UFC proves KF useless

[Andrew Green]

From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.

I'm gonna disagree... a little...

I think both sides are equally as self-righteous.

For as many MMA supporters who completely reject Traditional styles, there are Traditional stylists claiming the opposite.

The thing that frustrates me in these arguments is almost always that everyone tries to use the same metric for the comparison. And that, is MMA. Ok, not everybody, but there are more then enough examples of traditional stylists that have never even sparred with intentional contact to the face telling everyone how there stuff is superior, and a elbow to the back will KO a wrestler as they shoot, or some such nonsense. Often with pictures or video as well, with the "MMA guy" being played by someone who, from there technique, has apparently never even seen a takedown done.

I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded. But, it takes more convincing. You got to get on the mat and show us that it works, on a live person, in a live situation, otherwise skeptisism kicks in and it gets tossed over in the pile with the No touch chi KO.

Where as a lot of traditional stylists are more willing to believe in something not because of the demonstration against a live person, but rather the history behind it, or the lineage of the teacher.

Both sides are equally wrong IMO, but different people will see it different, because lets face it, we are all biased towards the way we do things, and the way we think they "should" be done.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm gonna disagree... a little...

I think both sides are equally as self-righteous.

For as many MMA supporters who completely reject Traditional styles, there are Traditional stylists claiming the opposite.

The thing that frustrates me in these arguments is almost always that everyone tries to use the same metric for the comparison. And that, is MMA. Ok, not everybody, but there are more then enough examples of traditional stylists that have never even sparred with intentional contact to the face telling everyone how there stuff is superior, and a elbow to the back will KO a wrestler as they shoot, or some such nonsense. Often with pictures or video as well, with the "MMA guy" being played by someone who, from there technique, has apparently never even seen a takedown done.

I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded. But, it takes more convincing. You got to get on the mat and show us that it works, on a live person, in a live situation, otherwise skeptisism kicks in and it gets tossed over in the pile with the No touch chi KO.

Where as a lot of traditional stylists are more willing to believe in something not because of the demonstration against a live person, but rather the history behind it, or the lineage of the teacher.

Both sides are equally wrong IMO, but different people will see it different, because lets face it, we are all biased towards the way we do things, and the way we think they "should" be done.

Fair enough, I think you have some good points.

I think in these discussions it is really incredibly easy for one side or the other to feel like their method is being attacked and dismissed outright, and that causes them to immediately circle the wagons and start shooting back in return. From then on both sides start making unrealistic claims about their own method, and unreasonable criticisms of the other's. At that point any chance at real dialog is already lost.

People need to back off a bit and have some real dialog, get off their own high horse and concede once in a while that just maybe the other guy actually knows what he is talking about and maybe if they tear down the wall a bit they just might learn something from what the other guy has to say.

You and I, Andrew, have discussed this before and I think overall we are probably pretty much on the same page, or at least somewhere in the same chapter.

Good point about everybody trying to use the same metric. It isn't realistic for everyone.

The one point that seems to be pushed over and over by certain MMA proponents is the requirement for video proof or some kind of fighting "record" before they are willing to admit that just maybe, possibly, Joe TMA has some fighting skills and can handle himself on the street. The expectation of that kind of "proof" is completely unrealistic, as most of the world just doesn't operate that way.

Anyway, absent any other intelligent input in this thread, I will back out now.

 

[matt.m]

You know, Andrew has once again been a great voice of reason for the MMA camp. See, I look at hapkido as a Mixed Martial Art because it is an all encompassing art. No holes at all, at least the way that Won-Kwang Wha taught Lee H. Park and Lee passed it to Charles Hildebrand, Rick Schutt and my dad.

I guess because of my background of wrestling, judo, hapkido, and tae kwon do I see MMA looking more like it is evolving into a TMA style of teaching.

The reason I say this is because all the guys learn a little muay thai, a little bjj, they have some wrestling skills etc. It just seems that if you don't "Learn" a certain set then you will not do well in the contest.

The thing I have, will, and always say is "In the circuits they are in contest and no mulitple attackers. There are rules for safety. Also the main difference is to train for contest. In arts like Tae Kwon Do, Judo etc. they are arts that dumb down the art to let people contest if they desire."

See, I don't need a video tape to know what works. I have participated in hand to hand combat oversees. I also have 51 gold medals from Greco Wrestling and Judo Randori on the international level, while representing the Marines. You can tell the outcome by reading the paper to see how we did. While in the Marines we didn't want cameras around, they got in our way. I know that hapkido cane, judo throws, hapkido/tae kwon do kicking are extremely effective when you have to use it. I have 5 rows of ribbons and medals on my dress blue uniform to prove it. Having a combat action ribbon with 2 stars is a good quantifier in my opinion.

 

[Rook]

So let me get this right, your saying: "A medium to high quality professional athlete who gets paid to train and has no other obligations will normally and consistently beat a non-professional athlete who has to work at the least 40 hours a week to make money, has many other obligations and interests outside of training and trains maybe 1/4 as much as the professional athlete if that". Is that about right? You my friend have an amazing point, you’re absolutely right, I couldn't agree more with you. In fact I would say most medium to high level professional MMA fighters could most likely perform in other athletic events at a level at least equivalent to other non professional athletes in the same events. What’s your point?

I think we are on the same page here. Thats good.

As to the proof, you’re incorrect. The proof required is living through someone else desperately trying to take your life.

Surviving against the local street punks and winning against a professional fighter are two different things. In light of what you said just in the last paragraph, I would think that would be clearly apparent to you. I have seen people win streetfights, even against multiple larger opponents, with nothing but wild haymakers. Try that against any professional boxer, kickboxer, grappler, MMAists etc, and it won't fly very far at all. I find it hard to believe that people can conflate fighting off untrained nobodies with being able to beat serious professionals. It bogles the mind.

How many professional MMA fighters had the job of getting captured in Vietnam to gather intel, escape and bring back the information? How many professional MMA fighters were tortured during this process?

This doesn't have alot to do with proving hand to hand fighting ability. It has alot to do with other things, but I don't see what it has to do with proving the efficacy of an unarmed fighting system.

How many professional MMA fighters were warlords of gangs in D.C for years, lived on the streets, have been shot 7 times? Your starting to loose your point here when you start saying things like the proof is the same when referring to professional (get paid to perform) and self defense (get to live to perform) fighters. Sorry. Oh, and why are you still practicing a TMA if MMA is so much better?

Wait. You’re saying basically that training has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are so much better than TMA fighters? So the manner in which they train, the time in which they spend training, the training of exactly the same techniques, all of that has nothing to do with why MMA fighters are better? So people who train in MMA are simply receiving some type of magical powers that TMAs don’t have? I'm sorry, you've lost your point and your believability factor.

No. Absolutely not. You have completely missed my point.

You throw the same punches as Ali? Sorry, thats a surface understanding of a skill that you obviously don’t train (you said so yourself). So what makes Ali better than you at boxing? I ask you. So your saying boxers train the same exact workout as Ali did and yet aren't as good because Ali had what exactly? Oh, you’re saying Ali was better because he won matches and had video proof. See, you have things out of order there. As my grandfather used to say, you've poured the oil in without taking off the cap. (or something like that)

Ali's training schedule is available; I have seen boxers with a copy of it trying to emulate his schedule. The point is that they may have the same punches, the same equiptment and be training the same style, but they don't have the same training partners, the same coaches, the same genetics, the same intangible factors, the same motivations, the same opponents and so forth as he did. For ZDom to say, especially of something like grappling, which is much more of an exercise in technical precision, that he trains the "same" techniques the same amount of time, so he MUST be just as good - well I wonder where the proof for that is.

The bigger issue is the we don't know how good someone is until the get a record. The best example, and one that I am suprised I didn't think of early, is the Nogueira twins, better known as "Big Nog" and "little Nog." Despite being identical twins, who train in the same style at the exact same gym at the same time with the same training partners for the same team and fight for the same promotion, their abilities are very different. One might be forgiven for assuming that with everything the same like that, that they would be completely and utterly equivallent as fighters, but they are not. We wouldn't know that, of course, if they didn't step into the ring and show us.

I'm with MJS on this one, you don’t seem to really care about providing validity to your statements and I must excuse myself from the thread. You seem to be lacking true understanding of what you’re arguing for and are making some statements that are just wrong. I mean what your saying is incorrect be it MMA or TMA your referring to. Training methods, time, work ethic, all these things matter. You’re contradicting your own posts and expecting us to listen to you. You’re making ridiculously unrealistic statements about something you have absolutely no personal experience with. That’s why the UFC is such a money maker, you have proven that for sure.

I think you need to look at my comments earlier in the thread about training methods. You seem to have confused my explanation to ZDom with some sort of condemnation of training in general, and I can't figure out where you would get that idea from.

Ability is a personal thing. Individual fighters have different abilities. You’re absolutely wrong if you think training doesn’t affect the ability of a fighter. There are two sides to assuming equivalency. If you don’t assume your opponent is at least at if not above your level be it sport or self defense you’re going to get your *** handed to you or killed.

See above.

To assume someone is lesser skilled because of a lack of evidence is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically is saying that because there is no evidence that something is right means it’s wrong. That’s a logical fallacy and is simply incorrect.

I think I covered this already with Exile, but I'll rehash.

"X hasn't been found, therefore it doesn't exist" - technically a fallacy.
"X has been searched for, has not been found" - NOT a fallacy. Aristotle describes what is called the "fruitless search" exception, in which a search has been carried out and comes up empty. In this case, he says, it is appropriate to declare the thing in question to not exist. I contend, and I find it difficult to see how it could be disputed, that MMAists and grapplers have gone a great deal out of their way to give people an ample opportunity to demonstrate their skills. The search for a TMAist that can beat even the no longer even ranked Gracies has gone on long enough that it could be aptly described as "fruitless."

You’re seriously saying that two fighters with no video history are going to fight. One who trains 8 hours a day, heavy cardio, lots of bags and lots of fighting. The other doesn’t train cardio, little bags, and little fighting. You are seriously going to say you honestly give the same chance to both fighters? First, I don’t believe you if you say yes. Second, your naïve and simply incorrect if you say yes.

No. That is NOT AT ALL what I am saying. I think you need to look at what I have already said about training methods, because somehow you seem to have forgotten everything I said prior to the post you responded to.

Training does have a lot to do with ability. It’s not the only thing, but you’re arguing against the one thing MMA has going for it, pure hard work. You began the discussion speaking of MMA’s resistance training and full power and speed as its benefits and now say those things don’t matter, only a winning record or video of winning a fight?

Thats not what I said. I said that a training schedule is not a substitute for a fight record. It is necessary to train in order to be at a level to produce a fight record, but it doesn't prove a whole lot in and of itself.

Your pulling the old lineage is proof card only substituting wining record for good lineage.

No. Lineage is discussing someone else's fighting ability. Record implies your own. Lineage would be "A fights well. A trains B. B trains C. C trains D. D trains F. Therefore, F fights well." Record is "F fights well, here are the fights to prove it." No mention in record of the fighting ability of teachers and system founders.

Ask any of your top professional MMA fighters they will all tell you that anyone can beat anyone on any given day. For you to think otherwise is simply inexperience.

Upsets happen. That is not the same as saying that everyone is on the same level or that all their training is irrelavent.

You said video was no valid in saying that it gives us ….

Read again. It refers to the eyewitness accounts ZDom is touting. I haven't seen clear video proof of Elvis or the LochNess monster or Alien. I have heard an aweful lot of people say that they saw them.

Again, you’re actively training in a TMA while holding a heated debate that TMA’s are inferior to MMAs and that MMA is the best way to train. I don’t understand your intentions or motives for this discussion.

I didn't think it would be that difficult to understand. I train karate for my entertainment, I have friends there, its not expensive, it works ok for sparring. If all I cared about was fighting, I certainly would not be there. I absolutely would not. I don't find that any more mind-bending then saying that the car that I drive is not the fastest in the world (I drive a pontiac, not a drag racer). I would look at anyone who said that a car like mine is really the fastest on earth like that were crazy, and if pushed, probably have a good long argument explaining why my car is slow compared to some other cars. Its fast enough for my needs, but I would be crazy to call it faster than, say, any NASCAR vehicle.

And while you may not have relied on personal experience this is not a discussion that can be made devoid of personal experiences. That’s what everyone here keeps telling you. Get out there, fight some skilled fighters both CMA and MMA, take video, and lets see the tell the tape makes after that. That’s the way to find out the truth, not sit back and make assumptions about things you see on TV without having personal experience in them.

1. Yes, I realize there are fighting tourneys that allow groin “blows”. I have participated in them for years.
2. No one is assuming anything here Kevin, I was using your own preferred method of proof…video. Also, I was using my own personal experiences, something you have left out of this discussion so far and something you are admittedly lacking.
3. No one is talking about a fight ending groin shot, Kevin. As you have seen yourself, it happens like that sometimes, but sometimes not. What a solid shot to the groin does is initiate a reaction which can allow for the fight to be ended.

Ok.

1. Yes, once again I know this is allowed in many people training, I allow it in mine.
2. We addressed the fact that I have personal experience with it being allowed in competitions.
3. You’re Point?

Kevin, without offering either a logical argument that solidifies MMA’s superiority over CMA’s, or providing personal experience of non-sport superiority of MMA over CMA, or providing proof (yes even video) of non-sport MMA’s superiority over CMA’s, you lack credibility and really believability in this discussion. The UFC proves many things, among them is not that MMA is “better” than CMA or TMA in non-sport fighting. Remember, sport vs. non-sport. Do you have video proof of non-sport MMA and non-sport CMA?

There is no such system as "non-sport" MMA. MMA is by definition a sports system and if it were trained in a non-sports manner, it wouldn't be MMA anymore.

Again, I think I’m out of this thread, so sad too….I’m the one who started it! Sorry everyone. I thought we could have serious intelligent and logical discussions about specific abilities of MMA vs. CMA…..I see that’s not going to happen.

7sm

I'm sorry to see you go.

 

[funnytiger]

I also think that overall MMA stylists are more open minded. But, it takes more convincing.

Isn't this a contradicting statement?

By definition being open-minded means, "having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments."

Open-minded, but you have to prove it to them first??

From what I see overall, it seems that the TMA people are more willing to open their minds. They tend to be more willing to acknowledge the abilities that the MMA people have. But the MMA people, or at least the more vocal ones here, seem unwilling to acknowledge the abilities that the TMA people have.

Also, this statement would be completely true if we were to use this very thread as an example of proof. I haven't seen anyone but the people who represent the MMA side of the argument cast a disparaging light on the TMAists. Not the other way around.

Just some observations from Switzerland... back to making chocolate and watches!

 

[Rook]

Isn't this a contradicting statement?

By definition being open-minded means, "having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments."

Open-minded, but you have to prove it to them first??

[/i]

Receptive to arguments with proof, yes. Receptive to arguments with no proof? No. We'll believe whatever you can prove, and if someone starting winning fights in the UFC with traditional kung fu tomorrow, we'd have to grossly change our perspective. (Unlike kung fu practitioners, to whom no number of losses will make the slightest difference in their opinion.)

 

[funnytiger]

Receptive to arguments with proof, yes. Receptive to arguments with no proof? No. We'll believe whatever you can prove, and if someone starting winning fights in the UFC with traditional kung fu tomorrow, we'd have to grossly change our perspective. (Unlike kung fu practitioners, to whom no number of losses will make the slightest difference in their opinion.)

I think the fact that you are demanding "proof" is a direct contradiction to the term "open-minded". This much time has been spent by (mostly) the MMA people bashing TMAists and then they attempt to claim to be "open-minded".

LOL You're funny...

 

[Rook]

I think the fact that you are demanding "proof" is a direct contradiction to the term "open-minded". This much time has been spent by (mostly) the MMA people bashing TMAists and then they attempt to claim to be "open-minded".

LOL You're funny...

There is a difference between being open minded and being entirely uncritical. There are close-minded people - they say talk about the theory and nothing and no one will change their mind. A common example of this is wing chun people with the efficiency of their attack; no amount of people losing fights will convince them otherwise, they just believe it on a sort of blind faith the ussually is reserved for religion. I'm willing to change my mind, but not because someone tells me to. Show me proof to the contrary and I will revise my opinions. When I make any statement, if you can find proof that it isn;t so, bring it up and I'll change views. "Trust me" isn't proof though.

 

[funnytiger]

There is a difference between being open minded and being entirely uncritical. There are close-minded people - they say talk about the theory and nothing and no one will change their mind. A common example of this is wing chun people with the efficiency of their attack; no amount of people losing fights will convince them otherwise, they just believe it on a sort of blind faith the ussually is reserved for religion. I'm willing to change my mind, but not because someone tells me to. Show me proof to the contrary and I will revise my opinions. When I make any statement, if you can find proof that it isn;t so, bring it up and I'll change views. "Trust me" isn't proof though.

Well... "open-minded" and "uncritical" aren't synonyms...

Synonyms for open-minded would be words such as tolerant, unbiased and inclusive; Antonyms would be biased, narrow-minded, and prejudiced.

Based on your reply and the example you attempted to illustrate, unfortunately, I think the latter rather than the former better describes the MMA argument thus far...

I'm not trying to change your argument which is obvious something you strongly believe in. I'm just trying to make you aware that your reasonings behind your argument are anything but "open-minded".

cheers!

 

[Jade Tigress]

Mod Note

Attention All Users:
Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator

 

[grappling_mandala]

I think, generally speaking MMA fighters are in better shape w/ their cardio then TMA fighters. Ultimately the one who trains closest to the way they fight will not meet unexpected results when they come into contact w/ another fighting human.

 

[centerline]

If The Kung fu style such as wing chun is used in a UFC fight it wouldn't be a UFC fight. It would start and end with eye and groin attacks. If you train in BJJ, I do, and stand up name the style. and you add eye strikes that snap out and back, with kicks to the groin the same, your healthy and train daily for the rest of your life. You will beat 80% of the people I train with. Kung fu is more than who can beat who. The trick to all martial arts, are to train them, switch them, change as you age.
Use them only if you have to in combat, and most of all drive through your aponant.

 

[Rook]

If The Kung fu style such as wing chun is used in a UFC fight it wouldn't be a UFC fight. It would start and end with eye and groin attacks. If you train in BJJ, I do, and stand up name the style. and you add eye strikes that snap out and back, with kicks to the groin the same, your healthy and train daily for the rest of your life. You will beat 80% of the people I train with. Kung fu is more than who can beat who. The trick to all martial arts, are to train them, switch them, change as you age.
Use them only if you have to in combat, and most of all drive through your aponant.

Did you read any of the thread?

 

[brothershaw]

1-Very quickly the mma guys found what worked best for the ufc cage environment and stuck to it until now they have it down to a science PERIOD. (jujitsu, and limited stand up striking)
2- Many if not most of the mma guys could not hold thier own in a professional boxing match or muay thai match and vice versa (funny you dont see any mma guys going for the heavyweight boxing title )
3- If the rules changed to allow knifes the mma guys would be a lot more hesisitant try and grapple and would add sayoc or pekiti or some other fma to thier repotoire (the rules dictate the competition as in any game or sport unless you cheat)
4- any martial artist mma or tma may win, lose or get killed on the street depending on the circumstance (weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc when there is no referree to stop the action)
5- tma people in general need to train harder , but the tma training isnt geared towards success in ufc, it MAY help on the street where you can do whatever and MIGHT be fighting for your life
6- if ufc were truly fighting not sport when they get the arm bar they wouldnt stop at a tap they would break the arm, however in sports even boxing and football you try not to cause permanent damage where as when you are really FIGHTING for you or your families LIFE you would break the arm, gouge out an eye or use a knife , which are against the rules of any sport

 

[Rook]

1-Very quickly the mma guys found what worked best for the ufc cage environment and stuck to it until now they have it down to a science PERIOD. (jujitsu, and limited stand up striking)

Really, its four arts (boxing, MT, western wrestling, BJJ) or any combination that gives similar techniques and practices. You will find few people who are pure JJ with little striking; even Big Nog and Royce have standup training.

2- Many if not most of the mma guys could not hold thier own in a professional boxing match or muay thai match and vice versa (funny you dont see any mma guys going for the heavyweight boxing title )

Of course not. They are more specialized activities and few MMAists would do well in pure boxing. Also, boxing requires heavier gloves and which change which punches are effective. Boxing is only one of the four arts, and comprises less than 20% of a normal MMAists training schedule.

3- If the rules changed to allow knifes the mma guys would be a lot more hesisitant try and grapple and would add sayoc or pekiti or some other fma to thier repotoire (the rules dictate the competition as in any game or sport unless you cheat)

Thats why we speak of MMA as a test for unarmed fighting skill, not for the totality of possible skills. Also, I suspect that the addition of knives would cause a higher practice of existing BJJ, MMA, and SAMBO knife defenses rather than a different art.

4- any martial artist mma or tma may win, lose or get killed on the street depending on the circumstance (weapons, multiple opponents, surprise attacks, etc when there is no referree to stop the action)

True enough.

5- tma people in general need to train harder , but the tma training isnt geared towards success in ufc, it MAY help on the street where you can do whatever and MIGHT be fighting for your life

More "street vs. sport" eh?

6- if ufc were truly fighting not sport when they get the arm bar they wouldnt stop at a tap they would break the arm, however in sports even boxing and football you try not to cause permanent damage where as when you are really FIGHTING for you or your families LIFE you would break the arm,

People don't break arms because it is ussually unnecessary. When the opponent does not promtly tap out, then the arm will be broken. THere are plenty of videos of this happening.

gouge out an eye

Consider looking to no-rules challenges and early tournaments (legal in the early Vale Tudos and the AFCs, only a fine in the early UFCs, Combat SAMBO total etc).

or use a knife , which are against the rules of any sport

Outside the immediate scope of evaluating unarmed fighting. It could be evaluated in another context.

 

[grydth]

If an average guy like me is set upon by a gigantic trained fighter a foot taller, a hundred pounds heavier and a generation younger.....he is likely going to die no matter what he practices. This result doesn't prove anything about kunf fu, tai chi, MMA or anything else.....

Of course, this is why for many years, I have pursued knowledge of 2 uniquely American martial arts - fire arms training and legal knowledge. Even on the off chance Mr MMA survives the 3 exploding rounds to the body, he will think the legal Hell worse than the religious one by the time I'm done.

Have a nice day everyone.

 

[Gufbal1982]

Considering that kung fu means hard work...it can be applied to anything...to cooking, painting, martial arts, whatever. Anyone that wins in a MMA match displays kung fu. They won by working hard. So, what you really are debating is TCMA...

 

[Andrew Green]

Considering that kung fu means hard work...it can be applied to anything...to cooking, painting, martial arts, whatever. Anyone that wins in a MMA match displays kung fu. They won by working hard. So, what you really are debating is TCMA...

Yes, and Arena means "Sand" which really makes those Hockey players even more impressive, not many people can skate on sand.

Word meaning changes over time, and when migrating languages. "Kung Fu" in the context of this thread, does not mean "Hard Work."

 

[Odin]

If an average guy like me is set upon by a gigantic trained fighter a foot taller, a hundred pounds heavier and a generation younger.....he is likely going to die no matter what he practices. This result doesn't prove anything about kunf fu, tai chi, MMA or anything else.....

Of course, this is why for many years, I have pursued knowledge of 2 uniquely American martial arts - fire arms training and legal knowledge. Even on the off chance Mr MMA survives the 3 exploding rounds to the body, he will think the legal Hell worse than the religious one by the time I'm done.

Have a nice day everyone.

What if you were attacked in England where carrying firearms is illegal, or maybe you left you gun in your other pants thats day?, putting all your faith in a 'tool' is not wise.

lol @ firearms being a ''uniquely american martial art'' thats funny in so many levels.

 

[Gufbal1982]

Yes, and Arena means "Sand" which really makes those Hockey players even more impressive, not many people can skate on sand.

Word meaning changes over time, and when migrating languages. "Kung Fu" in the context of this thread, does not mean "Hard Work."

Um, ok...so arena means sand. Then all sports that are played in an arena mean they are played in the sand. It's not the same thing. The use of the term kung fu is being used as a generalization. It's not a true style. To be completely honest, I just want to point out two people, since we are using generalizations, GSP and Chuck. They study TMA...have black belts in traditional arts and they filled in the blanks with wrestling, kickboxing, BJJ and more. How is what they do not kung fu?