then a rematch or a match with different practitioners would throw that conclusion on its head. Of course the debate will always continue but I am a data driven guy. I drive my wife nuts sometimes when she will ask my opinion. Sometimes I have one, sometimes I say "I can't comment". She asks "why not" and I respond "because there isn't enough objective evidence for me to come to a conclusion one way or another." She then mumbles "okay Mr. Spock where are the pointy ears" and we change the topic.

That said I see the process of challenging a good on. It encourages interest in the Martial Arts and forces open minded practitioners interested in the debate to push themselves. Sometimes it's not reaching that destination, a firm conclusion that is important because you may never get there. It's the growth that is spurred by the journey that is important.