It's not just training methods. It's technique set as well. Aikido wristlocks will never reach the percentage of wrestling takedowns no matter how much aliveness and pressure testing you pump into them. Japanese jujitsu and aikido lockdowns will never reach the percentage of BJJ submissions. If they could, they would have by now. Everyone would be using them if they provided any benefit above and beyond functional styles.
It's better at it's given range and focus. It's true that you see well rounded fighters winning, but what are they using for their "well roundedness"? Sports, sports and sports. Does anyone see a pattern emerging?
You cant say that BJJ is BETTER, because it isnt. The training methodology is BETTER. If BJJ were better than other arts, then you would see PURE grapplers winning in MMA style competitions a great percentage of the time.
You dont see this, however. You see WELL ROUNDED fighters winning.
Last edited by Virus; 4/13/2007 6:02am at .
Think of the style as a set of tools. Saying it is the individual, or the individual and the style is misleading. As a software developer I have a whole set of tools that I can use. Some are designed for specific purposes, some are more generic and some are designed for different operating systems. A good developer may be able to accomplish his goal with an inferior tool. A bad developer may screw it up with a good tool. This has nothing to due with the quality of the tools. Some tools are simple better than others. How the tool is explained, how you are trained to use it and the level of support for the tool will influence your skills with the tool, but they canít make an inferior tool a good one. Also, in the course of developing an application, a good developer will use more than 1 tool, and being good developers they will pick a quality tool for each task.
So saying some styles are better than others is a valid statement and I agree wholeheartedly with KempoFist. It is a statement about the quality of the tool, not the training in using the tool.
Actually, we did see pure grapplers winning for quite a while. Then rule modifications caused an evolution to the game.
Originally Posted by oldman34
This is something we have yet to see fully realized in KMA, CMA. JMA. etc etc...
These days, a "well rounded" MMA fighter very often cross-trains BJJ to some extent. Pure BJJ will usually not beat a combination of styles that includes BJJ itself, this is true. However if you're comparing one style against another, what a pure BJJ fighter does in a modern MMA competition is not a true indicator. The closest thing we saw to such a comparison was the early UFC, and guess who won?
Originally Posted by oldman34
This is of course, unless you consider "MMA" to be its own style, which some are starting to...
it's always better to be proficient in all ranges of fighting, but if you could choose only one, which would you choose? i guess the early years of the ufc would tell you that you should choose grappling. and you may as well pick one style that has been proven to work over and over again in an objective way. wing chun anti-grappling.
I haven't read most of the rest of these posts yet, KF, but I'll post what I see as the main "devil's advocate" argument against this, so that you can refute it.
Originally Posted by KempoFist
Chess and checkers have different rules. If you teach me how to play checkers (say, TKD), then of course I can't play chess (MMA). But knowing how to play checkers still prepares me for board games. It still makes me understand what it is to move pieces on a board. But, that doesn't make it ineffective as a whole - its only ineffective within a different ruleset. But lets say you put all your chess pieces on a board, and I put all my checkers pieces on a board, and then we take away all the rules (but all the pieces must still move in the way they were intended). I think I would still be able to "hold my own" against you in THAT game, which would probably take place ON TEH STR33T.
Wow, we really did go off on a tangent.
Originally Posted by Tangent
That is a good point, but I still have to say that the chess player would ultimately win against the checkers player, simply because of the powerful toolset a chess player has. In other words, just move all your pieces onto white squares and you're basically invincible. It's the same in MMA. A well-trained TKD guy could probably do okay against an MMA guy, but once the MMA guy takes it to the ground, it's all over, because TKD doesn't have the toolset to deal with grappling. In fact, TKD is an interesting example because it's mostly kicking, so if the MMA guy could just box the TKD guy to hell and back.
Originally Posted by kwoww
Tangent just got analogy-owned.
And then there's a factor that is partially the individual and partially the school/instructor...training time and seriousness. MMAers (in general?) seem to train frequently, with a very concrete goal - "if I don't learn this well, I'll get smacked around at my next match." In TMA, it's more common to have people who train a few hours a week, with a vaguer focus.
Originally Posted by Blue Negation
I think the toolset point is a really good point. Using that same analogy, is there a BEST programming language? I think someone could argue pretty convincingly that there is, say, a BEST way to punch, like with a vertical fist like a chunner or something. And the response to that, in my opinion, would be the point about training methodology. Its really difficult to NOT at least WANT there to be a "best way to punch evar", for me anyway.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO