MMA Scepticism Towards CMA.

[Bear1980]

Scepticism (from the Greek, skeptesthai, 'to examine') is the philosophical view that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, or to know the world as it 'really' is. The word can also mean a general reluctance to accept anything on face value without sufficient proof (as in "He heard that Jim had run the 100m in under ten seconds but he remained sceptical").

Does the standard MMA way of training ultimately produce better fighters than traditional CMA's? & Is the sceptism that exists towards TMA a good thing?

Having studies both i would say yes and no. If you are comparing a Martial Artist in MMA who has been training for six months to a year with a Traditional Martial Artist, then 9 times out of 10 the more modern, mixed Martial Artist will likely win. A lot of what is drilled consists of about 12 basic Mauy Thai moves, some BJJ, some Kali and Silat principles perhaps... All good stuff, and a quick way to become a very good basic fighter.

However, compare that same fighter to a Traditional Martial Artist after 5 or more years and it is likely that the Traditional Martial Artist will beat the very same fighter who continued on for five years as well. Everything is based on refining those limited techniques, cutting fat, building muscle, getting bigger, faster, stronger; a game which all eventually will lose as the hormones of youth decline.

[Guizzy]

MMA people are going to be sceptic about CMAs until more CMA people start being sceptic about CMAs.

'nuff said.

[UpaLumpa]

Boxers are the best punchers in the world and work with a "limited" number of punches and refine that. Someone training MMA for five years will end up skilled and with the ability to apply what they know under stress. They're also continually sparring against better people than you're likely to encounter at a "traditional" school

Five years of dicking around doing esoteric crap with too limited focus on any of it and crappy sparring, if any.

You're dreaming.

[Guizzy]

Boxers are the best punchers in the world and work with a "limited" number of punches and refine that. Someone training MMA for five years will end up skilled and with the ability to apply what they know under stress. They're also continually sparring against better people than you're likely to encounter at a "traditional" school

Five years of dicking around doing esoteric crap with too limited focus on any of it and crappy sparring, if any.

You're dreaming.You're in CMA Town, now, cowboy. We don't take too kindly to guys like you, here...

Note that while all signs point to "bear1980" not being one of them, there are many kung fu people that DO spar, that spar WELL and that understand how "esoteric crap" is merely an abstraction used to simplify training and that it should never be considered litterally.

Those people I reckon can very well hold their own against a boxer or someone practicing any "sport" art with a similar number of years of training.

To answer to bear1980 more specifically:
Yes, some parts of CMAs build upon one another, but at all points you should train and drill more intensely what you CAN use than what you might be able to use later.

Note also that most people that train workable arts learn pretty much the whole concept of the art in at maximum 2 years. The rest is not so much different technique, but harder applications of the same technique.

[isol8d]

Boxers are the best punchers in the world and work with a "limited" number of punches and refine that. Someone training MMA for five years will end up skilled and with the ability to apply what they know under stress. They're also continually sparring against better people than you're likely to encounter at a "traditional" school

Five years of dicking around doing esoteric crap with too limited focus on any of it and crappy sparring, if any.

You're dreaming.

Dicto simpliciter.

[Sophist]

I was discussing how i think the Standard MMA/Vale Tudo Rules Suite certain Arts better than others.(if you cant admit that then i think YOUR in denial)
Yes, you're quite right. The rules over the years have systematically nerfed various advantages previously held by grappling. The introduction of rounds and midround standups are the most egregious examples of this, but we could also mention:
4. Hair pulling
- providing extra purchase for grapplers to get the choke

9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
- used to some effect in early UFCs where grapplers would sit in guard or a dominant position and repeatedly elbow their opponent in the back of the head. Yet to be shown as in any way advantageous against a takedown.

15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
- again, mainly used by grapplers with a good top position such as side control

17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
- another favourite tactic of Royce Gracie

18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
- a particularly potent weapon of wrestlers and judoka

19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
- a number of early judo challenge matches were decided this way.

20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
- again, restricting places where a grappler may gain purchase

You're talking bollocks, Bear. If competitions have too many rules for your style to succeed, hold competitions with fewer rules. It worked for the Gracies and the original Vale Tudo ruleset. Can you provide any evidence at all of Wing Chun's alleged competence in stand-up? Do you believe there is anyone in Wing Chun who could beat a world-class boxer or Thai boxer, and if so, what ruleset would the fight have to be under for a WC victory to be ensured? You need to address the lack of evidence for your side before you're going to overcome the gales of derision you're meeting in every thread.

[MrMcFu]

Ahh the old Kung Fu myth that somehow the learning curve is slower at first, then somehow goes out the roof the longer ones stays at it . . .

[Omega the Merciless]

Boxers are the best punchers in the world and work with a "limited" number of punches and refine that. Someone training MMA for five years will end up skilled and with the ability to apply what they know under stress. They're also continually sparring against better people than you're likely to encounter at a "traditional" school

Five years of dicking around doing esoteric crap with too limited focus on any of it and crappy sparring, if any.

You're dreaming.

*aaaafucyou....snifff snif

sorry dust in the air...

[Bear1980]

Yes, you're quite right. The rules over the years have systematically nerfed various advantages previously held by grappling. The introduction of rounds and midround standups are the most egregious examples of this, but we could also mention:
4. Hair pulling
- providing extra purchase for grapplers to get the choke

9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
- used to some effect in early UFCs where grapplers would sit in guard or a dominant position and repeatedly elbow their opponent in the back of the head. Yet to be shown as in any way advantageous against a takedown.

15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
- again, mainly used by grapplers with a good top position such as side control

17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
- another favourite tactic of Royce Gracie

18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
- a particularly potent weapon of wrestlers and judoka

19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
- a number of early judo challenge matches were decided this way.

20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
- again, restricting places where a grappler may gain purchase

You're talking bollocks, Bear. If competitions have too many rules for your style to succeed, hold competitions with fewer rules. It worked for the Gracies and the original Vale Tudo ruleset. Can you provide any evidence at all of Wing Chun's alleged competence in stand-up? Do you believe there is anyone in Wing Chun who could beat a world-class boxer or Thai boxer, and if so, what ruleset would the fight have to be under for a WC victory to be ensured? You need to address the lack of evidence for your side before you're going to overcome the gales of derision you're meeting in every thread.

Of Course a grappler is going to say this. Yes i agree the rules have started to get better for us strikers(i do consider myself a striker as im pretty inexperienced with groundfighting) but the main thing that really gives the grappling arts a big advantage is that you cant kick/stamp someone who's on the ground.

[Omega the Merciless]

Of Course a grappler is going to say this. Yes i agree the rules have started to get better for us strikers(i do consider myself a striker as im pretty inexperienced with groundfighting) but the main thing that really gives the grappling arts a big advantage is that you cant kick/stamp someone who's on the ground.


I'm a CMA guy and I'll tell you right now you don't know what you're talking about...

[Bear1980]

I'm a CMA guy and I'll tell you right now you don't know what you're talking about...

Please enlighten me as to why?

[Lu Tze]

19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
- a number of early judo challenge matches were decided this way.This is why judo is awesome.

Bear1980, I don't say this lightly as I run the risk of getting vilified and thrown out of the CMA forum... but you're a fucking moron. Your view of MMA is typical of the blind prejudice of a lot of 'traditionalists'. What makes you think it's so limited? How many techniques do you need?

After five years of MMA a practitioner would be proficient in (that is be both able to attack and defend with/against):
Strikes to any part of the body.
Shooting (as in wrestling).
Clinch fighting.
Throws and takedowns.
Grappling, GnP and submissions.
Now, his level in particular areas would depend on his natural ability and the school he attends, but it's safe to say he would still be somewhat competent in all of them after five years. The only thing missing is weapons.

So what exactly does this mythical traditional style bring to the table that trumps all that after five years? What weakness does it exploit? I've got news for you kiddo, if it doesn't produce someone at least able to hold his own in just one of those areas after two years, then the story will be no different after five. Life isn't DnD, we don't suddenly level up after so much XP and get new powers and feats.

[Omega the Merciless]

I'm a CMA guy and I'll tell you right now you don't know what you're talking about...

Because you can kick a downed opponent, just not in the head under unified rules. Even before these rules were in place they didn't give strikers the advantage they just changed the dynamics of the game. Now, if you've been doing your studying, you'll see the the playing field in MMA has been leveled to the point that there is (using only UFC as an example) a grappler as a Heavyweight champion, a striker as a light heavy weight, a striker as a middle weight champion, a grappler as a welterweight and a grappler as a lightweigh champion.

That's 3 and 3...Looks even to me. Under the old NHB style rules it was pretty much a grapplers paradise.
Got a good counter arguement?

[Bear1980]

Because you can kick a downed opponent, just not in the head under unified rules. Even before these rules were in place they didn't give strikers the advantage they just changed the dynamics of the game. Now, if you've been doing your studying, you'll see the the playing field in MMA has been leveled to the point that there is (using only UFC as an example) a grappler as a Heavyweight champion, a striker as a light heavy weight, a striker as a middle weight champion, a grappler as a welterweight and a grappler as a lightweigh champion.

That's 3 and 3...Looks even to me. Under the old NHB style rules it was pretty much a grapplers paradise.
Got a good counter arguement?

Hypathetically speaking: if you shoot for your opponents legs and miss you're in a prime position to get a kick in the face.
(I remember Michael Bisping getting a point deducted for this recently only it was for a knee)

[T/C Danny]

Scepticism (from the Greek, skeptesthai, 'to examine') is the philosophical view that it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, or to know the world as it 'really' is. The word can also mean a general reluctance to accept anything on face value without sufficient proof (as in "He heard that Jim had run the 100m in under ten seconds but he remained sceptical").

Does the standard MMA way of training ultimately produce better fighters than traditional CMA's? & Is the sceptism that exists towards TMA a good thing?

Having studies both i would say yes and no. If you are comparing a Martial Artist in MMA who has been training for six months to a year with a Traditional Martial Artist, then 9 times out of 10 the more modern, mixed Martial Artist will likely win. A lot of what is drilled consists of about 12 basic Mauy Thai moves, some BJJ, some Kali and Silat principles perhaps... All good stuff, and a quick way to become a very good basic fighter.

However, compare that same fighter to a Traditional Martial Artist after 5 or more years and it is likely that the Traditional Martial Artist will beat the very same fighter who continued on for five years as well. Everything is based on refining those limited techniques, cutting fat, building muscle, getting bigger, faster, stronger; a game which all eventually will lose as the hormones of youth decline.


In terms of what? In terms of getting into an MMA ring? MMA. If you only train one art for MMA then definitely a grappling art. BJJ for preference because of the submissions. If you train ANY striking orientated art alone then you'll get owned in MMA, thai included (just look at what happened to Stefan Leko!)

If you talking about self defence then I'd say MY chinese martial art is as effective as any other art in the short OR long term. Saying an art takes five years to get good in is total bollocks. You can either use it in a month (albeit badly!) or not ever.

Self defence is as much about attitude and strategy as it is about physical skills. Not that good kung fu doesn't give you those as well!

[Teh El Macho]

Bear1980.

Stop being a moron. At the risk of sounding like a nut hugger, Omega has been doing this shit for years, with years of experience in CMA, Judo, Sambo and God knows what else. He's stepped into the ring/cage and tested his stuff. You have a dude with a shitload of experience in CMA telling you that you are wrong. What the hell do you think you have to think otherwise?

And I call bullshit on your BJJ blue belt. Getting one in a year while training in different places? What the hell? Are you a prodigy? People work their asses off for a year or more, solely in BJJ to get their blues, and here come you, claiming to have one.

Insulting to say the least.