UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[chinto]

The way you train is certainly more important than what you train in, but when it comes to MMA there is a base skillset you need to know--striking, stand-up grappling, groundwork, and submissions. Where you get those from doesn't matter, as long as they work under pressure on an opponent that is actively fighting back. Muay Thai, boxing, wrestling, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu are currently the most common arts to pull those methods from for MMA, but that's because they have been proven to work, fight after fight, year after year. Very few traditional schools cover all four of those aspects, and very few traditional schools train in an alive manner to pressure test what they do. You can be in better shape than the other guy, but if he has decent skills in all of those areas and you are fantastic at just one of them, you are probably still going to lose.

It's easy to say that MMA fighters are less skilled, sloppier, or lack ruthlessness--they have to worry about a lot more than traditional stylists do, after all! When we train for self defense, we are typically worried about some commonly used attacks from a mugger, brawler, or drunk that has little to no training. When MMA fighters train and compete, they have to worry about a wide variety of punches, kicks, elbows, knees, throws, trips, sweeps, leg locks, arm locks, and chokes from someone who has trained to be able to do all those things on someone who is fighting back. Sure, traditional stylists might be more technically skilled, but they tend to have a narrower focus, a longer time to practice it, and a tradition of perfectionism to back it up. MMA fighters could definitely benefit from bringing in traditional martial artists as "specialist coaches" to improve certain aspects of their game, but throwing a traditional stylist in the cage with an MMA fighter almost always ends in defeat for the traditional artist.

Let's not get into the old "rules vs. no rules" argument--it's been done to death. The fact is that pressure points, groin strikes, and eye gouges all failed in the early UFC events because dirty tricks alone do not win a fight, or save you in a self defense situation, if you just don't have any fighting ability, or if you get taken out of your area of expertise in a fight.

I have watched the early so called no rules UFC stuff. First of all there were rules, and second of all you could see the fighters themselves imposed rules on themselves. this is obvious as no one DIED!! hint folks in real fights people DIE! look at that soccer ref in utah!. so I am sick of the no rules vs rules because it is obvious that in a self defense situation its over fast and there are no rules at all... but also its obvious that UFC does not and never has wanted people dying in the ring!!! get real! no one wants to walk out of the octagon or a boxing ring or a cage with his opponent DEAD!!!

that said, the prize fighter, weather a pro boxer or UFC trains hard and constantly to comply with the rules and win under them! they are very very competent at their sport.
Like boxers and other prize fighters the DARE NOT get into a fight out side a ring as they will be charges with serious crimes like aggravated assault minimum and ATTEMPTED MURDER often! the burden of proof is on that fighter to PROVE he was defending himself with minimum force!!!! not the prosecution!!!

 

[chinto]

Guards are great, in theory. They can also close you off, and turn you into a human punching bag, or just someone really easy to slam to the ground. Going all defense doesnt work so good.

in most self defense situations they do NOT come in singles! they have friends, so going to the ground is not a good idea in most cases! his friends start kicking your kidneys and ribs and head and you will not quite provably survive the damage and live!

 

[Cyriacus]

in most self defense situations they do NOT come in singles! they have friends, so going to the ground is not a good idea in most cases! his friends start kicking your kidneys and ribs and head and you will not quite provably survive the damage and live!

Im not sure how our two replies relate, but yeah, absolutely.

 

[Kframe]

I think having your hands atleast in a position to afford some kind of defense is advisable. Now im not saying my boxing stance aka high and tight is perfect for all things. In fact it is weak to take downs, so have a few different guards that I use depending on how I feel at that moment. You must remember there is no perfect anything in martial arts. No perfect stance no perfect guard no perfect blocks or deflections no perfect attacks. Every thing you do leaves a opening a weakness some were. You just have to train to minimize that weakness.

That said, my new gym focus's on self defense. So we do a lot of things from a normal hands down non threatened just chilling out stance. Lets face it we don't walk around en guard. Now I don't think Cyriacus was suggesting that you don't need a guard, I think he was trying to say that each guard has there advantages and disadvantages. If im wrong Cyriacus i do apologize. I was just going on what my gut was feeling about what you were saying.

Ill tell you this about my own training. My new coach has a heavy traditional martial arts back ground before switching to a mma style of teaching. So on top of the usual mma mix of skills he throws in TMA techniques as well. Most notable I am learning traditional deflections and interceptions(aka blocks). On top of that, we are also learning some movement principles that have roots in the various TMA he has studied. I found out quite early on that my High and Tight boxing guard is not favorable to using interceptions and deflections. So i had to experiment with different guards to see what worked for me. I am still working on finding a set of guards that fits me well. Im taking advice from coach and from some TMA guys on another forum. I am now leaning towards a high but looser guard. I have much experimentation to go but im close. Im finding lots of inspiration for my ideas for a guard in the TMA world.

 

[Cyriacus]

That said, my new gym focus's on self defense. So we do a lot of things from a normal hands down non threatened just chilling out stance. Lets face it we don't walk around en guard. Now I don't think Cyriacus was suggesting that you don't need a guard, I think he was trying to say that each guard has there advantages and disadvantages. If im wrong Cyriacus i do apologize. I was just going on what my gut was feeling about what you were saying.

Youd be correct. A guard isnt going to save you if the other guy just ignores it - It just closes off a few options.
Kinda like 'the fence'.

 

[_JLC_]

Youd be correct. A guard isnt going to save you if the other guy just ignores it - It just closes off a few options.
Kinda like 'the fence'.

If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued.

Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading

 

[Cyriacus]

If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued.

Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading

Oh, no doubt. Their hands would be up, their heads would be 'safe', and theyd be taken down or clinched in a fraction of a second.
Also, fist by the ear is a great way to leave yourself open for a collar tie or a bearhug. That doesnt mean the guard doesnt work - It means that if you got kicked in the hand by the ear, your own hand would still hit your head, and the follow up strikes would still hurt.

 

[frank raud]

If a fighter had a gaurd ( arm up, fist by ear out slightly for example) the many head kick instant KO's wouldn't happen... I'm not saying it should be fixed to that spot, but if it was there or there abouts, the hand can move 4-5 inches to cover the space pretty fast. Sure, it is still going to hurt, but wouldn't be a KO. Ideally the fighter would move to the side or back, but the guard would save them in the cases where they didn't have time/were fatigued.

Thanks all who have posted so far, good reading

Because a boxer doesn't have to concern himself with head kicks or takedowns, the guard you describe works for him. Because a wrestler does not worry about head kicks(or punches) his crouched stance with hands low to shoot for a takedown, works for him. Both these arts are common bases for a MMA fighter,yet neither stance works well in MMA because of the additional elements that MMA involves. As Cyricaus said, keep your hands up too high, you're open for a takedown, keep them too low, you're open for a head kick. Face someone square on like most boxers do, hard to get off a round house kick, while making a presentation of your own thighs to be kicked at whim. Crouch low with your head leading is a good way to loose teeth when punches and kicks are allowed. The MMA stance is a hybrid, a compromise between the multiple arts that they can reasonably expect to face in the ring.

 

[frank raud]

I have watched the early so called no rules UFC stuff. First of all there were rules, and second of all you could see the fighters themselves imposed rules on themselves. this is obvious as no one DIED!! hint folks in real fights people DIE! look at that soccer ref in utah!. so I am sick of the no rules vs rules because it is obvious that in a self defense situation its over fast and there are no rules at all...

Killed alot of people in your self defense training, or while defending yourself?

 

[Drose427]

At my Mdk school, the advised guard is to always have at least one arm up, and one a little low ( midsection area.) Typically, front hand stays up, back hand stays around the chest, and with a failry sideways stance, you have the set up to block most techniques, given you don't move your guard. But, it doesn't always stay that way when I spar someone who is better with their hands, so they try to box me. I guess my point would be that in any martial art, but especially in MMA you have to sorta be able to change guards, or strive to find whatever works best for you. You'd think fighters would learn that people are getting K.O'd because they do poor jobs of blocking their heads. But just as other people have posted, when they have a wrestling or boxing background for so long, at that level, it'd be an extremely hard, and annoying habit to get used to. They'd be essentially relearning how they do it, which is hard in absolutely anything. But that's what I see, I could be wrong, I havent watched live or new UFC in a long time, and the last TUF episode I watched was the one with Uriah's knockout so it's been a while.

 

[Steve]

I like to pull guard in street fights so that my friends can kick my opponent in the head while I control his posture from guard.

 

[rframe]

I like to pull guard in street fights so that my friends can kick my opponent in the head while I control his posture from guard.

This is why I always wear a helmet when I'm out and about in town. I like pull guard in street fights, but get so tired of them dropping me on my head in a very unsportsman-like fashion.

 

[Flying Crane]

Like boxers and other prize fighters the DARE NOT get into a fight out side a ring as they will be charges with serious crimes like aggravated assault minimum and ATTEMPTED MURDER often! the burden of proof is on that fighter to PROVE he was defending himself with minimum force!!!! not the prosecution!!!

burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Only an idiot would sit back and not rigorously defend himself at trial, but the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.

 

[Kframe]

I do want to add that not all boxing guards are high and tight. Some are lower and looser.. For instance my friend is a old school boxer, and very good. He has a very loose guard almost like a higher version of the classical en guard stance that you see from old timey boxing photos. His stance is actually pretty good for a general defense. Couple that with the fact he is a extremely mobile type fighter, preferring movement over blocking and you have a good recipe.

I don't think you should stay in one guard for the entire duration of a altercation be it mma or other wise. You need to adapt your guard based on what is going on.

Now if your going to practice mma and use a high and tight guard, you had better make sure you put in the time learning how to effect your take down defense from that guard. It is harder to effect some defenses from a high and tight guard.

 

[chinto]

Killed alot of people in your self defense training, or while defending yourself?

actually I have been where it was life and death. so you figure it out.

 

[frank raud]

actually I have been where it was life and death. so you figure it out.

Perhaps I'm a little dim this evening. Are you implying you have killed someone in self defense, or you have been in a situation were the potential of death was there? I'm having a little trouble with your cryptic answer.

 

[jks9199]

burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Only an idiot would sit back and not rigorously defend himself at trial, but the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution.

Wrong! If you're claiming self defense, it's an affirmative defense. In other words -- you are ADMITTING that you committed a crime, but that you were justified or excused from criminal liability because you were defending yourself. The burden of proof shifts to the defense to show that you were indeed justified.

 

[jks9199]

I do want to add that not all boxing guards are high and tight. Some are lower and looser.. For instance my friend is a old school boxer, and very good. He has a very loose guard almost like a higher version of the classical en guard stance that you see from old timey boxing photos. His stance is actually pretty good for a general defense. Couple that with the fact he is a extremely mobile type fighter, preferring movement over blocking and you have a good recipe.

I don't think you should stay in one guard for the entire duration of a altercation be it mma or other wise. You need to adapt your guard based on what is going on.

Now if your going to practice mma and use a high and tight guard, you had better make sure you put in the time learning how to effect your take down defense from that guard. It is harder to effect some defenses from a high and tight guard.

Look at your old school boxing guards (bare knuckle, London Prize Ring, etc), and it's not surprising that they resemble the more effective guards in MMA or martial arts. When the rules allowed throws and lots of other stuff that's not legal under current rules, the guard had to take that into account.

 

[nocturnal_]

The whole rules vs no rules stuff is nonsense. Everyone is on the same playing field. If I cannot rip your eyeball out and neither can you rip mine out, then it's irrelevant.

It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.

Let's say Fighter A, who is street oriented, spends 70% of his training time on dirty tricks and 30% on 'clean' techniques. Fighter B, who is an athlete, spends 100% of his time training on all the things allowed in the competition rule. Let's say they both spend similar amount of training hours, same age, and same weight. In a competition with rules, Fighter A would be severely disadvantaged as he can only apply 30% of his training, while Fighter B would be able to apply 100% of his training. In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged.

 

[Cyriacus]

It's highly relevant. People who train extensively (say 50% or more of their training time) on dirty tricks would be disadvantaged because they can't apply what they've been training extensively.

Let's say Fighter A, who is street oriented, spends 70% of his training time on dirty tricks and 30% on 'clean' techniques. Fighter B, who is an athlete, spends 100% of his time training on all the things allowed in the competition rule. Let's say they both spend similar amount of training hours, same age, and same weight. In a competition with rules, Fighter A would be severely disadvantaged as he can only apply 30% of his training, while Fighter B would be able to apply 100% of his training. In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged.

Unless Fighter B decides to become Attacker B Who Doesnt Like To Fight.