What do you think about MMA?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't follow it, and honestly, I think it's all theatrics and very little true fighting. I don't have anything against it if it's something that interests someone, but I won't get into it. Several of my fellow bodybuilder friends are into it, and they can't figure out why I'm not.

Charles

I never called you ignorant- merely pointed out the absurdity in attacking someone for explaining why they don't like something.
I don't particularly care if you think "social commentary" is relevant here- it has very much to do with why I dislike the subject, hence why I shared it.


To me, they are one and the same, this thread being started in solicitation of opinions. (Please refer back to italicized bit for future reference.)

Anyway. I'm sorry the thread was derailed.

Fair nuff.

Obviously not a very informed opinion since it's like saying a pee wee league can give the NBA a run for its money but w/e I'm done arguing. I apologize for making such a big deal out of it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to come across as condescending.

@ Pondering: Damn, the video got taken down. Yeah it is a goddamn shame that just about anyone can run a dojo. All it takes to be certified is taking a couple seminars.

You know what else sucks? They can charge a FORTUNE for training. Then an additional charge it you want to attend sparing nights. You could end up spending 1200 in one year for mediocre instruction, and no fight practice.

I've thought about doing MMA a few times. I enjoy the odd scrap and I think it could help control some of my anger issues, but alas my parents don't approve >.>

It irks me that it got so popular, now it's not 'my thing' anymore. Ten years ago you could ask a 100 people under 25 what MMA is, and maybe one would know. Now almost everybody knows.

I have to admit that the peaceniks do have a point when they say it's a violent sport that may promote violence as well. During the years I've met lots of different people who joined up for lots of different reasons, and I have to say that I haven't seen that many people who became less violent due to training. It seems MMA attracts mostly people who already have a propensity for violence. People looking for self-defence usually gravitate towards the traditional martial arts. Too bad for them those are mostly useless for that end. Outside of MMA there are very few options for people looking for legit self-defence. To the person who said that MMA stand up looks sloppy: it may look that way, but under MMA rules the fight dynamics are completely different from boxing or kickboxing, so the fighters have to adjust their technique. Many of the high-level contestants in the UFC are decorated practitioners of various stand up arts. As somebody already pointed out, Alistair Overeem is one of the world's best kickboxers, and even his stand up may look sloppy under MMA rules to people who are not familiar with it.

I like watching the fights, but all the showmanship, the fake grudges and all the other frills don't appeal to me. It's just too 'American' for me I suppose. I'd like to add that nobody has to feel sorry for the fighters, every one you see in the cage/ring is a willing contestant and a highly trained athlete who makes good money doing what he loves.

And yes, that spinning back kick on Etim's head was amazing. Could be the best knock out I've ever seen.

Lets break this out into two definitions:

MMA - learning multiple systems.
'MMA' - the current pop trend of full-contact cage fighting and training for it.

'MMA' is great for health, is great if you're the type of person who wants to pursue this as a sport and competition. If you really want strong prowess in non-ring combat; sure you won't do terrible but, you'll only be so effective.

MMA - if its good systems being blended under strong instruction its significantly stronger for self-defense than 'MMA' and additionally it doesn't require as much conditioning; don't get me wrong, conditioning is still good, but its optional. What happens with this form, MMA, is that fights will typically last less than four or five seconds. Your past their guard within two-seconds and at that point deciding whether they'll be alive when they hit the ground and, if so, whether you simply wish to subdue them, whether you need to disable/break, especially true if you're dealing with multiple attackers. This form: quick, ugly, to-the-point.

If you pit an MMA fighter against an 'MMA' fighter, if all things are equal and under the MMA figher's rules (essentially no rules), the MMA figher will have the best chances. Under the 'MMA' fighters rules (ie. ring and safety-oriented with many targets and types of contact ruled out) the 'MMA' fighter will have a significant advantage.

So, its different strokes for different folks really. An MMA fighter might dislike 'MMA' because they feel they're learning comparably watered down self-defense. An 'MMA' fighter may not agree with that because they'd perhaps cite that we live in a world where you can just buy a gun anyway and, if they can't show off in the right or get ripped from the training - there's no point.

An MMA fighter trains in different modes of fighting, but will go for the balls every time?

Tell me the last time you watched a cage fight where the 'MMA' fighter was alowed to go straight for breaking hands, elbows, knees, or hitting pressure points such as vulnerable nerves, arteries, or weakpoints in bone connection. The problem - it can't be done like that legally and people would die on a regular basis, let alone that careers wouldn't last past a couple fights before bones were broken or internal organs ruptured.

Having testicles yanked a good foot or so away from the body would be inconvenient for fertility but, I can think of a least a couple dozen spots that are easily as bad and a handful that are commonly known to be lethal, especially if its a supported strike.

I don't think it's as easy as you put it, I can't remember the last time I've heard of someone just walking up to someone and pulling them apart like that, unless you count Blood Sport and Mortal Kombat.

Last edited by snapcap on 17 Jan 2012, 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True no holds barred tournaments are held in Brazil frequently, and people don't die. Attacking the groin is perfectly legal, but only results in getting hit in the face or triangled if you don't establish a superior position first. Dirty tricks do not decide the outcome of a fight, superior positiong (both standing and on the ground) does. If there were so many deadly points in the human body, football players and other contact heavy sport practitioners would die all the time. I've heard of livers taking damage, but never of internal organs being ruptured, that sounds like pure science fiction. Has there ever been a documented case of this?

The fighters don't think: "I'd better not hit him here, this is where pressure point 34B is located, I might kill him." They beat each other silly not caring where the punches land and no one has ever died in sanctioned competition. There have been a couple of cracked ribs here and there in the tournaments I have on tape (which didn't stop the fighters), but few bones have ever been broken save for the accidental arm bar gone wrong. I've never heard of knees being broken, except when blown out by a heel hook.

The 'deadly' arts had their chance to prove themselves during the first UFCs where everything was legal and where biting or eye gouging only resulted in a fine. The 'too deadly for competition' arts failed miserably against sport oriented styles and they still do, under MMA rules, under Vale Tudo rules, and under no rules.

Heh. I didn't say anything about ripping arms off. Now.....breathing liquid nitrogen on them and shattering em with a punch to the chest -that's *my* usual.

Don't get confused, I really gave that reply for other people's info since I didn't really clarify 'what' was different earlier. From the commentary about going for the balls I knew you weren't making a serious inquiry.

I don't see the difference you see in MMA fighters that use rules and those that don't. I'm pretty sure an MMA fighter wouldn't have any kind of disadvantage to an MMA fighter that didn't have rules. MMA with rules is what is sought after by the best fighters, fighters that don't have rules won't make it. MMA fighters can use dirty maneuvers, and I'm willing to bet they are faster and stronger at them.

Common sense dictates that they're also not out to kill each other - its a tournament, not a stickup. I hate to say it but the 'no holds barred' tournament thing in all just sounds gimmicky and in any real sense impossible. As far as the closest thing I can think of to a controlled level of the stuff I'm talking about, Filipino Panantukan, that was outlawed.


Clearly its not a wise entry; there's nothing dictating that its either done on entry or not at all.


Agreed. However, when you have a more limited set of positioning, more limited set of tools (ie. in how you can use knees, elbows, etc.), the whole way you will approach a physical conflict will be inherently different.


For starters harness tackles are frowned upon because they're potentially pulling the person down in a vulnerable position and to risk slamming the back of your head or damaging your neck is a big problem. That said there's a reason why in contact sports like that there are rules. I get the overwhelming impression that if a football player grabbed another football players helmet with both hands, turned it sideways, and yanked down and backward that they'd be going to jail.


Damage would be more likely but ruptures could happen, all depending on whether people are meaning to do damage. Ruptures wouldn't be the most likely thing to have happen but the right things from the right angles from someone who knows how to send hard enough - it could.


If you have to think at all you're toast. That's why anyone, traditional martial artists or 'MMA' train. Also, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I'm talking fatal nerve or vein strikes in the bottom of the foot or some kind of Kill Bill type of thing - I'm not suggesting anything in strange spots, just the standards. If you can land some nasty blows on someone, destabilize them, and keep them with no idea where they are or what'll be hitting them next - they're at your mercy in the fullest sense (and I by that I mean after entry when you've fogged them up with a few good hits already).



And its wise for tournaments to keep to punches - things stay safer that way.


I'd figure if someone did break another person's knee their career would be over. Its not that its particularly difficult, just that its hard to call it an accident.


I'm really trying to walk a fine line between clearing things up and explaining things I probably shouldn't (thats not to say that I think I'm some kind of badass deadly artist - I don't, but I would contest that I'm learning some arts that have signficant merits in this area).

The problem with the UFC example: These were still fought on canvas, not cement. I also really can't imagine being able to do *anything* with someone. For instance I can't figure a fighter going into the ring, getting past another guy's guard, punching him square in the throat, and just getting a slap on the wrist for killing him? The argument I'm trying to make is that there are certain things you do to a human being who you just tapped fists with who's on TV with you for competition and money, there are certain things you do to someone who's trying to rob you or who you know means to take your life if you don't take theirs. One group as I mentioned, 'MMA', trains for the first, another, multiple martial arts, is training for the other. If a person wants to do things for sport where injury is kept to about the level of boxing and where they can test and show that skill - cage fighting is perfect. For a person who wants a strong edge up IRL in situations where defending themselves or loved ones is needed and where they may not necessarily have a gun available (even on time or at a safe distance for that matter) - multi-disciplinary martial arts is probably a better idea.


On reviewing my first post I wanted to comment - I probably should have watched how I phrased things in my first post. I wasn't aiming to start a macho-man growlathon over who's tougher or who can do what better; just that there are distinct differences in the approaches. If someone does want to know more about the dirty over the tournament - get some stuff by guys like Dan Inosanto, Felix Valencia, Willem De Thouars, etc.. Obviously you won't find shock-and-awe on Youtube or on DVD. I don't think any legit martial arts teacher wants to throw out all the things that can be done on the internet because, suffice to say, the wrong people will do it and its better to keep the availability of full systems to private training to where an instructor can choose whether they trust a student enough to hopefully *never* use these things but simply be aware that - if they had to defend their families or defend themseves or friends from an attack, especially with multiple people - perhaps better armed, what kinds of things are available if push really comes to shove.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 17 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Okay, I'm relieved to see that. Go back to my first post. I layed out specific definitions of what I meant - using rules vs. not using rules in the ring is kind of a jokie analogy; there's no one in the ring who literally doesn't use rules.

When I mentioned another MMA I meant someone taking...say....Judo and Wing Chun and Silat and Chin Na or whatever the case may be. Being multi-disciplinary (which is the proper term - mixed martial arts - in that people who train interdisciplinary don't stop mid fight to do one specific art, then to switch that off to do a different one, and then switch that one off for yet another) simply means that you'll pull in different tools from different art forms.

Also, with most of the world's martial arts systems they weren't built for tournament - that's a more recent revision. In that sense I'm saying unrevised martial arts (which were built for self defense) vs. sport martial arts which function best in sport environments. Initially I thought you were making the assertion that unrevised martial arts don't exist in any actual effectiveness over revised martial arts so I'm glad we cleared that up

'not out to kill each other'? Have you ever met a broke, poor, low level Brazilian MMA fighter? I have. Some of them would gladly kill their opponent for the reputation and marketability it brings them. Almost all of them would kill their opponent for a decent purse. You're talking about testosterone fueled savages who grew up in violent neighbourhoods in one of the most violent countries in the world, and the only obstacle between them and escaping poverty are people who are in the exact same situation. And the tournaments are very real - look up 'Brazilian Vale Tudo'. There's tons of these type of tournaments organized throughout Brazil. Stylists from all disciplines participate, and the fights end up looking like (sloppy) MMA fights.

My point is, Brazil is like a testing ground for martial arts. If there would be some insta-win technique that could kill an opponent, it would have been discovered long since, and outlawed.



If not done on entry or while in the guard, or some other disadvantageous position, what's the added value of such a move? I can't think of a single scenario where such a risky move might be preferable over keeping a solid base (when you're fighting on the ground) or attacking the head when standing. I also don't see how it would work in a clinch, a solid grappler would immediately slip to your back if you give up one arm for holding him off (again, superior positioning) or he'd guillotine you if you bend over too far.



Dirty tricks aren't fight enders. The 'legal' moves are. I've seen a fighter who was blinded by an eye gouge continue on to win the fight with a submission hold, a heel hook to be specific. A move legal in all MMA competitions that's far more devastating than the effect of any dirty trick. This is the Nakai (BJJ) vs Gordeau (Kyokushin) fight, the story is well known. I've seen a grappler break the fingers of his opponent who got angry and choked him unconscious. These aren't the only examples by any means.

The limited set of tools is all you need, and almost always the better choice. If I eye gouge someone he might be shocked enough to quit the fight. Or he might become enraged and beat me to death. If I heel hook him, he'll be on the ground with a blown out knee unable to stand up, no matter how tough or enraged he is.



But you CAN do that in the UFC. And nobody's been killed by it yet.





I've never heard of any internal organs other than the liver take damage in fights, let alone ruptures. Who would be able to do this? You'd think in all the thousands of MMA fights between roided up 200 lbs. + muscleheads who beat each other senseless, it would've happened by accident at least a couple of times.



But it's the initial part, the landing of the blows to destabilize them, that MMA fighters excel at. Again, what added value does the 'illegal' strike have against a good fighter if you have to trade blows first to soften them up? If a guy is wobbly, I know about 1000 ways to end the fight, all 'legal'.






What would be the unsafe moves?



No, they'd get paid extra for knock out/submission of the night. If you meant the career of the one getting the knee broken, knees heal too. People have overcome horrific injuries in MMA to step up again.



It's pretty difficult against someone who knows what they're doing.



Which would benefit dirty tricks how? Hard surfaces benefit the better grapplers; the other guy is the one who will end up with his back on the cement.



Thinking you could kill someone with a punch in the throat is a HUGE assumption. I've seen people punched in the throat hard without any harm, let alone death. Just One Example. That clip is also a nice example of how most rules aren't even enforced in the UFC, except glaring eye gouges, bites, stomping on the head of a downed opponent etc.



My point is that a combo of MMA and BJJ is everything you need for real life self-defence. BJJ started out as self-defence, and while many schools may be geared towards (grappling) competition, the self-defence aspect is still very much alive, especially in the Gracie affiliated schools. Every Gracie BJJ black belt examinee is required to know (and show) 100 fixed self-defence moves he has been taught. These range from knife attacks to bear hugs from the back and hair grabs, just to name a couple. The traditional martial arts are too convoluted with useless stuff that would be filtered out with alive sparring. Case in point, I just looked up Felix Valencia on Youtube, and one of the first things I saw was this: he deflected a knife lunge with his forearm, spun around and took out his attacker (who was frozen in place after the initial lunge) with a backwards foot sweep a la Jean-Claude Van Damme.