Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    The Pros and Cons of MMA?

    I'm doing an Argumentation and Debate presentation on MMA in which I have to argue both sides of a point. I need help on finding arguments against MMA, other than the obvious brutality point. and counter arguments for those points.

  2. #2
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    13,553
    Style
    all things in Moderation
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne224 View Post
    I'm doing an Argumentation and Debate presentation on MMA in which I have to argue both sides of a point. I need help on finding arguments against MMA, other than the obvious brutality point.
    What the hell are you talking about?
    Brutality?
    Compared to which combat sport and why?
    and counter arguments for those points.
    You need to come up with some arguments before jumping to counter-arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost55 View Post
    Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.
    I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994

    Quote Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD View Post
    Slamming the man in the bottom position from time to time keeps everybody on their toes and discourages butt scooting stupidity.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13
    Style
    MMA/ Krav Maga
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It's hard to come up with arguments against doing something that you love. Playing Devil's advocate here are a couple of seeds for ideas you might be able to run with.
    I often think in terms of self defence training which has a different focus/ strategy from ring fighting and MMA has some weak points in this department.

    A lot of MMA injuries (Knees, Shoulders etc) can leave long lasting niggles and increase your risk of mobility problems in later life. This applies to most sports especially anything that involves submission locks. 'You train to be able to protect yourself but you damage your body so much that you are unable to do so.'

    Fighting Sports are very good for training fighters. The kind of mutual monkey dance fighting where you know you're in a fight, it also teaches you to fight within a defined set of rules. The mindset and tools required for effective self defence against violent assault, (e.g. you're at a cash machine and someone tries to smack your head into the wall and then shoves a screwdriver into your ribs) are different and involve cheating. The basic fighting skills and mindset for MMA are good for this up to a point but they need to be applied differently to be effective. Training single mindedly for one situation and thinking you are training for the other can be a problem. Again this could be argued for any fighting system.

  4. #4
    submessenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KAUS
    Posts
    4,874
    Style
    BJJ
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne224 View Post
    I'm doing an Argumentation and Debate presentation on MMA in which I have to argue both sides of a point. I need help on finding arguments against MMA, other than the obvious brutality point. and counter arguments for those points.
    This isn't a "free homework," site. We're glad to help, but we're not going to write the paper for you.

    Start here:
    Pro-MMA
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
    2. https://www.amazon.com/Martial-Arts-.../dp/0812696840 (bonus - a respected Bullshido member helped produce this book)
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
    4.

    Anti-MMA:
    1. Commercialism
    2. Exploitation of fighters
    3. Normalization of violence
    4. Traditionalism - MMA doesn't kowtow traditional martial arts in syllabus
    5. Moral corruption
    6. Competition - encouraging adversarial vs. cooperative resolution

  5. #5
    Kovacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,264
    Style
    Cross Fit, small arms.
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mogurisu View Post
    It's hard to come up with arguments against doing something that you love. Playing Devil's advocate here are a couple of seeds for ideas you might be able to run with.
    I often think in terms of self defence training which has a different focus/ strategy from ring fighting and MMA has some weak points in this department.

    A lot of MMA injuries (Knees, Shoulders etc) can leave long lasting niggles and increase your risk of mobility problems in later life. This applies to most sports especially anything that involves submission locks. 'You train to be able to protect yourself but you damage your body so much that you are unable to do so.'

    Fighting Sports are very good for training fighters. The kind of mutual monkey dance fighting where you know you're in a fight, it also teaches you to fight within a defined set of rules. The mindset and tools required for effective self defence against violent assault, (e.g. you're at a cash machine and someone tries to smack your head into the wall and then shoves a screwdriver into your ribs) are different and involve cheating. The basic fighting skills and mindset for MMA are good for this up to a point but they need to be applied differently to be effective. Training single mindedly for one situation and thinking you are training for the other can be a problem. Again this could be argued for any fighting system.
    Apart from the risk of injuries I strongly disagree. You're heading into the 'street vs sport' fallacy if you think that MMA doesn't prepare you for the street effectively.

    If you can fight a fully resisting and trained opponent in a mixture of striking and grappling, who's intending to take your head clean off and with a minimal ruleset, you're setting you're self up as best as possible to win any fight, to 'cheat' from here is easier than doing it hypothetically. If you're competent at this level you can bend and break the rules whenever you like. 'Monkey dancing' only happens when the individuals don't know how to fight.
    Ne Obliviscaris

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13
    Style
    MMA/ Krav Maga
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovacs View Post
    Apart from the risk of injuries I strongly disagree. You're heading into the 'street vs sport' fallacy if you think that MMA doesn't prepare you for the street effectively.

    If you can fight a fully resisting and trained opponent in a mixture of striking and grappling, who's intending to take your head clean off and with a minimal ruleset, you're setting you're self up as best as possible to win any fight, to 'cheat' from here is easier than doing it hypothetically. If you're competent at this level you can bend and break the rules whenever you like. 'Monkey dancing' only happens when the individuals don't know how to fight.
    You are absolutely right on this, it seems I didn't illustrate my point very well but it is the first time I've ever tried to find a Con to MMA. As we both said, MMA trains fighters and it's tried and tested as the most effective fighting system for fighting a single unarmed opponent, in the ring, on the street in the pub or anywhere else. The skills and 'fighting tools' in MMA are a very firm foundation for surviving a violent encounter and from here you can indeed break the rules whenever you like.

    My point is more that real violent encounters often involve more than one opponent, weapons, friend's loved ones you need to protect, legal implications and a whole host of other factors that (quite rightly) do not have any place in MMA training. Under pressure people tend to do what they've been trained to do or freeze so the chances of coming up with creative and effective solutions to these new problems in the moment are slim.

    If you take the same competency level and set of 'Fighting tools' as MMA and apply the strategies and pressure drills of a focussed self defence system like Krav Maga then that same person doesn't need to break their ingrained habits to strike groins and throats in a violent assault situation, they will also train to be more aware of other factors such as the risk of having your head stomped by the other guy's mates if you get tied up on the ground.

    Far from denigrating MMA and it's obvious applications I was trying to demonstrate there is more to the subject of self defence than MMA training covers. The step from effective MMA to effective self defence is more to do with strategy and application than technique but the difference does exist. It's also a small step compared to the massive leap most martial arts need to take from their training regime to effective self defence.

    I hope that makes more sense.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    439
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    IMHO, a con of MMA is that in order to pratice them seriously, you have to be very fit, otherwise competing with a fit opponent might be very bad for your health;
    on the other hand, even if you are a fatty, or old, or weak, there is no problem in having a shotokan karate match, at worst you lose.

    So called traditional martial arts have developed a style of competition that makes them acceptable for most of the population, whereas MMA are only ok for a restricted part of the population.

  8. #8
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,279
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mogurisu View Post
    You are absolutely right on this, it seems I didn't illustrate my point very well but it is the first time I've ever tried to find a Con to MMA. As we both said, MMA trains fighters and it's tried and tested as the most effective fighting system for fighting a single unarmed opponent, in the ring, on the street in the pub or anywhere else. The skills and 'fighting tools' in MMA are a very firm foundation for surviving a violent encounter and from here you can indeed break the rules whenever you like.

    My point is more that real violent encounters often involve more than one opponent, weapons, friend's loved ones you need to protect, legal implications and a whole host of other factors that (quite rightly) do not have any place in MMA training. Under pressure people tend to do what they've been trained to do or freeze so the chances of coming up with creative and effective solutions to these new problems in the moment are slim.

    If you take the same competency level and set of 'Fighting tools' as MMA and apply the strategies and pressure drills of a focussed self defence system like Krav Maga then that same person doesn't need to break their ingrained habits to strike groins and throats in a violent assault situation, they will also train to be more aware of other factors such as the risk of having your head stomped by the other guy's mates if you get tied up on the ground.

    Far from denigrating MMA and it's obvious applications I was trying to demonstrate there is more to the subject of self defence than MMA training covers. The step from effective MMA to effective self defence is more to do with strategy and application than technique but the difference does exist. It's also a small step compared to the massive leap most martial arts need to take from their training regime to effective self defence.

    I hope that makes more sense.
    Look at MACP, or more importantly Matt Larsen's civilian version of that taught out of Virginia and you will have essentially MMA for a street fight... The truth is that just about everything that you mention above as necessities for good self defense can be taught in short intensives. Here, let me give you a basic outline from my Combat Sambo days, as it was a school that focused on the combatives part of Combat Sambo more than most. So you have to recognize that just about anything you teach in this respect is a degradable skill, and so will need to be refreshed semi-regularly every 1-3 years for full and ready effectiveness.
    So let's start with the basic surviving an ambush attack. Best thing for it is hooded box drills for stress innoculation(KM doesn't do this by the way). You explain and teach threat identification, and basic strategies for threat removal and then you practice by dropping a black hood over the trainee's head, set up a scenario, suddenly lift hood, allow trainee to react, evaluate rinse and repeat. Do that in an intensive once per year.
    Multi-Assailant engagements- This one is fun. It has to do with the usage of space, and the ability to break free and run. It also has to do with using the disorganization of your assailants against them, as if they are not highly trained teamed, they will not act in a unified manner. You can go on live leaks and see where more than one boxer has successfully managed this just by using environment and footwork, without any specialized training, but seeing as specialized training could be useful once again, done in an intensive about once per year.
    Weapons usage and defense- This works for things like knives and firearms. Use of simunitions and shock knives to keep the training real and honest, as well as to innoculate stress. For basic defense and usage again once a year. If you want more advanced firearms usage and such you may need to do this more than once per year with skill development.
    Executive protection- I.E. how to protect others and get them out of a dangerous situation, whether it be your loved ones or an actual protectee. Same thing once a year for an intensive.
    The rest of your training really should be your standard MMA stuff, grappling and striking, as that will be your bread and butter and without being solid in that, you've got no hope for anything else.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13
    Style
    MMA/ Krav Maga
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Look at MACP, or more importantly Matt Larsen's civilian version of that taught out of Virginia and you will have essentially MMA for a street fight... The truth is that just about everything that you mention above as necessities for good self defense can be taught in short intensives. Here, let me give you a basic outline from my Combat Sambo days, as it was a school that focused on the combatives part of Combat Sambo more than most. So you have to recognize that just about anything you teach in this respect is a degradable skill, and so will need to be refreshed semi-regularly every 1-3 years for full and ready effectiveness.
    So let's start with the basic surviving an ambush attack. Best thing for it is hooded box drills for stress innoculation(KM doesn't do this by the way). You explain and teach threat identification, and basic strategies for threat removal and then you practice by dropping a black hood over the trainee's head, set up a scenario, suddenly lift hood, allow trainee to react, evaluate rinse and repeat. Do that in an intensive once per year.
    Multi-Assailant engagements- This one is fun. It has to do with the usage of space, and the ability to break free and run. It also has to do with using the disorganization of your assailants against them, as if they are not highly trained teamed, they will not act in a unified manner. You can go on live leaks and see where more than one boxer has successfully managed this just by using environment and footwork, without any specialized training, but seeing as specialized training could be useful once again, done in an intensive about once per year.
    Weapons usage and defense- This works for things like knives and firearms. Use of simunitions and shock knives to keep the training real and honest, as well as to innoculate stress. For basic defense and usage again once a year. If you want more advanced firearms usage and such you may need to do this more than once per year with skill development.
    Executive protection- I.E. how to protect others and get them out of a dangerous situation, whether it be your loved ones or an actual protectee. Same thing once a year for an intensive.
    The rest of your training really should be your standard MMA stuff, grappling and striking, as that will be your bread and butter and without being solid in that, you've got no hope for anything else.
    I totally agree, MMA is an excellent way to develop those bread and butter skills which form the foundations for the rest. Intensives like you suggest would indeed be a good way to address the other aspects.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    439
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne224 View Post
    I'm doing an Argumentation and Debate presentation on MMA in which I have to argue both sides of a point. I need help on finding arguments against MMA, other than the obvious brutality point. and counter arguments for those points.
    On a second tought, while I don't know much about "Argumentation and Debate presentations" (I think we don't have this in Italy), I think it would be better do argumentate a statement, not a thing.

    e.g.: an apple is a thing, whereas "apples are good for health" is a statement, and therefore can be either true or false. You can't argumentate an apple, whereas you can argumentate the statement.

    Possible statements about MMA are:
    - MMA are good for self defence;
    - MMA are good for charachter development of teenagers;
    - etc.

    Argumenting about a statement is way more straightforward than argumenting about a "thing" (wich can't be true or false in itself).

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in