UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[frank raud]

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.

Nice theory. However, it is also highly possible that fighter B, who has spent his time training on effective techniques(constricted by those nasty limiting rules) also has vastly more experience in getting, maintaining and exploiting positional dominance against a resisting opponent. If fighter A bag of dirty tricks include things that can't be practiced at either full speed or full contact, he won't have practical experience of attempting to apply them against a resisting opponent. Ergo, the "advantage" of his "street" training is nullified. So, as an example, after fighter B swoops in for a double leg takedown(having spent 70% more of his training time on techniques that fit within the confines of those restricting rules), and fighter A has been bodyslammed into the pavement and mounted, how effective will the upward eye gouge attempts be, while fighter A is trying to defend against those rule restricted ground and pound techniques? Those vicious pressure point techniques, how awesome are they going to be without a base to work from? In BJJ, there is a saying "position before submission", the same applies to dirty tricks. Cant do an eye gouge if you are not in range, or opponent is on your back. Groin strikes are very difficult when other guy has you in double underhooks, which can easily be transitioned to an armbar, a duckunder, or a throw. All perfectly legal techniques under those restricting rules, yet they negate much of the dirty trick repetoire. Explain again how Fighter B is at an extreme disadvantage?

 

[rframe]

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.

It's not relevant because if fighter A who trains in his elite killer uber street lethal (yeah right) style decides to enter the competition, he's a moron if he doesn't learn the rules.

I am a pretty good with a pistol or revolver, you dont see me saying I'm disadvantaged because I cannot shoot someone in the octagon. It's idiotic.

It's not like fighter B jumps fighter A in the street and beats on him and then tells him he cannot use his uber lethal street fu skills.

 

[Flying Crane]

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.

sure, if you claim self defense then you need to support your case because you are admitting involvement and that takes away the need for the prosecution to prove it. But that's true for anyone. Prizefighters are not singled out on that issue.

You could simply deny involvement, and then force the prosecution to prove their case. Depending on the circumstance, that may or may not be a wise choice of action. The proof may be pretty clear. And if you are found guilty, I don't know if you can then turn around and claim self defense if you had been denying involvement from the beginning. I'm not an attorney but my wife is, and her practice is in criminal defense so I'm familiar with some of it thru osmosis. But yeah, if you are essentially admitting something, then the prosecution doesn't need to prove it.

Simply being involved in a fight doesn't mean you will be prosecuted. The prosecutors won't waste their time and resources if they don't feel there is a good case, or it's not worth going after for some reason. It might be clear to them that it IS a case of self-defense, so there's no reason to try and prosecute you. A lot of things go into this determination. It's not automatic nor guaranteed.

 

[chinto]

the burden of proof is higher for that prize fighter. I think the laws like that are a thing carried over from the late 1800's to 1920's time frame. the thought was that a 'normal person' was at such a disadvantage in knowledge, technique and ability that a prize fighter could easily literally kill joe smith with out any effort.

 

[Aiki Lee]

It all comes down to pressure testing. MMA fighters spar astheir pressure test and practice against resisting opponents but there are safetyconsiderations to worry about there as well, hence why they use rules in sparring.Most traditional martial arts schools I've come across don't do any sort ofpressure testing and I feel that is a crucial aspect of training for realism.If your tactics as a TMA involve targeting areas like the knee for example youalso must take safety into consideration when pressure testing, so speed needsto be reduced some and the opponent needs to realize when what you've donewould have caused harm or if it could be ignored. That' why it is important tohave training partners who respect you enough to not let you get away withsomething that wouldn't work but have control over their ego to not resistsomething that would injure them if you actually did it.



From my experience, MMA fighters have a better time gettingconnected to their opponent than traditional stylists who don’t have actualfighting experience (whether it’s been a need to use self-defense or in competition).This connection needs to be established in training. Training has to feel realand must replicate what you believe you are training for to thebest of yourability.


Among the black belts in our dojo we have an rule we self-imposebut don’t discuss with lower ranks. Occasionally during training we willpurposefully do nothing and allow ourselves to be hit. It may seem odd, but ina self-preservation scenario, you are going to get hit and you need to know youcan maintain control of your composure after getting knocked around for a bit.



It’s important to know you can take a hit and that youcan pull off your skill under pressure. MMA practitioners do this more thanmost TMA schools do nowadays, but if you are serious about martial arts andthink of it more than just a hobby you’ll probably spend at least some of yourtraining time pressure testing.

 

[Flying Crane]

the burden of proof is higher for that prize fighter. I think the laws like that are a thing carried over from the late 1800's to 1920's time frame. the thought was that a 'normal person' was at such a disadvantage in knowledge, technique and ability that a prize fighter could easily literally kill joe smith with out any effort.

that may be true to some extent. The training that the fighter has gone thru may be weighed on some level in determining what would be reasonable for him in a self defense situation.

 

[KydeX]

I hear about this pressure testing a lot, but what does it actually mean? I have tried searching the forum, but I've been unable to find some information on how these pressuretesting, adrenalinedumping exercises actually are conducted. Does anyone with experience care to elaborate?

 

[frank raud]

I hear about this pressure testing a lot, but what does it actually mean? I have tried searching the forum, but I've been unable to find some information on how these pressuretesting, adrenalinedumping exercises actually are conducted. Does anyone with experience care to elaborate?

Some arts pressure test as a matter of course(judo, wrestling, boxing), others do not and consist of either shadowboxing,kata or compliant partner drills. Pressure testing is attempting to use your skills against a resisting opponent. This video is one example. Although I am not in this video, I have done these drills with this instructor for several years.

 

[frank raud]

What is pressure testing? Words of wisdom from Geoof Thompson

 

[Aiki Lee]

To add to what frank said,

Pressure testing can be different depending on the systemstudied and even on the instructor preference.

In the art I practice we start off with a basic randoriwhere you have a committed attacker who attacks realistically at a slower speedto determine if you are moving to the proper angles and using proper timing toemploy techniques. As students grow in experience, speed and ferocity increasesand some padded equipment like helmets, gloves and chest protectors are used.Once a student can be trusted to not let his ego get in the way of learningthen the attacker and defender are no longer pre-pricked before the exercise.This means both students try to win, but must be aware that they can’t fully resisteverything done to them or they will get injured. Only when a student isexperienced enough to know that “hey, they caught me. I need to receive thetechnique”, are they allowed to do this.

It can be hard sometimes to draw the line between realismand safety so there are always some accommodations being made because afterall, doing the techniques correctly should result in injury in a realconfrontation.

 

[nocturnal_]

It's not relevant because if fighter A who trains in his elite killer uber street lethal (yeah right) style decides to enter the competition, he's a moron if he doesn't learn the rules.

I am a pretty good with a pistol or revolver, you dont see me saying I'm disadvantaged because I cannot shoot someone in the octagon. It's idiotic.

It's not like fighter B jumps fighter A in the street and beats on him and then tells him he cannot use his uber lethal street fu skills.

What I meant by no-rules is NO RULES. In the street, you can use your revolver. No rules.

If it's in the octagon, aside from rules, the environment is not random. No parked cars, uneven terrain, concrete, dog poo, lamp post. No weapons. Fighter A can't use broken bottles or pull concealed knife to strike Fighter B in the octagon. Chicken? Coward? Unfair? Who cares? It's no rules.

If I'm attacked in the street, my primary instinct is to find a weapon that I can use. My training has pre-conditioned me to do this. I don't care if I'm not being a gentleman by using weapons while my attacker may not use one. It's the street. No rules.

I think people that pre-conditioned to think that octagon fighters are better than non-octagon-fighters because they see octagon fighters on TV, and they don't see non-octagon-fighters on TV. And most non-octagon fighters don't train 40 hours a week. Yes, I agree that a non-octagon fighters that train 8 hours a week is no match against an octagon fighter that trains 40 hours a week. But what I used as an example on my previous post is both fighters train the same amount of hours a week, of same age and same weight.

 

[nocturnal_]

Nice theory. However, it is also highly possible that fighter B, who has spent his time training on effective techniques(constricted by those nasty limiting rules) also has vastly more experience in getting, maintaining and exploiting positional dominance against a resisting opponent. If fighter A bag of dirty tricks include things that can't be practiced at either full speed or full contact, he won't have practical experience of attempting to apply them against a resisting opponent. Ergo, the "advantage" of his "street" training is nullified. So, as an example, after fighter B swoops in for a double leg takedown(having spent 70% more of his training time on techniques that fit within the confines of those restricting rules), and fighter A has been bodyslammed into the pavement and mounted, how effective will the upward eye gouge attempts be, while fighter A is trying to defend against those rule restricted ground and pound techniques? Those vicious pressure point techniques, how awesome are they going to be without a base to work from? In BJJ, there is a saying "position before submission", the same applies to dirty tricks. Cant do an eye gouge if you are not in range, or opponent is on your back. Groin strikes are very difficult when other guy has you in double underhooks, which can easily be transitioned to an armbar, a duckunder, or a throw. All perfectly legal techniques under those restricting rules, yet they negate much of the dirty trick repetoire. Explain again how Fighter B is at an extreme disadvantage?

In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons.

The example you mentioned is based on Fighter A reacting to Fighter B's first move. Most street styles actually heavily emphasize pre-emptive strikes. If anything, Fighter A is more likely to attack first.

You can practice groin strikes full speed. There are groin protectors. Throat strikes maybe not full speed, but if you're in range, it's not that hard to use it against someone who's not conditioned with protecting his throat.

I've never done MMA before, but I did Judo (with rules, of course) before. When I was training Judo solely, I developed a 'bad habit': not protecting my face and groin. It's not a bad habit for judo tournaments, but it's a bad habit that may cause serious injury in the street. I think MMA pro fighters may develop a bad habit of not protecting their groin because they're conditioned to fight against techniques that are legal in the octagon.

Let's just say UFC is like Usain Bolt running on a proper Olympic track. Street is like Usain Bolt running bare feet on uneven ground with dog poo, someone's vomit, broken bottles, and in the rain. He's still a fast runner, but the terrain is definitely different. Don't you think he'd be disadvantaged to this kind of environment?

Assuming all other things being equal (hours of training, same body size, same weight, same age), Fighter B would be disadvantaged in the street. In my opinion, people form the thought that UFC/MMA fighters can fight anywhere because the average UFC/MMA fighter train 30-50 hours a week, while the average non-MMA-fighter probably train 4-10 hours a week. If the non-MMA-fighter spend equal amount of training time, I don't see why they can't be at least as good in the street.

 

[Cyriacus]

"In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons."

Unless Fighter B wants to win. If Fighter B is planning on killing Fighter A, he will more often than not arm himself.
Other way of putting it: When did you last hear about someone going out and committing premeditated murder with their fists? It happens, but not nearly as often as someone taking a weapon. Of any sort.

 

[frank raud]

In the street, Fighter A can pull out a knife, use broken bottles, rocks, etc. Sure Fighter B can use them too, but Fighter B (conditioned with rules training) will probably use this as a last resort. While Fighter A first instinct will be to use the weapons. So, in your first scenario, all things being equal, both fighters same age, same size, same weight, equal training time, fighter A is using weapons? Or are you adding another dimension to improve the odds for your chosen fighter?

The example you mentioned is based on Fighter A reacting to Fighter B's first move. Most street styles actually heavily emphasize pre-emptive strikes. If anything, Fighter A is more likely to attack first. Hmm, let's see, in judo have you never done Morote Gari against a lapel grab? Unless the pre-emptive strike is a one shot knockout(can't have it be a punch, because that is within those restrictive rules, so it can't be effective on the streetz)what's to stop aat.ave thn exchange of blows leading into an effective technique that the MMA fighter has practiced more against resisting opponents resulting in a takedown? Or is this not a possible scenario as it would mean the "Streetz" fighter would be at a disadvantage?

You can practice groin strikes full speed. There are groin protectors. Throat strikes maybe not full speed, but if you're in range, it's not that hard to use it against someone who's not conditioned with protecting his throat. Perhaps you can practice groin strike full speed. What I said was double underhooks negates groin strikes. How does one protect his throat? By dropping his chin and hunching his shoulders? You know,like a boxer? Once again, those pesky restrictive rules don't seem to be a big problem.

I've never done MMA before, but I did Judo (with rules, of course) before. When I was training Judo solely, I developed a 'bad habit': not protecting my face and groin. It's not a bad habit for judo tournaments, but it's a bad habit that may cause serious injury in the street. I think MMA pro fighters may develop a bad habit of not protecting their groin because they're conditioned to fight against techniques that are legal in the octagon.

Let's just say UFC is like Usain Bolt running on a proper Olympic track. Street is like Usain Bolt running bare feet on uneven ground with dog poo, someone's vomit, broken bottles, and in the rain. He's still a fast runner, but the terrain is definitely different. Don't you think he'd be disadvantaged to this kind of environment? Wow, interesting analogy. Is Usain Bolt competing against someone who can equal his record breaking speed while running in bare feet on
the typical broken glass? Would he be able to break another world record running in those conditions? Probably not. Could he still outrun anyone else who is also running barefoot through broken glass? I think his odds would be very good.

Assuming all other things being equal (hours of training, same body size, same weight, same age), Fighter B would be disadvantaged in the street. In my opinion, people form the thought that UFC/MMA fighters can fight anywhere because the average UFC/MMA fighter train 30-50 hours a week, while the average non-MMA-fighter probably train 4-10 hours a week. If the non-MMA-fighter spend equal amount of training time, I don't see why they can't be at least as good in the street.

The difficulty in training 30-50 hours in the deadly streetz is the recovery time from the stitches you get from rolling around in broken glass and dog poo. It is hard to consistently train at the level necessary to maintain your street cred when you are being regularly stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by your training partners(gots to keep it real,yo! Word.) So sometimes you compromise. You practice in a safe environment, without broken glass on the ground, without burning barrels of garbage with winos huddled around them for warmth as a backdrop. You train in a room with a padded floor, with no stripped out car beside you for enviromental challenges. You take Wing Chun, and practice your techniques on the Mook Jong, without a resisting opponent, so you can get more training time in. When you do judo(You list Wing Chun and Judo as your primary arts,right?) you do randori and uchi-komi to get better at your art prior to doing shiai. Guess what? Most of your training is not in the streets, it's in a dojo or kwoon. By the way, I doubt the average UFC fighter trains anywhere near 30-50 hours a week.

 

[nocturnal_]

So, in your first scenario, all things being equal, both fighters same age, same size, same weight, equal training time, fighter A is using weapons? Or are you adding another dimension to improve the odds for your chosen fighter?

Fighters that are trained for street self defense will be very likely to grab any available weapons that he/she can grab. Fighters with rules normally leave this as a last resort.

Unless the pre-emptive strike is a one shot knockout(can't have it be a punch, because that is within those restrictive rules, so it can't be effective on the streetz)

I never said it can't be a punch. It can be a punch to the throat, which I don't think is allowed in a competition with rules.

what's to stop aat.ave thn exchange of blows leading into an effective technique that the MMA fighter has practiced more against resisting opponents resulting in a takedown? Or is this not a possible scenario as it would mean the "Streetz" fighter would be at a disadvantage?

Of course the MMA fighter can still try applying his techniques, but if the MMA fighter only train for competition inside the octagon, he won't be too accustomed to protect himself against strikes that aren't allowed in the competition. His attacks probably won't be disadvantaged, but his defense will.

What I said was double underhooks negates groin strikes. How does one protect his throat? By dropping his chin and hunching his shoulders? You know,like a boxer? Once again, those pesky restrictive rules don't seem to be a big problem.

Would somebody who train exclusively for competition and only fight for competition develop a habit of protecting himself against strikes that are illegal in competitions? It's all reflex and muscle memoryin a street fight.

The difficulty in training 30-50 hours in the deadly streetz is the recovery time from the stitches you get from rolling around in broken glass and dog poo. It is hard to consistently train at the level necessary to maintain your street cred when you are being regularly stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by your training partners(gots to keep it real,yo! Word.) So sometimes you compromise. You practice in a safe environment, without broken glass on the ground, without burning barrels of garbage with winos huddled around them for warmth as a backdrop. You train in a room with a padded floor, with no stripped out car beside you for enviromental challenges. You take Wing Chun, and practice your techniques on the Mook Jong, without a resisting opponent, so you can get more training time in. When you do judo(You list Wing Chun and Judo as your primary arts,right?) you do randori and uchi-komi to get better at your art prior to doing shiai. Guess what? Most of your training is not in the streets, it's in a dojo or kwoon.

Ok, you got a point here. I do train on different environments but not that often. However, I need to add that with styles with no rules, there's the mentality factor to inflict as much damage as possible because your life is threatened. There's also the thought that fight can happen at anytime anywhere even when you're tired, injured or sick. While for style with rules, what's ingrained to the fighter's mind is to knock their opponents out or to submit them, and these people fight when they're in tip top condition, not when they're tired or injured.

 

[frank raud]

MMA fighters never fight when they're tired or injured? Seriously? Have you never watched MMA? Broken hands or forearms, shattered eye sockets, profuse bleeding and the sheer exhaustion that comes from all out physical activity for 3 to 5 rounds of fighting? Do I need to post post fight pictures of Shane Carwin, Josh Koscheck, GSP or others? I do have a suggestion for you. Go into a local MMA club, offer to demonstrate the superiority of your technique and determination, either on the mat, or out back in the alley(you may have to sweep away the broken bottles so the MMA fighter will have the courage to engage you under such difficult conditions)and report back on your triumphant results. Be sure to clarify you want a no rules fight. Apparently there is no question of a MMA fighter having the slightest chance because of all those restrictive rules, so you should have no problem with this little experiment. Otherwise, what you are saying amounts to a nocturnal emission.

 

[Mr Mojo Lane]

I train both. I am sorry but the vast majority of TMA are just extremely arrogant idiots. The last TMA place I went to is a perfect example of what is wrong with TMA. I dealt with a really arrogant guy who was making comments about this and that being a half an inch out of place and he actually punch me on top of the ear thinking that would hurt me. He was like “Are you OK” and I just laughed and said “Yeah”. Anyways, the instructor used him for an uke and started throwing 1-2’s at him fast. The guy knew what was coming and still got hit in the nose. He just simply gets beat to the punch and he couldn’t take a punch either. Knowing a billion techniques at half-speed doesn’t necessarily make someone a better fighter.
Dirty moves are very easy to learn. Yes, if I get side body or the mount in a life in death situation, I will eye gouge and punch the guy in the throar and then get up. It takes time, however, to not quickly be submitted and defend yourself on the ground.

 

[lklawson]

This thread makes me miss the '90s. <sniff>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[frank raud]

This thread makes me miss the '90s. <sniff>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Just missing the lava.

 

[nocturnal_]

MMA fighters never fight when they're tired or injured? Seriously? Have you never watched MMA? Broken hands or forearms, shattered eye sockets, profuse bleeding and the sheer exhaustion that comes from all out physical activity for 3 to 5 rounds of fighting? Do I need to post post fight pictures of Shane Carwin, Josh Koscheck, GSP or others?

Were they injured from BEFORE the fight? In the street, you can be attacked by 3 people while you have some injuries.

I do have a suggestion for you. Go into a local MMA club, offer to demonstrate the superiority of your technique and determination, either on the mat, or out back in the alley(you may have to sweep away the broken bottles so the MMA fighter will have the courage to engage you under such difficult conditions)and report back on your triumphant results. Be sure to clarify you want a no rules fight. Apparently there is no question of a MMA fighter having the slightest chance because of all those restrictive rules, so you should have no problem with this little experiment. Otherwise, what you are saying amounts to a nocturnal emission.

First of all, what I said was 'disadvantaged', which is a big difference from 'not having a slightest chance'.

Second of all, if there's no rules, that means I can attack this person on a dark alley with a baseball bat without any warning when he's not ready for such attack. Again, No Rules means No Rules.

Third of all, I didn't mention that it was me specifically, but yes I am confident enough that I'll be able to take on an MMA fighter of same age, same size, same amount of training on the street. And no, I wouldn't fight the gentleman way. This can mean a sneak attack with weapon when he's not ready. Again, No Rules.

Lastly, I think you worship MMA too much to get offended on someone else posting a different opinion. Fighting in the street is not all techniques. There's mentality involved too. I would be a lot more worried fighting against some street punk who has nothing to lose, rather than an MMA fighter (of same age, size and same amount of hours of training), who has a lot to lose. But anyway, I'm not here to convince you. I just stated my thoughts and opinions.