What I Believe MMA Is Good For

[drop bear105]

Animal day.

 

[Haruhiko]

You would be suprised. It started a force on force revolution for martial arts.

And it started a communication revolution for martial arts.

We now have a system and training tools that we can adapt to almost anything. Then get a qualified expert from half a world away to critique it. Then just go test it repeatedly.

Which creates experience in whatever field you want. Who from half a world away can critique other people's experiments.

We have gone from Geoff Thompson's animal day. Where about 5 guys, once a year flailed about risking injury to try to replicate a fight. To any scenario across multiple disciplines as well as military, law enforcement, whatever. Training this stuff twenty times a day.

But what is it?

 

[Simfers104]

MMA, to me, is a training philosophy. You look at a variety of sources and you:

- Take what works for your purposes (self-defense, competition under various rule-sets, whatever);
- Discard what doesn't fit that paradigm (anything to do with small joint manipulation is useless if your goal is to compete in the UFC, for example, since it's not allowed); and
- Add in what is uniquely yours (we all have favoured techniques, and we all bring baggage to what we train. My TKD training informed my karate, they both informed my Can-Ryu JJ, and ALL of it informs my BJJ in various ways).

Now, where have I heard THAT before?

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Not really. There are statistically high percentage moves.

If that were the case everybody would be doing those statistically high percentage moves all the time in every and any art.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

If that were the case everybody would be doing those statistically high percentage moves all the time in every and any art.

They do, where do you think MMA got them? It’s literally in the name, they cherry pick the stuff that works most often, on most people, in most arts, within their rule set and then drill it.

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

If that were the case everybody would be doing those statistically high percentage moves all the time in every and any art.

They do, where do you think MMA got them? It’s literally in the name, they cherry pick the stuff that works most often, on most people, in most arts, within their rule set and then drill it.

To be a little more precise: in those arts which actually pressure test their techniques, there are moves which statistically work more often, in a wider range of contexts, against a wider range of opponents than other moves. These are the moves which get used the most, assuming they are allowed within the rules of engagement for a given art or situation. That doesn't mean they are the only moves ever used. Sometimes you can find the right moment to use a more specialized or situational technique. But those moments will come up less often.

For example, almost every striking art includes some form of a rear cross/reverse punch. And you see that punch used in Boxing matches, Karate matches, Muay Thai matches, MMA matches, Sanda matches, Savate matches, street fights, bar brawls, and LEO use of force encounters, etc, etc, all the time. That is a high percentage technique. I've personally delivered and received hundreds or possibly thousands of these in sparring (and some real fights) over the years.

In contrast, consider something like an outside twisting wrist lock/kote gaeshi/omote gyaku (whatever it might be called in your system). It can work, given enough skill and the right circumstances. But those opportunities don't come up consistently. I've never seen it used in a context where striking was occurring. In my decades of grappling sparring, I think I've been caught by it once and caught it on other people maybe 2-3 times. The only example I've seen on video of it being used "in the wild" was of a police officer using it as a surprise takedown on a suspect who was standing still and looking the other way. Even in Tomiki Aikido sparring, where most of the high percentage moves used in other arts are disallowed and kote gaeshi is a signature move of the art, it doesn't appear to be one of the most common scoring techniques. This doesn't mean it's worthless. But it is objectively a much lower-percentage move than a rear cross.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

To be a little more precise: in those arts which actually pressure test their techniques, there are moves which statistically work more often, in a wider range of contexts, against a wider range of opponents than other moves. These are the moves which get used the most, assuming they are allowed within the rules of engagement for a given art or situation. That doesn't mean they are the only moves ever used. Sometimes you can find the right moment to use a more specialized or situational technique. But those moments will come up less often.

For example, almost every striking art includes some form of a rear cross/reverse punch. And you see that punch used in Boxing matches, Karate matches, Muay Thai matches, MMA matches, Sanda matches, Savate matches, street fights, bar brawls, and LEO use of force encounters, etc, etc, all the time. That is a high percentage technique. I've personally delivered and received hundreds or possibly thousands of these in sparring (and some real fights) over the years.

In contrast, consider something like an outside twisting wrist lock/kote gaeshi/omote gyaku (whatever it might be called in your system). It can work, given enough skill and the right circumstances. But those opportunities don't come up consistently. I've never seen it used in a context where striking was occurring. In my decades of grappling sparring, I think I've been caught by it once and caught it on other people maybe 2-3 times. The only example I've seen on video of it being used "in the wild" was of a police officer using it as a surprise takedown on a suspect who was standing still and looking the other way. Even in Tomiki Aikido sparring, where most of the high percentage moves used in other arts are disallowed and kote gaeshi is a signature move of the art, it doesn't appear to be one of the most common scoring techniques. This doesn't mean it's worthless. But it is objectively a much lower-percentage move than a rear cross.

I purposely kept my answer short. I don’t disagree with your elaboration, but I also don’t care to argue it with the diaspora at large.

 

[drop bear105]

If that were the case everybody would be doing those statistically high percentage moves all the time in every and any art.

You mean regardless of what people train. When they spar they all look like Kickboxers?

 

[HighKick]

If that were the case everybody would be doing those statistically high percentage moves all the time in every and any art.

Pretty sure you have been sold (and freely bought) a false bill of goods. Don't know why else you would think that way.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

They do, where do you think MMA got them? It’s literally in the name, they cherry pick the stuff that works most often, on most people, in most arts, within their rule set and then drill it.

What Im saying is that if there's certain stuff that works best for all people then every art would focus exclusively on just that stuff not just MMA and everybody would be cherry picking that specific stuff, not just MMA people.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

You mean regardless of what people train. When they spar they all look like Kickboxers?

Not necessarily, when Jiu Jitsu people do randori they don't look at all like kickboxers.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

Pretty sure you have been sold (and freely bought) a false bill of goods. Don't know why else you would think that way.

But it's true, if there are certain moves that work best everybody would be doing them.

 

[drop bear105]

Not necessarily, when Jiu Jitsu people do randori they don't look at all like kickboxers.

If they punch and kick they do.

 

[HighKick]

But it's true, if there are certain moves that work best everybody would be doing them.

It has been explained by several others this is happening in real time, over and over.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

If they punch and kick they do.

You don't punch and kick in randori.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

It has been explained by several others this is happening in real time, over and over.

Alright, so what are those moves that work the best, that everybody does? Somebody did mention the rear cross/reverse punch in this thread as such a move, what other moves?

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

You don't punch and kick in randori.

You don't if the ruleset disallows it. Making a competition or sparring ruleset which forbids certain techniques doesn't make those techniques any less high-percentage in a real fight or in a competition ruleset which allows them.

And since I have to explain that, I suppose I should address the people who are about to chime in to point out that MMA has prohibited techniques as well and so must not be the pinnacle of "what works in fighting." That's correct. There are techniques which are banned in most modern MMA rulesets but are nevertheless highly effective. We know that because we can see those techniques applied in other contexts with a high degree of success and sometimes in other MMA rulesets (past and present) that were more permissive.

Obviously we know weapons (guns, knives, sticks, swords, etc) are highly effective. Lots of real world evidence there.

Headbutts are effective, as seen in Lethwei, Kudo, Combat Sambo, and earlier MMA rulesets.

Eye gouges can be effective. The problem is that there is no legal or ethical way to develop them to a high level of skill because you can't go around actually blinding your training partners. Gerard Gourdeau (have I mentioned that the man is a psychopath?) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Vale Tudo and still lost the fight. (He also lost to Royce Gracie, despite biting him in their match. Being willing to break the rules doesn't mean you necessarily win against a better fighter.)

But overall, as you allow more and more techniques into your pressure testing, you discover that some techniques do statistically work much more reliably in a higher range of circumstances against a wider range of opponents than other techniques do.

 

[Prince_Alarming105]

I always say, if you can't fight within the rules, you still can't fight without them. That said, some rulesets don't make much sense- not that I'm going to specify which, no names no pack drill- but even so, I believe in a nice clean fight. Stuff like eye gouges, biting, generally being a poor sportsman don't help the reputation of the sport or even you as a fighter in the long run. There's a sensible middle ground we need to reach for.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

You don't if the ruleset disallows it. Making a competition or sparring ruleset which forbids certain techniques doesn't make those techniques any less high-percentage in a real fight or in a competition ruleset which allows them.

And since I have to explain that, I suppose I should address the people who are about to chime in to point out that MMA has prohibited techniques as well and so must not be the pinnacle of "what works in fighting." That's correct. There are techniques which are banned in most modern MMA rulesets but are nevertheless highly effective. We know that because we can see those techniques applied in other contexts with a high degree of success and sometimes in other MMA rulesets (past and present) that were more permissive.

Obviously we know weapons (guns, knives, sticks, swords, etc) are highly effective. Lots of real world evidence there.

Headbutts are effective, as seen in Lethwei, Kudo, Combat Sambo, and earlier MMA rulesets.

Eye gouges can be effective. The problem is that there is no legal or ethical way to develop them to a high level of skill because you can't go around actually blinding your training partners. Gerard Gourdeau (have I mentioned that the man is a psychopath?) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Vale Tudo and still lost the fight. (He also lost to Royce Gracie, despite biting him in their match. Being willing to break the rules doesn't mean you necessarily win against a better fighter.)

But overall, as you allow more and more techniques into your pressure testing, you discover that some techniques do statistically work much more reliably in a higher range of circumstances against a wider range of opponents than other techniques do.

12 to 6 elbows… my understanding is that these are now allowed in MMA. Still no small joint manipulations, air chokes, knees to grounded opponents head, punches to back of head, but I get why this is not allowed.

 

[PhotonGuy7]

You don't if the ruleset disallows it. Making a competition or sparring ruleset which forbids certain techniques doesn't make those techniques any less high-percentage in a real fight or in a competition ruleset which allows them.

Well you also have to define exactly what you mean by a "real fight." If you define a real fight as a fight that would occur in the street there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration, factors such as weapons and friends, in street fights its not uncommon for people to use weapons and/or have friends with them.

And since I have to explain that, I suppose I should address the people who are about to chime in to point out that MMA has prohibited techniques as well and so must not be the pinnacle of "what works in fighting." That's correct. There are techniques which are banned in most modern MMA rulesets but are nevertheless highly effective. We know that because we can see those techniques applied in other contexts with a high degree of success and sometimes in other MMA rulesets (past and present) that were more permissive.

Yes that is true.

Obviously we know weapons (guns, knives, sticks, swords, etc) are highly effective. Lots of real world evidence there.

And such stuff is usually if not always banned in sport fights, as is having friends with you.

Headbutts are effective, as seen in Lethwei, Kudo, Combat Sambo, and earlier MMA rulesets.

Eye gouges can be effective. The problem is that there is no legal or ethical way to develop them to a high level of skill because you can't go around actually blinding your training partners. Gerard Gourdeau (have I mentioned that the man is a psychopath?) eye-gouged Yuki Nakai in Vale Tudo and still lost the fight.

Such stuff sometimes has to be banned for safety reasons.

(He also lost to Royce Gracie, despite biting him in their match. Being willing to break the rules doesn't mean you necessarily win against a better fighter.)

If you break the rules you are going to lose because you will be disqualified. Cheaters don't win.

But overall, as you allow more and more techniques into your pressure testing, you discover that some techniques do statistically work much more reliably in a higher range of circumstances against a wider range of opponents than other techniques do.

Yes and its usually the most basic techniques that work the most, a basic straight punch will work much more reliably in most cases than an advanced jumping spin kick for instance, but even among the basics there are many techniques to choose from and some of them might work better for some people than for others.