Is MMA an appropriate litmus test? (a.ka. Oh Noes!! Street vs. Sport AGAIN??)

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 5:24pm

What would be a better litmus test then?

**sheol1980** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 5:29pm

Originally Posted by Teh El Macho

You are going to find the answer to your question if you use the goddam search function. It has been asked and answered in many different re-incarnations.

Also, if a MA is trained with aliveness, it wouldn't be a piece of **** in the first place (which has also been debated ad nauseum).

Sorry if it sounds harsh, it's just that seeing this debate coming again and again gets rather tiring.

No apology needed. I think I can understand the frustration. I didn't mean to open up a can of old worms. If you happen to know of a thread which was particularly constructive on this issue, I could use a link, and read through it.

**HappyOldGuy** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 5:41pm

It's not an appropriate litmus test in many cases.

It's just the only one available.

People who train for self defense (besides being silly ninnies who flunked statistics) would like to train moves that are both effective and deadly, but they are faced with the fact that piling up a stack of dead bodies to test your techniques is not considered good pro-social behavior in these decadent and weak times we find ourselves in. This leaves us in the unenviable position of having to chose between two suboptimal choices.

We can train the techniques found to be deadly in the ancient past, when stacking up the bodies like cordwood in order to test martial theories was the godgiven right of every bare chested he man. This is appealing to many people, especially since it lets us also play dress up and get in tune with our inner he man. Unfortunately, it turns out that many of these techniques turn out to be physiologically impossible today. Maybe those old guys were wired differently, but these days our noses no longer have that dagger point to be driven into the brainstem.

Also, truth be told, there never was such a period in history, at least for unarmed arts. Since long before the dawn of history, when humans have really wanted to have a go at eachother in a serious way, they have used tools to do it. Which is why these deadly warrior martial arts actually wind up having histories that are more about monks and meditation than ass kicking.

There is also the problem that even though we say we want to protect ourselves from "the sudden attack on the deadly street" we often really mean "being able to shut the yap of that putz on the next barstool." Clawing out a mans eyes for being a yankees fan is yet another social good that our weak wristed modern societies don't appreciate.

Which is all a long winded way of saying, yes, there are deadly techniques you can't judge from MMA. Now figure out which ones.

The other suboptimal choice that most of the folks around these parts like is training stuff that is proven to be able to hurt, incapacitate, and control an opponent in sports rules that are as loose as possible. People around these parts are yutzes though. I wouldn't trust em.

**chi-conspiricy** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 6:17pm

I bet if we put the OP in the cage, he'd feel like it was a pretty damn good "test" of his abilities.

**sheol1980** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 6:24pm

Originally Posted by chi-conspiricy

I bet if we put the OP in the cage, he'd feel like it was a pretty damn good "test" of his abilities.

Man do I regret starting this...
I don't need my abilities tested thank you very much.
This isn't about me, and obviously is a dead horse.

**Askari** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 8:00pm

It must be nice to be young.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 12/13/2007 8:24pm

I think the flaw in the OP (or at least the debatable difference in thought process) is the idea that martial arts can be "different" without being incomplete.

I've come to see almost all martial arts as incomplete components at this point - maybe that will change in the future.

I don't think there's anyone that doesn't know they need to train a variety of fighting with a variety of trainers if they're serious.

I've also noted a tendency to overthink online - all you can really do is train to be a better fighter, there will always be a "what if" that you aren't ready for.

**TheMightyMcClaw** · Posted On: 12/14/2007 12:12am

To me, the "litmus test" of a martial art is dependent on what claims I'm making.
For example, if you put a fencer in an MMA match, he would probably be destroyed. This does not mean his fencing was bad, because he was never intending to learn to fight in unarmed combat. If he was beaten in a fencing match, that would be a much better litmus test of his skills.
If I train in boxing, and only claim to be good at boxing, then it would not be fair to say that my training was poor if I lost in MMA. Now, if I trained in boxing, and then claimed that I was good at fighting as a whole, an MMA match would be a more appropriate way to test this.
If I train in Taijiquan, and spend all my time doing forms, and then claim that I do it because it's good for my health, an MMA match would not be an appropraite test for this; the quality of my health as I age would be much better. Now, if I do Taiji and claim that my forms training turns me into a deadly kung fu killing machine, then fighting of some kind (if not MMA, then kickboxing, or San Shou, or Judo, or fighting of some kind) would be an appropriate test.

**joeman** · Posted On: 12/27/2007 6:56pm

Im new here so, I have to find my groove (therefore have patience). My own personal interest in MA, is primarily in those that focus on street fighting/self defence.Cage-fighting or whatever, is competition (i agree with oldguy on some points) a street fight is not.
Whenever a practitioner of a MA, limit themselves with rules in their training, I think they will fight the same way...(if they were attacked on the street)
To test a MA you have to know what i claims to do (obviously)
If you put an eye-poking/kicking-the-groin/biting/scratching/fishhooking etc. streetfighter in a cage fight against a groundfighter, a possibly oucome would be a groundfighter with his/her eyes gouged out. So what is it one would test. Well if you have rules, you will test how a given martial art works when it is limited by foresaid rules, maybe the style fits the rules maybe not.

**Jeffrey** · Posted On: 12/27/2007 7:18pm

Joeman,

I would suggest you limit your posting to the "newbietown" section of this site, at least until you're more familiar with it. You'll soon find out why.

Also, I suggest you read this article (and everything else on that site):

http://www.straightblastgym.com/awareness_vs.htm

Furthermore: use the search function noob.