Poll: Thoughts on MMA

[zen5887]

I call a mix of wrestling-boxing pankration. also, I call "BJJ" jujistsu, because it is a school of jujistsu.
my main point is that MMA's are certainly not the "best" (by best people usualy mean the most powerful ie could beat --- in a fight) martial artists in the world, which people tend to argue about.

many martial artists dislike MMA because it is used as a sport more than a lifestyle. it trains fighters, not warriors. there is often less philosophy in it, less inner peace, less control.

Historically, BJJ is closer to Judo then it is Ju Jitsu and since it was 'created' it has developed into a whole different system. You just have to look at some of the 10th Planet stuff to see what I mean.

I would put Mixed martial artists and Martial artists into a different category, simply because of some of the things you mention. While there isn't the philosophy or inner peace 'lessons' you would get from traditional martial arts and more focus on athletics, they are still warriors, the metal game is just as important at the physical one. Kimbo Slice pretty much came in off the street, trained for a while then got destroyed. But he didn't get knocked out or tapped out, he got leg kicked a lot and crumbled because he didn't have the will.

EDIT

I can't phrase it, but it's something about it that just makes me frown upon it as a disgrace. Which was the closest word I could use to express my opinion about it.

Because mixed martial artists don't wear uniforms, belts and bow at the end of each class? I'm sensing some pretty high levels of Traditionalist Martial Art elitism..

 

[Baby Tea]

It's OK. Most of the time it is alright. i jsut hate those matches where they only do ground stuff or stand there wrestling each other. It's entertaining but on the whole I think it needs more of an emphasis on striking.

Let me just say that there is a heck of a lot of technical work going on during ground-based matches.
You might not find ground-game as exciting to watch, but man...it's like chess. Every move you make can either give you, or your opponent, a serious advantage. Striking is flashier, and is certainly entertaining, but the ground game is a whole different level.

many martial artists dislike MMA because it is used as a sport more than a lifestyle. it trains fighters, not warriors. there is often less philosophy in it, less inner peace, less control.

I do agree that martial arts, especially Eastern martial arts, are very philosophically based, but I would disagree that MMA rips that out (At least they don't completely). It required a lot of self discipline, these guys have to eat and live right, and guys like Dana White (Head of the UFC) really try to make sure that these guys don't act like big lunk-heads. There is a lot of respect among fighters, and a lot of understanding. And there is plenty of 'real' martial artists in MMA, guys who do also focus on their inner peace, meditation, and self control.

You are right that they train to actually fight, rather then train to also, and equally, better themselves physically and mentally, but the philosophy of why they fight is different, not missing. Every fight is a test. A personal test of your physical training, and your mental hurdles.

 

[Czargent Sane]

It's OK. Most of the time it is alright. i jsut hate those matches where they only do ground stuff or stand there wrestling each other. It's entertaining but on the whole I think it needs more of an emphasis on striking.

Let me just say that there is a heck of a lot of technical work going on during ground-based matches.
You might not find ground-game as exciting to watch, but man...it's like chess. Every move you make can either give you, or your opponent, a serious advantage. Striking is flashier, and is certainly entertaining, but the ground game is a whole different level.

many martial artists dislike MMA because it is used as a sport more than a lifestyle. it trains fighters, not warriors. there is often less philosophy in it, less inner peace, less control.

I do agree that martial arts, especially Eastern martial arts, are very philosophically based, but I would disagree that MMA rips that out (At least they don't completely). It required a lot of self discipline, these guys have to eat and live right, and guys like Dana White (Head of the UFC) really try to make sure that these guys don't act like big lunk-heads. There is a lot of respect among fighters, and a lot of understanding. And there is plenty of 'real' martial artists in MMA, guys who do also focus on their inner peace, meditation, and self control.

You are right that they train to actually fight, rather then train to also, and equally, better themselves physically and mentally, but the philosophy of why they fight is different, not missing. Every fight is a test. A personal test of your physical training, and your mental hurdles.

well put, baby tea

I structured my statement very carefully, I tried to avoid any absolutes or any generalizations more severe than "often"

 

[ThatPurpleGuy]

I've watched a few MMA fights. I've got to tell you, I haven't been happy. In every single one of them that I've seen a knockout blow, the guy is clearly out on his feet. Arms limp, blank expression on his face, teetering. Does the other fighter stop? No.

He just keeps punching the everliving shit out of someone that's clearly unconscious on his feet while the ref takes his sweet time stepping in.

It's not a sport. It's a street fight in an octangular cage.

Well he has to keep throwing till the ref says 'stop' and its perfectly legal to do so..Suppose he stops punching and gives the guy an out when he has him in a dominant position. I know it looks "thuggish" but its an accepted part of being a fighter that you could get in a vulnerable position and cop some heavy blows.

While you may not like it, and thats fine, it is most definitely a sport..Fighting is a skill and while some are similar to "streetfighters" most are very well trained in many types of martial arts.

 

[Czargent Sane]

I call a mix of wrestling-boxing pankration. also, I call "BJJ" jujistsu, because it is a school of jujistsu.
my main point is that MMA's are certainly not the "best" (by best people usualy mean the most powerful ie could beat --- in a fight) martial artists in the world, which people tend to argue about.

many martial artists dislike MMA because it is used as a sport more than a lifestyle. it trains fighters, not warriors. there is often less philosophy in it, less inner peace, less control.

Historically, BJJ is closer to Judo then it is Ju Jitsu and since it was 'created' it has developed into a whole different system. You just have to look at some of the 10th Planet stuff to see what I mean.

I would put Mixed martial artists and Martial artists into a different category, simply because of some of the things you mention. While there isn't the philosophy or inner peace 'lessons' you would get from traditional martial arts and more focus on athletics, they are still warriors, the metal game is just as important at the physical one. Kimbo Slice pretty much came in off the street, trained for a while then got destroyed. But he didn't get knocked out or tapped out, he got leg kicked a lot and crumbled because he didn't have the will.

a fighter is not a thug. a fighter can be skilled, willful, determined, and strong. the differences between a fighter and a warrior are too complex and subtle for me to go into here.

 

[Keepitclean]

It's OK. Most of the time it is alright. i jsut hate those matches where they only do ground stuff or stand there wrestling each other. It's entertaining but on the whole I think it needs more of an emphasis on striking.

Let me just say that there is a heck of a lot of technical work going on during ground-based matches.
You might not find ground-game as exciting to watch, but man...it's like chess. Every move you make can either give you, or your opponent, a serious advantage. Striking is flashier, and is certainly entertaining, but the ground game is a whole different level.

I understand that completly. I just find it boring to watch. Especially with the heavier wieght divisions because they are so built it's kinda hard to see what's going on.

I think my perception of MMA has been a bit skewed due to the fact that I love Taekwondo.

MMA the sport itself on the whole I enjoy. The only real problem I have with it is the attitude that it has given some people. It makes people think that grapling is the best way to fight ever invented and that martial arts other than Muay Thai and Ju Jitsu are stupid and are about as good for fighting as competitive snap. These people are dumbasses and would probably have uninformed views on fighting influenced by whatever happened to be the most popular combat sport of the time.

MMA is a sport, not real fighting. There is a lot you can get away with in a street fight that would get your ass kicked in an MMA fight and visa versa, most people do not have anywhere near the pain tolerance as a UFC level MMA fighter and just because you don't see much Taekwondo in the UFC doesn't mean that I can't kick your bogan ass should you try anything.

 

[Sovvolf]

I think my perception of MMA has been a bit skewed due to the fact that I love Taekwondo.

MMA the sport itself on the whole I enjoy. The only real problem I have with it is the attitude that it has given some people.

Yeah and these are the same people that fail to acknowledge the fact that Anderson Silva (one of the best MMA fighters) is a black belt in Taekwondo among other martial arts. Along with the fact that Lyotto Machida is a Karate fighter and has only lost one fight... To Maricio Shogun Hua.

MMA is a sport, not real fighting. There is a lot you can get away with in a street fight that would get your ass kicked in an MMA fight and visa versa, most people do not have anywhere near the pain tolerance as a UFC level MMA fighter and just because you don't see much Taekwondo in the UFC doesn't mean that I can't kick your bogan ass should you try anything.

I've heard the whole "The street has no rules" arguement before... Though it doesn't really hold well does it. I mean, sure a street fight doesn't have rules... That doesn't mean an MMA is going to stick to MMA rules on the street. He'll play as dirty as the other guy... Only the MMA goes to the gym on an almost daily basis learning to fight. The other guy doesn't.

Taekwondo's problem is the way it's portrayed in the Olympics and the way it's trained by a good amount of Mc Dojos. I forget which organisation it is (I think it's the WTF) but they run a good amount of the schools and they train it as a point scoring martial art rather than a self defence martial art. Taekwondo (when taught right) can be a good martial art. Though I wouldn't just rely on Taekwondo. Same as I wouldn't just rely on my boxing, Thai boxing or Karate. I think it's only sensible to learn both a stand up and grappling style.

 

[Baby Tea]

MMA is a sport, not real fighting. There is a lot you can get away with in a street fight that would get your ass kicked in an MMA fight and visa versa, most people do not have anywhere near the pain tolerance as a UFC level MMA fighter and just because you don't see much Taekwondo in the UFC doesn't mean that I can't kick your bogan ass should you try anything.

An MMA fighter isn't going to fight on the street like he fights in the cage.
That'd be silly. He'll just unload, with no ref to get in his way, and whup your ass.

And while I agree that certain martial arts might be underused in MMA, it's because they've whittled it down to what really works. Taekwondo might be great if taught correctly (For actual fighting) for fighting punks on the street who are looking to start something. But against a guy fully trained in 3 or 4 martial arts who conditions himself to fight everyday? Yeah, I'm going to say 'no'.

Again: I'm not saying Taekwondo is a bad martial art, and I'm not saying it can't be effective. But when you're in the octagon against trained and condition fighter, things are a bit different then if you're at a pub where some drunk guy is looking to impress some dumb broad.

 

[Sovvolf]

Snip

See... This guy gets it.

 

[Czargent Sane]

MMA is a sport, not real fighting. There is a lot you can get away with in a street fight that would get your ass kicked in an MMA fight and visa versa, most people do not have anywhere near the pain tolerance as a UFC level MMA fighter and just because you don't see much Taekwondo in the UFC doesn't mean that I can't kick your bogan ass should you try anything.

An MMA fighter isn't going to fight on the street like he fights in the cage.
That'd be silly. He'll just unload, with no ref to get in his way, and whup your ass.

And while I agree that certain martial arts might be underused in MMA, it's because they've whittled it down to what really works. Taekwondo might be great if taught correctly (For actual fighting) for fighting punks on the street who are looking to start something. But against a guy fully trained in 3 or 4 martial arts who conditions himself to fight everyday? Yeah, I'm going to say 'no'.

Again: I'm not saying Taekwondo is a bad martial art, and I'm not saying it can't be effective. But when you're in the octagon against trained and condition fighter, things are a bit different then if you're at a pub where some drunk guy is looking to impress some dumb broad.

actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

also also, there is no such thing as being fully trained in a martial art.

 

[Jonluw]

I... can't like MMA.

I just feel that kicks cheapen fighting a lot. If you want to prove your strength, you should do it straight up with no low blows or active usage of the low limbs (of course, using the legs to derive strength is a given). As you can easily tell by now, I'm a large boxing fan.

What? You don't think using feet is fair in a fight? No offense, but to me that's strange. Your feet are as much a part of you as your arms are.

 

[Sovvolf]

actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

Well, not really... Krav Maga is just a mix of fighting styles put together and used for effectiveness... Just like MMA. On the street, the fight would be like a well trained MMA against another well trained MMA. There's no one hit kill, super ultra technique which Krav Maga as that MMA doesn't. Just mostly a mix of stand up and grappling martial arts. When used in a battlefield, sure it can kill, so could MMA. The only real diference is that Krav Maga teachers disarm techniques, which you won't learn in a pure MMA gym. Though if you go to any respectable Judo/Jiu Jitsu or BJJ gym... you'll learn that any way.

also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

???. Not every one you get in a tussle with in the middle of the street will be armed. So no they aren't weapons in true combat, not always any how.

 

[Czargent Sane]

actually, on the street Id rank the highest threat as forms designed to kill, like krav maga and certain types of kung fu. a master of one of those would flat out kill just about any MMA, thug, Chinese bandit, nazi, whatever.

Well, not really... Krav Maga is just a mix of fighting styles put together and used for effectiveness... Just like MMA. On the street, the fight would be like a well trained MMA against another well trained MMA. There's no one hit kill, super ultra technique which Krav Maga as that MMA doesn't. Just mostly a mix of stand up and grappling martial arts. When used in a battlefield, sure it can kill, so could MMA. The only real diference is that Krav Maga teachers disarm techniques, which you won't learn in a pure MMA gym. Though if you go to any respectable Judo/Jiu Jitsu or BJJ gym... you'll learn that any way.

also, there are weapons in true combat, but not in the ring.

???. Not every one you get in a tussle with in the middle of the street will be armed. So no they aren't weapons in true combat, not always any how.

actually, true krav maga is based around killing your opponent as fast as possible, striking vulnerable areas as much as possible without the chance to return an attack. a master of krav maga will tear out your eyes and bleed you with a pen.

and did I say always? I dont believe I did. want an absolute? alright, there are NEVER weapons in the octogon.

 

[Kryzantine]

I... can't like MMA.

I just feel that kicks cheapen fighting a lot. If you want to prove your strength, you should do it straight up with no low blows or active usage of the low limbs (of course, using the legs to derive strength is a given). As you can easily tell by now, I'm a large boxing fan.

What? You don't think using feet is fair in a fight? No offense, but to me that's strange. Your feet are as much a part of you as your arms are.

I never said anything about using the feet. Moving around, weaving, of course it's a big deal in any fight. My problem is with kicks, they limit what the opponent can and cannot do. If you want to prove that you are a better combatant, you should be able to do it without having to reduce the strength of your opponent. The whole glory is that your opponent will strike at his maximum, and you still beat him.

Of course, my opinion is different when it comes to civilian self defense and military close quarters combat. When you're not fighting for glory as you are in a sport, but you are instead fighting for the sole purpose of beating the enemy, then cheapness is a tactic. It just doesn't belong in an athletic environment. Hell, I took Taekwondo for several of my early years, I know what it's like to kick and be kicked. It never felt glorious for me when I won a few tournaments. I felt like my opponents had a lot they couldn't do, and it was dull fighting.

If you want, think of it this way: Kicks and submissions are to the fighting world what the trap defense is to hockey. Both work by limiting what the opponent can do, and it brings a different kind of fun to both worlds. Some people like 1-0 hockey games that are decided by a few critical moments when the offense actually manages to get to the other side of the ice. Some people, though, like 6-5 shootouts with lots of speed, lots of goals and lots of hits (ok, the last one is pretty much guaranteed in any hockey game you go to, but it's more board hitting than open ice hitting). Most people like both. Likewise, some people hate kicks and submissions, some people love them, most people like it if they're included or not. I hate them.

 

[Jonluw]

My problem is with kicks, they limit what the opponent can and cannot do. If you want to prove that you are a better boxer, you should be able to do it without having to reduce the strength of your opponent. The whole glory is that your opponent will strike at his maximum, and you still beat him.

There's the problem I have with your argument: You call boxing combat, while in real combat kicks are allowed. Also; kicks limit what the opponent can and cannot do, but rules that state that the lower part of your body should simply serve as a vehicle does not?

My opinion is this: A battle that seeks to see who is the stronger of two combatants should allow the combatants to utilise their full potential, rather than restricting them to only using their arms.

 

[Sronpop]

MMA, specifically UFC is awesome. I too watched UFC 116(had to stay up till half 5 in the morning to do so but it was well worth it since I won some money on the Lesnar fight) and it was awesome. Nothing better than watching 2 highly skilled individuals try to out do each other and prove they are the best, pure competition at its best.

Although watching the lower league stuff is awesome, nothing worse than watching 2 not so skilled fighters try hit each other, get out of breath then roll around on the floor, ugh.

But usually the UFC is very good, Brock Lesnar is what sparked my interest to properly check it out, along with The Ultimate Fighter. Everyone in the UFC says the Griffin Vs Bonnar match made the UFC, they are absolutely right.

Watching Georges St. Pierre absolute destroy the Middle-weight division is awesome. The dude is infinity skilled, and I am just in awe with what he does with his opponents in his fights.

All in all I support the UFC, but not the douchebags who watch it. All those dumbasses in Tap-out and Affliction t-shirts, but every sport has its stupid fans, thats just how it goes. I am just used to respectful wrestling fans so seeing that much douchebagism is kind of a downer. It goes with all the testosterone I suppose.

 

[Baby Tea]

I never said anything about using the feet. Moving around, weaving, of course it's a big deal in any fight. My problem is with kicks, they limit what the opponent can and cannot do. If you want to prove that you are a better combatant, you should be able to do it without having to reduce the strength of your opponent. The whole glory is that your opponent will strike at his maximum, and you still beat him.

Of course, my opinion is different when it comes to civilian self defense and military close quarters combat. When you're not fighting for glory as you are in a sport, but you are instead fighting for the sole purpose of beating the enemy, then cheapness is a tactic. It just doesn't belong in an athletic environment. Hell, I took Taekwondo for several of my early years, I know what it's like to kick and be kicked. It never felt glorious for me when I won a few tournaments. I felt like my opponents had a lot they couldn't do, and it was dull fighting.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
It's about beating your opponent. Clocking an opponent right in the button limits what he can do too, so does holds, wrestling, and blocking his punches (Hey! If I can't hit you, how can I prove I'm strong?). The point of the sport is to be an excellent, all around fighter. Not the best punching guy. If you want that, then boxing is that way. But, let me say, that an MMA in the same weight class as a boxer would destroy a boxer. The boxer's stand-up game might be good, excellent even. But one take-down and the guy is toast.

It's not a 'cheap tactic', it's using your head. It's out-thinking, out fighting, out conditioning, and out-training your opponent. If you can stop an opponent in a game like football from making a pass, then you're limiting what they can do. If you stop a guy in basketball form making his shot, you're limiting what they can do. Leg kicks, round-houses, body kicks, these things are as much a part of the game as sacking the quarterback and stealing the ball.

If you leg kick a guy and follow through with an over-hand right when he reflexively drops a bit to smash his face, it's smart fighting. It's like a good play in football, or a good check in hockey. It's your gameplan. Of course you want to limit your opponent. You want to win.

I'm not saying you have to like MMA, not at all. I get that submissions or kicks aren't your thing.
But the idea that kicks are 'cheap' is, to me, totally wrong.

 

[Sovvolf]

actually, true krav maga is based around killing your opponent as fast as possible, striking vulnerable areas as much as possible without the chance to return an attack. a master of krav maga will tear out your eyes and bleed you with a pen.

I think you've been watching too much T.V. Also you stated in your last message that they can never be a true master in martial arts. No Krav Maga was designed around using Wrestling and boxing ,along with a few other martial arts, put together in order to take out armed fighters as quick as possible. Disarming and disabling them. There is no major kill move or one hit kill move. They attack the throat, eyes and groin like any MMA would do in the street. They eventually started incorporating other eastern martial arts into the training, such as Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu. They are essentially they same type of martial artist. Sure MMA is trained for the ring. But the style often used in them where created for use in battlefield combat.

Also, this goes down to how good the fighter is. Just because one fighter is Krav Maga and the other is MMA doesn't guarantee any one of them a win.

and did I say always? I dont believe I did. want an absolute? alright, there are NEVER weapons in the octogon.

Then why did you say "There are weapons in true combat"? you said it as if there's always going to be a weapon in true combat. Now if you had said "There may be weapons in true combat" it wouldn't seem like your implying that there will always be weapons in true combat.

 

[regallmighty]

I love to watch it and i respect the sport

 

[bjj hero]

It's legalized abuse at it's worst.

In terms of an actual Martial Art, I think it's more a disgrace.
It's more an "in"-type of Martial Art. Everyone trains it because it's hipp.

But in all fairness, if you learn MMA, you'll probably be an dangerous opponent towards muggers.

Its no different than boxing, Judo, Thai, wrestling or any other martial art that compete. It's about that abusive. It is a combat sport and if you wish to excel you must be a dedicated athlete. Cross training is in because it works.

I train kick boxing, karate, submission wrestling and BJJ. My back ground is Karate and kickboxing but I love learning new things. Having said that, weapons training never interested me. It takes dedication and discipline to get anywhere, similar to more traditional martial arts. I don't see the difference.