Has MMA done harm to martial arts

[Daniel Sullivan]

I was referring to what I see in the commercials, no offense to you intended. The post was how has MMA impacted the image of martial arts? The commercials are all a lot of people see, and I find them very offensive! I hate UFC, MMA, The Cage, and I always will!

I think that we need to keep in mind that saying 'mma' is like saying 'karate.' MMA is both a skill set and mixed training in various martial disciplines. The UFC, and similar organizations, are sports sanctioning bodies.

I don't have any problem with wrestling, but I really do not like the WWE or WCW. Both involve wrestling, but neither fully encompass wrestling.

I'm not sure if there is an organization or program called, "MMA", so perhaps you were refering to an org in you post.

Either way, I felt that the distinction should be made.

Also, the subject of tatoos came up (not sure of the poster). Some of the most upstanding and honorable people that I know have tatoos. The most horrible excuses for human beings that I have known personally have been inkless.

Personally, I am inkless. But I do not consider the presence of tatoos to be indicative of anything other than that the wearer likes tatoos.

Daniel

 

[Glycerine0160]

Through my experience of this, this is like arguing religion. That is why in anything I explain/say, I admit I am very new to the martial arts world and will never self righteously conceit. I would rather it be a discussion and I'm sorry I should probably be quoting, but call me neglectful. But I just want to say, I concur with the general conception that UFC has brought an overwhelming interest martial arts world but has created a minority of real ignorance.


1.) The idea of Wing Chun not being applicable in the UFC because one argument is the rules hurt its delivery and application. The counter argument is a what I would consider the universal knock on Wing Chun saying that it's not applicable in a fight. I say this because, one user posted "back in the times of the ruleless UFC, these fighters still lost" Well if the ruleless UFC was the same as a real life situation, then one might conclude wing chun isn't a supportive fighting style. Here is my quarrel and as I said before, I want to be sure I am discussing, with no intentions of insulting.
I can see where a person might say, "all that wing chun trapping" is inefficient and not practical in the real sense. While I would say that might be a valid point, that does not mean that a real skilled practitioner of wing chun could not master trapping so flawlessly that he turns that inefficiency to the opposite.
I only saw clips of the old UFC, and none of it seemed like what I would imagine. It actually looked quite simliar to today's UFC with just things a little more let go. Like flying knees to the head. What I can grasp is if flying knees were an efficient method to use in the old UFC, how would a chop to the neck not be? or a straight kick to the knee joint? I don't know the explanation to it, but simply sufficing with "arts like wing chun just arn't as useful in the UFC" seems overly presumptious.
No matter how much I try, I cannot fathom how this guy could not severely destory people in the old UFC.

I must be honest, I'm not sure how Tommy is viewed by outsiders of wing chun, but this is the kind of guy I meant when I said, to the experts, trapping is very efficient.
(although, most people could never master trapping anywhere near this extent.)

2.) Someone in the last page with others agreeing made the statement the rules are more supportive for striking. I always felt the exact opposite. If anyone tried to grapple me, especially if they were bigger, I'd strike every vulnerable organ or body part available. The lack of this means the person who is larger is going to to have the advantage. (that is not to override the most critical feature, technique.)

3.) The other quesiton that remains for me is that you don't see any of these vicious grapplers like you would see of a silat art or any of the chinese arts. I know silat puts extreme emphasis on structure. Weaken a individual's structure; this omits their size.


For me, like I said, this is like arguing religion. The "only" reason I went here is all of you have knowledge on martial arts, not just on UFC. The people I used to debate this with knew nothing but UFC. You can see the error there and why I stopped discussing it. I've said it a bunch of times but I want to bring it out again so that no one thinks I'm coming off as complacent, I'm a complete novice to the martial arts world but I think and read as much as I can about this stuff as I can. But for me, there is too much ambiguity in this debate of UFC vs martial arts.
Feel free to critisize anything I am ignorant on. But be gentle. haha.

 

[Steve]

I can see where a person might say, "all that wing chun trapping" is inefficient and not practical in the real sense. While I would say that might be a valid point, that does not mean that a real skilled practitioner of wing chun could not master trapping so flawlessly that he turns that inefficiency to the opposite.

Beside the point, really, but if something requires mastery to be of practical use, it's a bit oxymoronic. I can see both sides, but personally, I subscribe to the philosophy that there should be no advanced or basic techniques. The best techniques are the basic techniques done very, very well. In BJJ, it's said that this is the biggest difference between a black belt and a blue belt. The technique is the same.

I only saw clips of the old UFC, and none of it seemed like what I would imagine. It actually looked quite simliar to today's UFC with just things a little more let go. Like flying knees to the head. What I can grasp is if flying knees were an efficient method to use in the old UFC, how would a chop to the neck not be? or a straight kick to the knee joint? I don't know the explanation to it, but simply sufficing with "arts like wing chun just arn't as useful in the UFC" seems overly presumptious.

Agreed, and I'm not sure anyone's said this in this thread (although there are no doubt other threads where this has been asserted). A few corrections, though. Flying knees are still legal. Straight kicks to the knee joint are also legal. Blows to the neck or back of the head are not.

No matter how much I try, I cannot fathom how this guy could not severely destory people in the old UFC.

I must be honest, I'm not sure how Tommy is viewed by outsiders of wing chun, but this is the kind of guy I meant when I said, to the experts, trapping is very efficient.
(although, most people could never master trapping anywhere near this extent.)

He may or may not do well in the UFC. Hard to say. Lyoto Machida has done very well with traditional Shotokan as a base art. Cung Le has done well with San Shou. It could happen. I'd love to see it.

2.) Someone in the last page with others agreeing made the statement the rules are more supportive for striking. I always felt the exact opposite.

That was me, and it's very true. MMA is a sport, and like all sports, the rules favor action. Striking is action. Grappling is often NOT action. Again, common MMA rules and UFC specific rules tends to be death to a thread, but we can get into why they lean toward strikers if anyone is really interested.

If anyone tried to grapple me, especially if they were bigger, I'd strike every vulnerable organ or body part available. The lack of this means the person who is larger is going to to have the advantage. (that is not to override the most critical feature, technique.)

You lost me. I'm not sure what you mean. What does this have to do with your point that the rules favor grapplers?

3.) The other quesiton that remains for me is that you don't see any of these vicious grapplers like you would see of a silat art or any of the chinese arts. I know silat puts extreme emphasis on structure. Weaken a individual's structure; this omits their size.

Once again, I'm not seeing your point, but would like to. Can you explain what you mean by this? Perhaps some examples of "vicious" martial artists from other styles, or perhaps a better idea of what you're looking for in a "vicious grappler."

Damian Maia is currently tearing up the UFC. He's a pure grappler, to the point that he will gladly pull half guard on someone. I've never seen that before. He said in his post fight interview a few weeks back something to the effect that he likes to beat people and finish the fight without hurting them. That's vicious and so completely in the spirit of grappling.

 

[Andrew Green]

1.) The idea of Wing Chun not being applicable in the UFC because one argument is the rules hurt its delivery and application. The counter argument is a what I would consider the universal knock on Wing Chun saying that it's not applicable in a fight. I say this because, one user posted "back in the times of the ruleless UFC, these fighters still lost" Well if the ruleless UFC was the same as a real life situation, then one might conclude wing chun isn't a supportive fighting style. Here is my quarrel and as I said before, I want to be sure I am discussing, with no intentions of insulting.

If by "real life situation" you mean a one-on-one fight in a contained environment that everyone knows about in advance, trains and prepares for knowing the time, place and enivornment and does so on a stage in front of spectators, then yes.

But I'd also say your view of "real life situation" is somewhat skewed... of course I don't think you actually mean that.

I only saw clips of the old UFC, and none of it seemed like what I would imagine. It actually looked quite simliar to today's UFC with just things a little more let go. Like flying knees to the head. What I can grasp is if flying knees were an efficient method to use in the old UFC, how would a chop to the neck not be? or a straight kick to the knee joint? I don't know the explanation to it, but simply sufficing with "arts like wing chun just arn't as useful in the UFC" seems overly presumptious.

Flying knees are still allowed, and used. chops to the neck... well, punches land to the neck lots, sometimes resulting in KO. Back of the head is not allowed for safety reasons though.

straight kick to the knee is not as effective as it sounds, at least not in that environment. Professional fighters are well trained and don't stand straight legged.

No matter how much I try, I cannot fathom how this guy could not severely destory people in the old UFC.

Ok, but you also admit to not really understanding the sport and how it works. That stuff, while great for some things isn't as great for other things. In a MMA fight, against a trained fighter it's not likely to work

2.) Someone in the last page with others agreeing made the statement the rules are more supportive for striking. I always felt the exact opposite. If anyone tried to grapple me, especially if they were bigger, I'd strike every vulnerable organ or body part available. The lack of this means the person who is larger is going to to have the advantage. (that is not to override the most critical feature, technique.)

When in a grappling situation, chances are the superior grappler will have the best control over the situation, and the best opportunities to land those nasty strikes.

Not to mention every 5 minutes fighters are stood up and separated. If things are going slow on the ground they are separated and stood up, but if the striking is going slow they are never put on the ground. Fighters wrap hands and where gloves to protect their hands allowing more power on strikes without having to worry about hand injury as much.


===


I would suggest not looking at one-on-one fighting as the sole goal behind all martial arts, it isn't and shouldn't be.

Not even the obvious self-defence goal either. Things like health and cultural aspects are a big part of some styles.

Take a simple thing like posture and compare a MMA stylist to a kung fu stylist. Which is better? You need a goal, the MMA fighter has better posture for MMA fighting, but how about ergonomic related issues?

 

[suicide]

:angel:

 

[Hagakure]

How disappointing it must be for people who think MMA is a blood sport to know entire fight nights of more than 10 fights go without a drop of blood being seen and no injuries. Get real people, it's competition fighting, life or death? prison fighting? I hardly think so!

Have you noticed no one posts up has TKD/karate/Judo done harm to MA, should MT be banned as it's violent,Judo because it has chokes ? No it's always MMA, the sport for bad people rofl.

Very few people outside the States actually like the UFC, to us it's full of cocky Yanks. One could post up equally well "have the Americans damaged MMA and MA with their antics".

MMA is quietly going about it's business in the rest of the world yet people will still judge us by UFC and that frankly, stinks.
Groundwork....it exists in most karate styles, take a look at the katas. Iain Abernethy said that Funikoshi showed takedowns and grappling in karate yet people still deny it's existance.

I would suggest that tarring all MMA with the same brush is as pointless as saying all Chinese/Korean/Japanese martial arts are rubbish, you wouldn't do it so why do it to MMA? By all means point out instances where you have seen something you dislike but to say the thousands around the world who participate in MMA have damaged martial arts is ludicrous. Just look at U Tube and people chucking chi balls around, 5 year old black belts, people claiming to be USMC instructors etc etc to see that MMA is the least of martial arts problems. There's far more damaging things in martial arts than MMA.

Don't you knock chi-balls, just because you MMA guys can't do it/use it in the ring, doesn't mean it can't be done...

Ego. A need to hang on to "our" art, and our innate, unquenchable desire to argue with idiots on the internet be they of from a TMA or MMA background. I really, really try to walk away from it, but there have been instances on U Tube where I've encountered the MMA fan boys slagging off the WC vids on there, and I've been unable to resist. However, I don't take that as indicative of all MMA guys.

What I think it's done is to highlight the need to pressure test your art. Perhaps to consider other areas of training. Also, what I think the earlier UFC bouts picked up on were the dedication to training. The key difference I don't think is the art, it's the person, and their ability/fitness. You get some amateur TMA'ist and put him in the ring/octagon against a professional athlete who trains TMA and in a full contact bout you can pretty much tell who to bet your house on. Now, increase that TMA guys repetoire, so he does/knows more tricks than the other guy and you have a winning combo.

 

[Gordon Nore]

If any aprt of MMA has done damage to te MA, it is the show Ultimate Fighter. Most, not all, of the guys on the show end up making fools of themselves and in turn, give the MA a bad name. Outside of that, I don't see it as having done any major damage.

I tend to agree. It's a conundrum of Reality TV. What is bad for the business is good for the show, same as The Apprentice. So on The Ultimate Fighter (reality show), competitors aren't allowed to bring reading material into the house 'because it distracts them from the competition' (BS); whereas, getting shart-faced, picking fights, talking trash, and destroying property keeps everyone on their game.

No other major sport would actively endorse having their up-and-comers presented in this light. Look at the uproars over Michael Phelps or Ross Rebagliati. When pro athletes pull this crap, the media hang them out to dry, and their bosses and handlers go into damage control mode.

On the other hand, if UFC put out a show where athletes ate their Wheaties and did nothing but train and sleep, they wouldn't have the ratings they do.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Now I will say that Himura makes a valid point here on the use of ground fighting. Before the early 90's, I always felt I had a great advantage over most people when I fought on the street, because I was already training in submission techniques. After everyone started seeing how helpful they were in a fight, loads of people jumped on the bandwagon. Or they learned to avoid going to the ground. I guess it is a harmful thing for those of us that were already use to being on the ground twisting people up. For everyoen else it has made them look to additional training.


A point for you all to ponder, did the rise in MMA popularity lead to more "underground" fights? I keep hearing rumors of these fights and I know some are happening, but did it increase them? Not that they are more orless organized then they were. Something to think about. Think Kimbo Slice and where he came from.

Searcher,

I have a couple of questions to better understand.

In the 80's, the fights I was in or saw with people going to ground always ended up with people kicking or jumping in to get involved. One time, and I repeat one time, two wrestlers asked everyone not to get involved and the collided and then went to the ground. One guy did pin the other, but no real strikes.

I know I had my my ribs kicked while being on the ground with multiple others. Note; I did not want to be there and was doing what I could to disengage and get back up, but you can end up there. So, knowing some ground work to be able to move and to control enough to get up is good. But for self defense are you saying that you could submit people in a street fight?


I understand the Underground fights were always one on one, and if this is the case then ok, I was just looking for some more information.


Thanks

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

Oh no, not again.

The whole MMA = bad debate.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Most of the best MMA fighters have had strong TMA backgrounds. Lyoto Machida, for example, has already been mentioned.

I don't see anything wrong with MMA as an art. On the contrary, I enjoy its lively dynamic character and respect players like Couture, Cung Le, Machida, and Silva. I mean, it's got its share of poor representatives (Tank Abbot anyone?) but then which art doesn't?

Also, training in Kenpo 5.0, our methodology is actually very similar. (Check out the 'What We Do' vid on Youtube)

Enough MMA and TMA bashing. Leave that for the know-nothing punks who don't actually train and have no idea about true MA'ists.

Regards,
TCG

 

[Rich Parsons]

Oh no, not again.

The whole MMA = bad debate.

Said it before and I'll say it again. Most of the best MMA fighters have had strong TMA backgrounds. Lyoto Machida, for example, has already been mentioned.

I don't see anything wrong with MMA as an art. On the contrary, I enjoy its lively dynamic character and respect players like Couture, Cung Le, Machida, and Silva. I mean, it's got its share of poor representatives (Tank Abbot anyone?) but then which art doesn't?

Also, training in Kenpo 5.0, our methodology is actually very similar. (Check out the 'What We Do' vid on Youtube)

Enough MMA and TMA bashing. Leave that for the know-nothing punks who don't actually train and have no idea about true MA'ists.

Regards,
TCG

Is this in response to my post or the thread in general?

I did not think I said MMA = Bad.

 

[Steve]

I tend to agree. It's a conundrum of Reality TV. What is bad for the business is good for the show, same as The Apprentice. So on The Ultimate Fighter (reality show), competitors aren't allowed to bring reading material into the house 'because it distracts them from the competition' (BS); whereas, getting shart-faced, picking fights, talking trash, and destroying property keeps everyone on their game.

No other major sport would actively endorse having their up-and-comers presented in this light. Look at the uproars over Michael Phelps or Ross Rebagliati. When pro athletes pull this crap, the media hang them out to dry, and their bosses and handlers go into damage control mode.

On the other hand, if UFC put out a show where athletes ate their Wheaties and did nothing but train and sleep, they wouldn't have the ratings they do.

This is a great article about ways to improve TUF on every level AND create an interesting show. If only the producers could read.

 

[Glycerine0160]

Alright, many of the points were well taken. But I want to clarify a few things. Once again, please, in discussion format. I am really not up for insulting or being insulted.


It was said a straight kick to the knee would not be as effective in the UFC. Would that be because it could be avoided or the actual hit would be rendered ineffective? If the latter, the knee is a joint. You cannot train to take kicks to the knees. Maybe to an miniscule extent. Once again, if I'm mislead, please inform me. But to continue on with these strikes, there is a take down we use where when in close range, you make your hand flat, and you push up on the ridge of the nose which will hurt badly enough they will fall down (especially if you do it in a striking motion). Like I said, there are probably a million techniques from arts all over. I imagine they are disallowed because in some way they break the rules.

I see the difference in what we interpreted as the rules favor. You mean literally as points to win the fight, I'm sure that's correct. I mean take for example a guy who is smaller. For a guy who is smaller to win a grappling range fight, he would need to weaken the structure of the larger fighter and make use of any vital hitting points. (kidneys, testacles, eyes, ears)
The UFC has to disallow these strikes because it wouldn't be much of a fight, it would be a massacer. That is why I meant literally, smaller fighters cannot beat bigger fighters in grappling range with such rules.

That is what I meant by a vicious silat fighter. (I'm sure many other arts have vicious grapplers too.)

Focusing in on his striking pattern when the fighter is down.


I agree with wing chun trapping part. Although, I think "some" trapping is very useful. But you're right, there is a definitely a limit otherwise you would have to master it making it unpractical.


Once again, any disagreement is completely welcome.

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

Is this in response to my post or the thread in general?

I did not think I said MMA = Bad.

No, not to your post. Not at all.

Just the thread in general.

Truth be told, I usually enjoy your posts and look forward to reading them.

Regards,
TCG

 

[mook jong man]

Terrific point. I have tattoos as well and will probably get at least one more before I'm done. My wife has one, too. We're not thugs.

It depends on what culture you are from as well , my wife is Japanese and said they tend to associate tattoos with people that are in the Yakuza. I don't have tattoos , but I have nothing against people who get them . What they do with their bodies is entirely their decision , but their are some people who get them for some sort of percieved intimidation value .

Think of it this way if you see a man covered in tattoos , some people will be intimidated by that and start making all sorts of connections in their head like , he's been in prison , he's a bikie , he's a dangerous tough guy . But now you dress that same man in a suit and he is a lot less intimidating in some peoples minds , even though it is the same bloke .

I think these perceptions will break down in the future as tattoos become more popular , It is unfair how people are judged like that , but thats the way it is unfortunately .

In my opinion the most dangerous people I have ever met were the ones who looked absolutely normal and extremely average , the ones that walk down the street and you would not even take a second look at them .

 

[LordOfWu]

It was said a straight kick to the knee would not be as effective in the UFC. Would that be because it could be avoided or the actual hit would be rendered ineffective? If the latter, the knee is a joint. You cannot train to take kicks to the knees. Maybe to an miniscule extent. Once again, if I'm mislead, please inform me.

In my very humble opinion, it's not a matter of a strike rendered ineffective, but one of an opponent being prepared and avoiding the strike or the posture that support the strike.

But to continue on with these strikes, there is a take down we use where when in close range, you make your hand flat, and you push up on the ridge of the nose which will hurt badly enough they will fall down (especially if you do it in a striking motion). Like I said, there are probably a million techniques from arts all over. I imagine they are disallowed because in some way they break the rules.

I don't know about it being disallowed, but I've never heard of a rule against it. I think the biggest difference is in a) dealing with a trained athlete who is going to be more willing to accept pain and continue on, and b) the goal (at least from a grappling perspective) is not to just make them fall down but take them down in a position where you have more effective control.

I see the difference in what we interpreted as the rules favor. You mean literally as points to win the fight, I'm sure that's correct. I mean take for example a guy who is smaller. For a guy who is smaller to win a grappling range fight, he would need to weaken the structure of the larger fighter and make use of any vital hitting points. (kidneys, testacles, eyes, ears)
The UFC has to disallow these strikes because it wouldn't be much of a fight, it would be a massacer. That is why I meant literally, smaller fighters cannot beat bigger fighters in grappling range with such rules.

That is what I meant by a vicious silat fighter. (I'm sure many other arts have vicious grapplers too.)

Focusing in on his striking pattern when the fighter is down.

I would only point out that those strikes aren't allowed because this is a sport and not life/death. However, I will say that there are a number of very small in stature grapplers who do quite well against larger opponents, not through striking sensitive areas, but through leverage and technique...some of that technique is in avoiding damage or getting hurt.

I agree with wing chun trapping part. Although, I think "some" trapping is very useful. But you're right, there is a definitely a limit otherwise you would have to master it making it unpractical.


Once again, any disagreement is completely welcome.

Please don't see this as a disagreement, but an open discussion between people who share a passion of martial arts, whether traditional or modern.

 

[Steve]

Alright, many of the points were well taken. But I want to clarify a few things. Once again, please, in discussion format. I am really not up for insulting or being insulted.

Okay, dude. You really need to relax.

It was said a straight kick to the knee would not be as effective in the UFC. Would that be because it could be avoided or the actual hit would be rendered ineffective? If the latter, the knee is a joint. You cannot train to take kicks to the knees. Maybe to an miniscule extent. Once again, if I'm mislead, please inform me.

Lateral blows to the knee can and do cause serious injury, but straight kicks to the knee are pretty easy to defend if you don't lock out the joint. The elbow is the same way. When locked out, the joint is very weak, but if bent, even a little, it would take a lot more than an incidental blow to break it.

I see the difference in what we interpreted as the rules favor. You mean literally as points to win the fight, I'm sure that's correct. I mean take for example a guy who is smaller. For a guy who is smaller to win a grappling range fight, he would need to weaken the structure of the larger fighter and make use of any vital hitting points. (kidneys, testacles, eyes, ears)

Two things. First, there are weight classes.

Outside of MMA competitions, a smaller grappler would have to rely on leverage, superior technique and perhaps athleticism or speed, or conditioning.

The UFC has to disallow these strikes because it wouldn't be much of a fight, it would be a massacer. That is why I meant literally, smaller fighters cannot beat bigger fighters in grappling range with such rules.

Clearly, you have little experience with grappling. I train with a guy who is 135 lbs soaking wet who routinely kicks my 185 lbs ***.

That is what I meant by a vicious silat fighter. (I'm sure many other arts have vicious grapplers too.)

Focusing in on his striking pattern when the fighter is down.

Okay. I still don't get it. I watched the video and wish I hadn't.

 

[Glycerine0160]

Okay, dude. You really need to relax. Lateral blows to the knee can and do cause serious injury, but straight kicks to the knee are pretty easy to defend if you don't lock out the joint. The elbow is the same way. When locked out, the joint is very weak, but if bent, even a little, it would take a lot more than an incidental blow to break it. Two things. First, there are weight classes.

Outside of MMA competitions, a smaller grappler would have to rely on leverage, superior technique and perhaps athleticism or speed, or conditioning. Clearly, you have little experience with grappling. I train with a guy who is 135 lbs soaking wet who routinely kicks my 185 lbs ***.
Okay. I still don't get it. I watched the video and wish I hadn't.

Trust me, I'm relaxed. Actually, I think I was attempting to prevent any posters from diminishing my relaxation ATM.

I will take what you said about the knee into consideration. Bruce said a kick to the knee is very effective. I will take what you said and discuss and research it to be certain you are right.

I will admit, I have limited experience in grappling. That is actually a consideration I should look forward to.

The point of the video is to say in a real life situation without any rules, that is how I would choose to act. It's quicker, less effort, and very deadly. hahahah, but your dry criticism of the video was a good laugh.

 

[mook jong man]

Why does the kick have to be directed at the knee , a low heel kick can be very effective when directed to the shin .

The knee does not have to be broken to cause an effect , the pain from a low heel kick to the shin can be quite debilitating , like banging your shin into a coffee table.

This can cause quite a distraction and can be the pathway to a knock out punch , as for avoiding it , it is possible if the Wing Chun practitioner is from a lineage where there is one leg forward , because you only have to really worry about the forward leg .

But if they are from the both feet equal lineage then you will have two legs to worry about , that both have equal opportunity to kick you and will strike with absolutely no warning at all.

 

[Carol]

Its...a different point and purpose....I'm going to try to sidestep any discussion about Mr. Gartin himself, but the idea behind the battlefield applications of Silat are a series of motions that result in death to the attacker whether or not one has their blade. The techniques are practiced slow because...messing around with another person's neck is not something that should be done at full speed. The motions are smooth, dance is how how the Indonesians tried to keep their arts secret from multiple invaders....and the "competitive" side to Silat is tied closer to Indonesian culture.

Every fight has rules, to a certain extent. They may not involve a cutman or mats, but the rules could make a difference in whether you have to shell out for a one time consult, or whether you have to dig deeper for a retainer.

 

[Steve]

Trust me, I'm relaxed. Actually, I think I was attempting to prevent any posters from diminishing my relaxation ATM.

Well, I hope it works. Most of the people around here are very nice. There is heated discussion, but it rarely gets personal and when it does, the mods are on it pretty fast.

I will take what you said about the knee into consideration. Bruce said a kick to the knee is very effective. I will take what you said and discuss and research it to be certain you are right.

I hope you do.

I will admit, I have limited experience in grappling. That is actually a consideration I should look forward to.

I hope you do this, too. Grappling is great fun, whether you choose BJJ, Sambo, Judo, Aikido or whatever. I don't like hitting things at all, and that includes the ground, so I stick with BJJ where we roll around a lot.

The point of the video is to say in a real life situation without any rules, that is how I would choose to act. It's quicker, less effort, and very deadly. hahahah, but your dry criticism of the video was a good laugh.

Very true, although, now that you've explained it to me, I think I agree with others who have responded. Maiming and death as a common result of a sporting event would make for a very shortlived sport.

Still, I'll remind you that a lot IS allowed including blows to the knee, as mentioned above.

I want to also mention that the lack of eye gouges, fish hooking and the like doesn't diminish other martial arts. If the topic at hand is, "Has MMA done harm to martial arts," I don't think the ruleset applies.