PDA

View Full Version : Myths of MMA, and MMA mentality



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Ke?poFist
3/27/2007 6:23pm,
WendyVW's idiocy has inspired me.

Typical ill-informed misconceptions and baseless ignorant assumptions by idiots and fearful dead/fantasy training LARPers. Add any that I miss.

- "MMA people only care about winning and being the best."
Quite the contrary. Due to the competitiveness of not only MMA competition, but MMA style training, it becomes quickly apparent that there is no such thing as being unarguably "the best" but rather the "best you can be"

- "MMA people rely on brute strength and muscle to win fights, rather than technique and skill"
Furthest from the truth. One of the basic components to winning MMA bouts is a solid ground game which includes heavy grappling skill, one of the most difficult skill sets to gain proficiency in. If you look back to early MMA where it was still "style vs style" the only ones who tried to use brute strength were those claiming a background in a striking art, where the grapplers were smaller and relied soley on superior technical proficiency, even if it was sloppy by todays MMA standards. Today, being well rounded with accurate and well timed striking abilities, and flawless and economical movements on the ground are necessary to succeed in MMA. Musclebound bar brawlers don't stand much of a chance against todays fighting athletes.

- "MMA people are musclebound meat heads who spend their whole day at the gym, bragging about how much they can benchpress"
No, although benchpressing and other weight resistant workouts can be a great part of an athletes training regimen, trying to bench a ridiculous amount of weight, or put on heavy body mass is seldom a desired goal. Bulking up is not necessarily a benefit in fighting beyond mere intimidation, thus developing explosive lean body muscle is a more sought after goal. Look at the current roster of MMA fighters; how many of them fit this description of Pro Wrestling looking mound of muscle?

- "MMA fighters are rude"
Some are, some aren't. That's people. You shouldn't base your expectations on the character of a person based on how they train in martial arts.

- "MMA lacks tradition"
This coming from most likely someone who trains in an art created in the last 50 or so years and passed on to some talentless hacks in the US is quite laughable. If anything MMA is the only form of martial arts that has stuck to its tradition....the tradition of having fighters of various backgrounds come and test themselves against each other in as free an environment as legally sound. One that has lasted since the time of the ancient Greeks, if not before then (at least 2655 years ago)

- "MMA lacks culture and morality"
Speaking with Japanese terms, and putting Kanji writing that you can't read on your belt or gi does not = "culture." You shouldn't need to try and find another countries culture at your local strip mall. If that's what you want, then you have more problems then I can answer. As far as morality is concerned, I don't need the person who is teaching me fighting skills to tell me when and where I can or should use it. Why should this responsibility be bestowed upon martial arts instructors? Why not say, oh....Teachers, Police, Law makers or how about ones PARENTS? *gasps*

- "MMA fighters only train to learn how to fight and beat people up"
oh....um....well actually I guess that one's pretty much right. Got me there!

- MMA is more dangerous than boxing
(this one was added by thejutsu)

It's either that or something along the lines of MMA is "human cockfighting" , competitors die all the time, it's a bloodsport, etc. Bill O Reilly summed it all up well when he scoffed at Dana White during an interview when White said MMA had elbows, knees, and submissions but was actually safer than boxing (check it out on youtube). Besides the fact that O Reilly is a retard, I think most uninformed people would agree with him. However, what many people fail to grasp is that there are crucial rule differences between boxing and MMA that make MMA considerably safer than boxing.

1) There is no standing 8/10 count (at least not in the UFC n Pride, but I believe Shooto has one?) so extensive damage to the head is far less; if you're down n out you're not getting back up for more.

2) The grappling element; clinches are not broken, you can stall on the ground, end the fight w/ a submission instead of going for a KO, this results in less damage to the head.

3) Referee stoppages occur much more often and quickly in MMA when compared to boxing. Again this all equals to less damage to the head and much shorter fights.

4) 12 Rounds max vs 5 rounds max, you do the math. I know its not always 12 rounds, but just the fact that it exists :)

As for the bloodsport thing, MMA has developed into a legitamite sport w/ rules and a whole list of fouls. Groin punching, hair pulling, nipple twisting, whatever, all that is history, MMA is sanctioned in most states (I know mine does, ATL baby) and the 90s stereotype of a bloodsoaked cage no longer exists.

Sticky PLZ

polishillusion
3/27/2007 6:27pm,
"MMA fighters only train to learn how to fight and beat people up"
oh....um....well actually I guess that one's pretty much right. Got me there!


I second this. Sticky PLZ

DAYoung
3/27/2007 6:40pm,
I suggest an example of each, with pictures.

Ke?poFist
3/27/2007 6:42pm,
I suggest an example of each, with pictures.

:pottytrai fwah?

Teh El Macho
3/27/2007 6:44pm,
- "MMA lacks culture and morality"
Speaking with Japanese terms, and putting Kanji writing that you can't read on your belt or gi does not = "culture."That's another one that should be cast in stone for all the world to read.

Besides, what the crap does she mean by "culture"? Let's consider two arts that the anti-MMA camp seem to fixate lately: Muay Thai and BJJ. Though they are not the sole bread and butter of MMA, MMA practitioners rely on them in one way or another. Muay Thai would be one of the closest thing, in my mind, to a "traditional martial arts" (whatever the **** that may mean). Muay Thai has a tradition and culture of its own.

Same with BJJ - it has its own tradition, it's own culture, and it's directly derived from other arts that could also be called traditional (JJ -> Judo -> BJJ).

One could find the same tradition and culture in every art being used in MMA. Now if by culture, we mean, as KP said, writing "oriental looking" characters (that for all we know may mean "my name is Polly Wanna Cracker") with horrendous caligraphy, then I'd rather not have THAT TYPE of culture.

Furthermore, for teachings and lessons on morality, I wouldn't go to a fucking dojo. I'd rather go to a church or temple, a healthy living seminar, a meditation group, or do charity work. I'm quite sure that those people who keep saying MMA has no morals/spirituality and tradition have never done any form of charity in their lives, nor have a tradition of their own.

Yet, they prefer to get their spirituality and be part of a made-up tradition in an orientalized room inside a strip mall. Go figures.

STICKY!!! :biblethum:

polishillusion
3/27/2007 6:47pm,
Obviously, Thailand has no culture, and the Gracies are fucking monkeys rolling in their own **** by what most TMA people believe. **** thousands of years of hard work, selfish devotion, and self discipline, or a family that is about as strict as a hungry dog with a stick up its ass and a uneaten steak in its mouth.

DER, MUSCLES MEAN STUPID, DER.

The majority of TMA people I have met were complete cocks, just like MMA people. Both sides are full of ****.

Lu Tze
3/27/2007 7:05pm,
- "MMA people rely on brute strength and muscle to win fights, rather than technique and skill"
Furthest from the truth. One of the basic components to winning MMA bouts is a solid ground game which includes heavy grappling skill, one of the most difficult skill sets to gain proficiency in.On the contrary, ground grappling is one of the easiest skillsets to gain proficiency in, because you can train full speed and power all the time, with virtually no risk of injury whatsover. Hence Kosen's focus on newaza, because competetive judoka could be trained up very quickly.

That's what makes a lot of people's aversion so funny, it's so fucking easy to train compared to being thrown around or hit in the face, you've gotta be stupid not to do it. Of course easy is relative, if you spend all your time punching thin air and talking about how badass seafood is, actual human contact probably seems pretty daunting.

Of course, by saying it's easy to train I'm not trying to take away anything from those who've spent their lives mastering the art. The gap between proficiency and mastery is pretty huge.

Tom Kagan
3/27/2007 7:05pm,
de-sticky PLZ.

DAYoung
3/27/2007 7:07pm,
:pottytrai fwah?

For example, the point on muscle-bound 'roid men could feature a small fighter beating a muscle-bound behemoth (e.g. Royce Gracie, that bloke owning Kimbo's boy), or simply a competent but lightly-built fighter (e.g. Hedge).

Ke?poFist
3/27/2007 7:13pm,
On the contrary, ground grappling is one of the easiest skillsets to gain proficiency in, because you can train full speed and power all the time, with virtually no risk of injury whatsover. Hence Kosen's focus on newaza, because competetive judoka could be trained up very quickly.

That's what makes a lot of people's aversion so funny, it's so fucking easy to train compared to being thrown around or hit in the face, you've gotta be stupid not to do it. Of course easy is relative, if you spend all your time punching thin air and talking about how badass seafood is, actual human contact probably seems pretty daunting.

Of course, by saying it's easy to train I'm not trying to take away anything from those who've spent their lives mastering the art. The gap between proficiency and mastery is pretty huge.

I suppose. I think we had this debate a while back, and it had been agreed that striking and grappling technique were both very difficult to gain proficiency in, for different reasons. In striking, the toolset you must commit to memory and make instinctual is much smaller, but is much more difficult to pull off due to you not controlling your opponents motions, in addition to the added variable of taking damage and strikes in stride from an equal or greater skilled striker. In grappling, the amount of knowledge you learn is far more vast, but without that fear of being hit, and being able to train full contact and full speed, definately adds a learning curve.

To get back on point though, the purpose for why I worded it that way is that in comparison to most dead training schools who would be launching most of these criticisms, the skill and talent required is much greater than is expected from them. Memorizing a dance or kata routine takes much less skill, than learning how to overcome a variety of different size and technically proficient opponents with your wealth of grappling knowledge.

MSphinx
3/27/2007 7:15pm,
Besides, what the crap does she mean by "culture"? Let's consider two arts that the anti-MMA camp seem to fixate lately: Muay Thai and BJJ. Though they are not the sole bread and butter of MMA, MMA practitioners rely on them in one way or another. Muay Thai would be one of the closest thing, in my mind, to a "traditional martial arts" (whatever the **** that may mean). Muay Thai has a tradition and culture of its own.

Same with BJJ - it has its own tradition, it's own culture, and it's directly derived from other arts that could also be called traditional (JJ -> Judo -> BJJ).

Muay Thai is an ancient, traditional martial art whose effectiveness was preserved through application in sport. It still has a spiritual element to it, at least in Thailand, with the Wai Kru and Ram Muay. It pisses me off to no end when people assume proponents of MMA have some vendetta against 'traditional' arts, since one of the most popular styles in MMA fits the bill so well.

Ke?poFist
3/27/2007 7:24pm,
de-sticky PLZ.

Screw you. Go eat some donuts


For example, the point on muscle-bound 'roid men could feature a small fighter beating a muscle-bound behemoth (e.g. Royce Gracie, that bloke owning Kimbo's boy), or simply a competent but lightly-built fighter (e.g. Hedge).

Kenny Florian (UFC Lightweight)
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/tosh143/15969.jpg

Matt Highes (UFC Welterweight)
http://s05.picshome.com/6de/ufc40_hughes.jpg

Chuck Liddell (UFC Light Heavywight)
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/musclesurf/xyience-chuck-liddell.jpg

Fedor Emelianenko (Pride Heavyweight unstoppable champion of doom)
http://ca1n.c.yimg.jp/sports/sn2005082700124200020612m/sportsnavi.yahoo.co.jp/fight/pict/200508/im00020612.jpg


the Physiques are mind boggling! How did they get so huge! These guys must be so jealous....
http://www.nndb.com/people/647/000108323/triple-h-1-sized.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Bodybuilder2.jpg/200px-Bodybuilder2.jpghttp://www.fitness-health.co.uk/images/bodybuilder-workout.jpg

JohnnyCache
3/27/2007 7:52pm,
See, I think the fallacy is not that MMA lacks tradition and respect and all that jazz - I think it's that your art being TMA or MMA or whatever has anything to do with the amount of respect on the mat.

MrMcFu
3/27/2007 8:15pm,
See, I think the fallacy is not that MMA lacks tradition and respect and all that jazz - I think it's that your art being TMA or MMA or whatever has anything to do with the amount of respect on the mat.

You see, many "TMA" teachers know they are full of it, so they try to expand the definition of martial arts into something that has nothing to do with fighting. Those that want to live in a fantasy world buy into it quite easily.

leere_form
3/27/2007 8:40pm,
the Physiques are mind boggling! How did they get so huge! These guys must be so jealous

haha, fedor certainly has a physique to be admired..

if only i looked so squishy, then maybe my ground-and-pound would be as deadly..

M1K3
3/27/2007 8:44pm,
Give this man a sticky.

How much can you bench has a lot to do with how much pain you can take and how much pain you can inflict. As someone said in another thread: technique without strength is ineffective, strength without technique is effective, strength and technique together is the best.