UFC vs Traditional MA Debate

[Kframe]

Nocturnal you have proven to me with your ignorance that you have likely not done any real martial arts training.. I am a mma student, and I can tell you for a fact we are not disadvantaged on the street. For the first, most of the guys in my gym have CCW. Secondly, surprise we actually train to defend against illegal attacks such as groin and neck attacks.. Oddly you know neck attacks are common in mma(/sarcasm). Guess what, in a lot of mma promotions it is illegal to kick to the front of the knee. GUESS WHAT THAT LEAVES?? The entire 3 facing sides of the knees are legal targets for destruction. Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a chasse bas to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore savate rules(I am in mma and not savate, I just like that kick and learned it) and use it below the knee to the upper shin area, and have the same effect of dislocating your knee.. Or I could do another tech to the knee im taught, that comes straight out of karate and from close range do a downward stomp kick to the side of your knee.

Honestly go and actually do some thing, and you'll see you actually know very little. Just because there are rules, don't mean we don't consider the illegal moves, stuff happens regardless of rules.

One thing many here understand but you seam to not have a clue on is pressure. More specifically keeping your cool while under pressure. MMA fighters tend to experience a heck of a lot of it during there training and as I can attest to you we spar way more then is really called for imho and at some serious speeds. All of this sparring and drilling and pressure helps us keep our heads better(not perfectly as I found out but I did ok considering the circumstances) then those who have no real training and pressure testing.

Each art, when taught properly has a way of pressure testing there students. At least that is the conclusion I have come to. You really need to open your mind and think. If you don't believe a word im saying fine, don't take my word go to a forum populated almost exclusively by mma fighters. WWW.sherdog.net. Make your statements and ask your silly questions there and see what they say. There are a great many good mma and boxing and Muay Thai and other coaches and even professional fighters there. Im sure they can educate you far better then I or anyone else here for that matter.

 

[K-man]

Without qualification I don't see how you can compare UFC with TMA. The only practical way would be to match fighters, height and weight and put them in the ring. That is what MMA was initially about, one practitioner of one style against one from another. Then along came the Gracies and it didn't take long before everyone is cross training.

In real life a thug on the street, who may or may not have TMA or MMA training, is 35 kilos heavier than the TMA trained person he attacks on the street. Who will win? A 120 kg karate guy meets a 72 kg MMA guy on the street, same question.

OK, true confession. I am TMA pure and simple. I have many years of experience and reckon I'm reasonably capable of giving a good account of myself in a bad situation. A couple of weeks ago I had the absolute privilege of attending an MMA training session run by Bas Rutten. He is now carrying a few bad injuries but he is still a big strong guy. Basically his style of attack was like using a bulldozer. He just moved in swinging huge punches. I would defy anyone to block his attack. Of course there was more to it than just that, but it showed me quite clearly ... from where I was standing, MMA can beat TMA hands down, rules or no rules. (BTW, Bas is one of my all time favourites. ) A side benefit of watching Bas was also seeing the futility of trying to block the strikes of a man like that. You might stop one punch or kick but the next two will take you out.

But does that mean UFC is always going to beat TMA? No, no, no! It will always come down to the size, skill and experience of the combatants. :asian:

 

[Aiki Lee]

It all comes down to who has the better strategy and if they can implement that strategy.

 

[Chris Parker]

Without qualification I don't see how you can compare UFC with TMA. The only practical way would be to match fighters, height and weight and put them in the ring. That is what MMA was initially about, one practitioner of one style against one from another. Then along came the Gracies and it didn't take long before everyone is cross training.

Sorry, mate, gotta pull you up there...

The early UFC was about pitting one art against another, MMA came later. The first UFC were very much Gracie affairs, so they weren't "Johnny-come-latelys" to the idea... and, for the record, Royce himself is fairly anti MMA and the cross-training for that end. He considers that if someone does MMA, it means they couldn't do a single thing well enough, and had to do a range of them. The way the cross-training and MMA ideas came about was that strikers, who had considered themselves skilled, were being taken down by grapplers (most notably the Gracies and those like them), and started learning just enough to get up and away... that lead to more focus, and essentially an arms race for supremacy within the context of MMA competition (only).

 

[lklawson]

Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a chasse bas to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore savate rules

These references make me very happy.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Lastly, I think you worship MMA too much

This is awesome! Quick, now write, "Lava and HIV infected needles!" and my nostalgic trip down memory lane will be complete.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

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.

You keep writing "no rules, no rules" as if that's some sort of incantation and "on the street" as if it was some sort of mantra. Om padme mani om... It doesn't negate actual evidence.

Here's the facts that even mantras and magic incantations can't resolve. There are great numbers of actual incidents where MMA (and BJJ, etc.) fighters actually got in to real fights "on the street" and not only weren't crushed by the deadly "street fighters" they actually did quite well, winning the fight. I've known some of these guys. One friend of mine was attacked while coming out of a convenience store. He took the guys back, choked him out, and left him laying on the asphalt (Lava, needles, and all). Same guy was assaulted by some idiot at a traffic stop (thought my friend was tailgating him or something so he blocked my friends car with his). He got out of his car and attempted to assault my friend. Same drill. Took his back, choked him out, and then he threw the idiot's car keys into the bushes for good measure.

Multiples? I know another guy who was assaulted literally in the middle of the freaking road (asphalt, rocks, broken glass, etc.) by two men. He grappled them and won. He wasn't kicked in the head. He didn't suffer life altering abrasions from the asphalt. He won.

And there are plenty of other actual examples to check on. My favorite was a couple of MMA guys dressing in drag for a costume party. They were assaulted and the handed attackers' butts back to them. Someone caught it on video and it went viral a few years back.

So the fact is that we're not talking in hypothetical terms here. We don't have to guess whether or not a MMA fighter can succeed in a "no rules" "on the street" fight. They can. Case closed.

Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street." Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree. Apparently there frequently ARE "rules" when fighting "on the street." Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street." It's actually pretty common. I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply. That is, I concur, a valid concern. But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true. Sometimes there are. And you know what? The Law agrees. You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street." The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party. The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly." I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death. I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[K-man]

Sorry, mate, gotta pull you up there...

The early UFC was about pitting one art against another, MMA came later. The first UFC were very much Gracie affairs, so they weren't "Johnny-come-latelys" to the idea... and, for the record, Royce himself is fairly anti MMA and the cross-training for that end. He considers that if someone does MMA, it means they couldn't do a single thing well enough, and had to do a range of them. The way the cross-training and MMA ideas came about was that strikers, who had considered themselves skilled, were being taken down by grapplers (most notably the Gracies and those like them), and started learning just enough to get up and away... that lead to more focus, and essentially an arms race for supremacy within the context of MMA competition (only).

True! I was using the terms loosely and interchangeably. I read it, thought about it and left it just to see if you were paying attention.

 

[Zero]

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.

Really?? Are you saying that "mentality" is not involved or does not factor in MMA or other tournament/competition fighting? It is all just technique?? If so you have probably never competed in your life! Mentality, not always, but sometimes can count more than physical prowess or skill. In bouts between opponents of similair ability/size the fight is often won due to "mentality" - if I am understanding correctly what you are referencing here, i.e. the mental fortitude or conviction of the individual and not him being "mental" (ie crazy) - although this can sometimes help too : )

I have beaten competitors in the ring which had better and wider ranging technique than me but lesser drive to win (it is odd but many MA practitioners simply do not (or are not interested in (and credit to them maybe)) have that level of desire/aggression/call it what you will). I have also been defeated on a mental level, ie scared/awed/unerved of the opponent because he happened to be in my same club and senior to me and coached me a lot (I was actually stronger, fitter and could execute technique as clean and almost as fast as him). I would like to think with my level of experience that would not happen now but I am not sure even many top professional fighters always enter the ring thinking, "yeah, I got this guy licked".

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street." Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree. Apparently there frequently ARE "rules" when fighting "on the street." Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street." It's actually pretty common. I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply. That is, I concur, a valid concern. But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true. Sometimes there are. And you know what? The Law agrees. You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street." The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party. The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly." I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death. I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thank you!

The fact is, there are always rules.

What distinguishes a violent encounter outside of competition is that the rules, the enforcers of the rules, and the penalties for violations are highly variable from situation to situation. They aren't written down, so the participants may not know exactly what they are. The rules may even be different for the various participants in a given situation. Knowing how to quickly assess the rules that apply to a given encounter is a valuable martial skill in and of itself.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am TMA pure and simple. I have many years of experience and reckon I'm reasonably capable of giving a good account of myself in a bad situation.
...

Basically his style of attack was like using a bulldozer. He just moved in swinging huge punches. I would defy anyone to block his attack. Of course there was more to it than just that, but it showed me quite clearly ... from where I was standing, MMA can beat TMA hands down, rules or no rules. (BTW, Bas is one of my all time favourites. ) A side benefit of watching Bas was also seeing the futility of trying to block the strikes of a man like that. You might stop one punch or kick but the next two will take you out.

does your TMA system NOT teach you to do this? This is fundamental to the strategy used in mine.
All he is doing is applying his training in a very aggressive way. Anybody can do that with the training they've received. It's a choice to be made in how you want to approach combat, and it simply takes a vision for what is possible with what you've learned. That's not an MMA skill vs a TMA skill. It's simply a skill that anyone can develop, whether you've trained MMA or TMA.

 

[K-man]

does your TMA system NOT teach you to do this? This is fundamental to the strategy used in mine.
All he is doing is applying his training in a very aggressive way. Anybody can do that with the training they've received. It's a choice to be made in how you want to approach combat, and it simply takes a vision for what is possible with what you've learned. That's not an MMA skill vs a TMA skill. It's simply a skill that anyone can develop, whether you've trained MMA or TMA.

Not quite sure of what you are saying here or whether my description of Bas' style was not complete. Yes, my TMA system is almost opposite of what Bas was doing. Unless you are built like a bull, and most people are not, fighting like that against someone like Bas would see you demolished. His training is such that he is prepared to take your best shot as he closes in and he is big enough and strong enough to do that and that is one of his qualities that made him heavyweight champion.

If I had to tackle someone like Bas there is no way I could absorb the power of his strike. I reckon someone from a style that tries to dominate the centreline such as WC would be swamped. That leaves the outside and that is where I would try to be. In a way this is hypothetical. I, as an amateur with no claims to being a great fighter am trying to work out how I would tackle a former world heavyweight champion. It just is extremely improbable and without decrying TMA I was conceding that Bas (MMA) was better than me (TMA). Apart from any thing else he is a couple of inches taller, about 25 kilos heavier and 15 years younger.

But, having said that, in a sporting context, someone from a TMA, physically matched to Bas, might engage and choose to tackle him head on. Without extremely good ground skills, they still wouldn't match him.

Fortunately Bas is not your typical MMA fighter. Most typical MMA guys are training for the fun and fitness which is the same as most TMA practitioners. Put one up against the other and it could go either way, depending on the person. I have no dog in this fight. TMA ... MMA, who cares as long as we are up off the couch and training? :asian:

 

[nocturnal_]

Nocturnal you have proven to me with your ignorance that you have likely not done any real martial arts training.. I am a mma student, and I can tell you for a fact we are not disadvantaged on the street. For the first, most of the guys in my gym have CCW. Secondly, surprise we actually train to defend against illegal attacks such as groin and neck attacks.. Oddly you know neck attacks are common in mma(/sarcasm). Guess what, in a lot of mma promotions it is illegal to kick to the front of the knee. GUESS WHAT THAT LEAVES?? The entire 3 facing sides of the knees are legal targets for destruction. Guess what, I cant target the front of the knee, but I can sure as heck do a chasse bas to your thigh and stand a good chance of dislocating your knee. Like wise, I could just ignore savate rules(I am in mma and not savate, I just like that kick and learned it) and use it below the knee to the upper shin area, and have the same effect of dislocating your knee.. Or I could do another tech to the knee im taught, that comes straight out of karate and from close range do a downward stomp kick to the side of your knee.

Honestly go and actually do some thing, and you'll see you actually know very little. Just because there are rules, don't mean we don't consider the illegal moves, stuff happens regardless of rules.

One thing many here understand but you seam to not have a clue on is pressure. More specifically keeping your cool while under pressure. MMA fighters tend to experience a heck of a lot of it during there training and as I can attest to you we spar way more then is really called for imho and at some serious speeds. All of this sparring and drilling and pressure helps us keep our heads better(not perfectly as I found out but I did ok considering the circumstances) then those who have no real training and pressure testing.

Each art, when taught properly has a way of pressure testing there students. At least that is the conclusion I have come to. You really need to open your mind and think. If you don't believe a word im saying fine, don't take my word go to a forum populated almost exclusively by mma fighters. WWW.sherdog.net. Make your statements and ask your silly questions there and see what they say. There are a great many good mma and boxing and Muay Thai and other coaches and even professional fighters there. Im sure they can educate you far better then I or anyone else here for that matter.

An MMA guy defending MMA. What's new? The sun rises from the East?

You seem to ignore the mental factor (that I mentioned) on street fights. I had a lot of them when I was a teenager (before I moved to Australia, which is a generally safe country).

 

[nocturnal_]

You keep writing "no rules, no rules" as if that's some sort of incantation and "on the street" as if it was some sort of mantra. Om padme mani om... It doesn't negate actual evidence.

Here's the facts that even mantras and magic incantations can't resolve. There are great numbers of actual incidents where MMA (and BJJ, etc.) fighters actually got in to real fights "on the street" and not only weren't crushed by the deadly "street fighters" they actually did quite well, winning the fight. I've known some of these guys. One friend of mine was attacked while coming out of a convenience store. He took the guys back, choked him out, and left him laying on the asphalt (Lava, needles, and all). Same guy was assaulted by some idiot at a traffic stop (thought my friend was tailgating him or something so he blocked my friends car with his). He got out of his car and attempted to assault my friend. Same drill. Took his back, choked him out, and then he threw the idiot's car keys into the bushes for good measure.

Multiples? I know another guy who was assaulted literally in the middle of the freaking road (asphalt, rocks, broken glass, etc.) by two men. He grappled them and won. He wasn't kicked in the head. He didn't suffer life altering abrasions from the asphalt. He won.

And there are plenty of other actual examples to check on. My favorite was a couple of MMA guys dressing in drag for a costume party. They were assaulted and the handed attackers' butts back to them. Someone caught it on video and it went viral a few years back.

So the fact is that we're not talking in hypothetical terms here. We don't have to guess whether or not a MMA fighter can succeed in a "no rules" "on the street" fight. They can. Case closed.

I never said they can't. I said they're 'disadvantaged'.

Now, to specifically address your repeated assertions that there are "no rules" "on the street." Sorry to disabuse you but, actually, sociologists seem to disagree. Apparently there frequently ARE "rules" when fighting "on the street." Though not an absolute, it seems that there is often a set of vaguely defined unwritten and unspoken "rules" about what is acceptable "on the street." It's actually pretty common. I will agree that it is frequently unclear when a criminal assaulting you may decide that the rules don't apply. That is, I concur, a valid concern. But to frequently and vociferously claim in no uncertain terms that there are "no rules on the street" is simply not true. Sometimes there are. And you know what? The Law agrees. You cannot use deadly force as a default position when assaulted "on the street." The Law insists that Deadly Force may only be applied when a "Reasonable Man" would be in fear of death or seriously bodily harm to himself or an innocent third party. The Law recognizes that not all assaults are necessarily "deadly." I.E.: there were rules to the attack/fight/whatever which prohibited death. I'm sorry, but it's just never going to be an Affirmative Defense to say, "I know I killed him, Your Honor, but I read on the internet that there are 'no rules in a street fight' so it's OK, right?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

There are plenty of unsolved murder cases and unsolved (and/or unreported) assault cases. If the assault is by someone you don't know, it's very hard to identify the person in the first place, let alone going to the "he said I said" stage, which is dubious, especially if the assault happens in a quiet area at night. And many cities in the world don't have CCTV.

 

[nocturnal_]

Really?? Are you saying that "mentality" is not involved or does not factor in MMA or other tournament/competition fighting? It is all just technique?? If so you have probably never competed in your life! Mentality, not always, but sometimes can count more than physical prowess or skill. In bouts between opponents of similair ability/size the fight is often won due to "mentality" - if I am understanding correctly what you are referencing here, i.e. the mental fortitude or conviction of the individual and not him being "mental" (ie crazy) - although this can sometimes help too : )

I have beaten competitors in the ring which had better and wider ranging technique than me but lesser drive to win (it is odd but many MA practitioners simply do not (or are not interested in (and credit to them maybe)) have that level of desire/aggression/call it what you will). I have also been defeated on a mental level, ie scared/awed/unerved of the opponent because he happened to be in my same club and senior to me and coached me a lot (I was actually stronger, fitter and could execute technique as clean and almost as fast as him). I would like to think with my level of experience that would not happen now but I am not sure even many top professional fighters always enter the ring thinking, "yeah, I got this guy licked".

In a competition, you know that 99.99% chance you won't die. It's a different mental factor when a few guys with sticks and knives chasing you in the street. I spent most of my teenage years in a third world country. Unlike the safe first world country I live now, there were (possibly still are) many unsolved murder cases there.

 

[frank raud]

Were they injured from BEFORE the fight? In the street, you can be attacked by 3 people while you have some injuries. Well, duh, let's see if we can figure this out. In UFC 124, Josh Koschek had his orbital bone broken, probably in the first round. So for at least 20 minutes of continuos fighting, yes he was fighting with a severe injury from before the break. Many fighters continue to fight after a broken bone. But I guess that doesn't count as fighting while injured, cuz you know, they were injured while fighting, then took a rest and fought another round. Hardly the same as walking down a dark alley with a limp and being attacked.



First of all, what I said was 'disadvantaged', which is a big difference from 'not having a slightest chance'. Post 39 In the street, Fighter B would be severely disadvantaged. Post 51 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. Post 55 Of course the MMA fighter can still try applying his techniques. His attacks probably won't be disadvantaged, but his defense will. 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. Sounds to me like you were saying just a little more than "disadvantaged".



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. So, behaving as a sociopathic thug is acceptable to your training? Your instructor must be so proud of you. Interesting, as in another thread, you wrote such things as "Right amount of discipline & philosophy stuff (not too much, just enough)" regarding Shotokan and Shaolin Kung fu and "Too much time spent on the philosophical & ritual stuff" regarding Aikido. Nowhere do you point out where you were taught that extreme unprovoked violence is acceptable because, afterall, it is "the streetz". What school of martial arts teaches that?


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. Surprise, we would expect you to actually test your skills because they are so deadly. Although it seems the main way they are deadly is to launch a sneak attack on an unsuspecting victim. Remind me again, if you would be so kind, which of the many street applicable arts that not not hampered by rules, teaches thug like behaviour?

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.

Now this is curious. An untrained street punk is of more concern than a trained fighter because of he has nothing to lose. So would not your hypothetical street oriented martial artist, capable of training(and one would assume paying) for 30-50 hours of training a week, have something to lose? Making him less of a threat than the street punk who has nothing to lose? My, this is quite the quandary.

 

[Cyriacus]

I love how yall are argueing about whos opinion of their own goal/s is better. Its pretty fantastic to listen to.
Summary of my response, although ive said it already. Your training doesnt condition you to do anything. If you choose to use something youve practiced, itll be easier than something youve never done before. That doesnt mean youre not going to think of things you havent done before, and it doesnt mean you will think of things you have. Something youve done before can just mean those ten minutes you spent shaking the air in preparation for sticking that jerk whos been giving you a hard time.

 

[Zero]

In a competition, you know that 99.99% chance you won't die. It's a different mental factor when a few guys with sticks and knives chasing you in the street. I spent most of my teenage years in a third world country. Unlike the safe first world country I live now, there were (possibly still are) many unsolved murder cases there.

Thanks, that clarifies for me somewhat what you had meant by "mentality". Undeniably there are huge differences between a street fight scenario a SD scenario and a sanctioned tournament. However (and conceeding and acknowledging the benefits of pressure/RBSD training) I would hope mental fortitude and experience obtained from high level competition and training can go a long way to how a person acquits themself in a "real"/street fight also. I say "hope" as I only go on my own experience and those few others I am aware of who have been faced with "real" events. That said from my own observations even the best tournament fighters are often lacking in basic SD/awareness/avoidance skills - that is just not something they have focused on - but this is different to how they go when in an actual fight itself.

I think if I had the choice of trying to jump someone like Bas Rutten or the late great Andy Hug or a street punk his size (I am heavyweight division myself) I would take the street punk. That said, I have been a hunter for many years and in different environments so would like to think my rifle/marksmanship skills can line up against or above your average soldier and I would put my outdoor/survival skills above many also but I think I would be at a marked disadvantage if I was placed in a firefight alongside and against combat soldiers, the skills would be different and the "experience" and mindset also, so I acknowledge that the environment you "live" and train is of great importance. However, if you are simply talking about how a skilled MMAist or high level fighter would go against a similair sized "street fighter", I would still back the pro fighter in most cases!! To my knowledge, your average thug and street fighter does not spend hours per week training in fighting and conditioning. And when faced with four drug fuelled guys weilding chains and steel bars in the back street of some thrid world country I think the reaction of a pro fighter or a street hood would the same - run like s"*t!!

Also, I am glad you live in a safe first world country now, I have lived in a few first world countries myself were there are regular severe beatings and worse when you go down the wrong streets and killings are common-place, some of the under developed countries I have been in have seemed the safest to me.

 

[Zero]

Now this is curious. An untrained street punk is of more concern than a trained fighter because of he has nothing to lose. So would not your hypothetical street oriented martial artist, capable of training(and one would assume paying) for 30-50 hours of training a week, have something to lose? Making him less of a threat than the street punk who has nothing to lose? My, this is quite the quandary.

Nocturnal, I gotta admit I am with Frankie here, I am struggling to follow you or see how a street punk with noting to loose would be more of a threat than a trained MMAist who has something or everyting to loose? I have a career, life aspirations and goals and plenty to loose and I am going to fight like hell (and have done) if required when faced with a low life street punk with noting to loose but bent on doing me harm.

 

[lklawson]

I never said they can't. I said they're 'disadvantaged'.

And actual evidence disapproves your thesis.

There are plenty of unsolved murder cases and unsolved (and/or unreported) assault cases. If the assault is by someone you don't know, it's very hard to identify the person in the first place, let alone going to the "he said I said" stage, which is dubious, especially if the assault happens in a quiet area at night. And many cities in the world don't have CCTV.

So now you are positing that unsolved murder cases are actually cases of self defense where the victim didn't feel it was safe to come forward and testify? That is simply a bridge too far. Give up you're silly thesis; it has been proven false.

"There are no rules on the street" is contrary to actual law, research by sociologists, and actual evidence.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk (mobile)