Is full contact MMA sportfighting a good gauge of martial proficiency??

[Merryprankster]

I realize that the "true," test of fighting ability is a to the death challenge in the street involving a skilled opponent, objects and weapons and angry midgets and flying pigs and what not, but...

Mixed Martial Arts events seem to be the closest we can get, legally, to such an extreme situation.

Does it therefore follow that such events are a decent gauge of fighting skill?

In other words, if you consistantly perform well at a high level, would this indicate high fighting ability?

I don't necessarily think that success in the ring is THE indicator of fighting ability, BTW. IE, you don't HAVE to be a good sportfighter to be a great fighter.

[red5angel]

I would say it would be a good test of fighting ability. Martial Skill may be a different thing though, atleast in the context of looking at styles, etc.... I think it is relative really, those guys can fight no doubt, and I wouldnt want to meet them in the street!

[Ray Pina]

I would say it a pretty good meter to judge oneself in hand to hand fighting against one other man.

However, I believe there is more to a martial artist.

How about two men? Can you control one man to act as a barrier against the other. Control them into objects, say a firehydren.

Also, how about weapons. Short stick, medium stick (sword) and long stick (pole). How about knives. Magic markers and white t-shirts is a good way to see just how cut one would get, or one of those small plastic water bottles, but empty of coarse.

So I think all of these are also factors, as well as something as simple as the way someone carries themselves. An example, JS has been training along time. But he seems very angry, always out to fight anyone who disagrees. Is this beneficial? Even healthy?

I belive martial arts should be both of those as well. Thinking big picture here.

[xiong]

I think NHB is a gauge of fighting, yes! I think that Efist is getting at some of the Art of Martial Arts.

This is what I think is lacking in NHB/MMA. Those guys train hard and could kick my ass, but the skill and technique seems rather limited. It just looks like brawling and to me that isn't really "Martial Arts".

There are some practitioners that make fighting look elegant, it's still an ass whoopin but it looks graceful and effortless. That is the Art. I hope this is coming across somewhat coherently, I have a problem finishing up my arguements.

[TigerJaw]

Originally posted by Kuen
Soft fighting such as NHB, sparring, kickboxing, etc. is a great way to test your proficiency in NHB, sparring, kickboxing, etc. I've only fought NHB twice and done a couple of amateur boxing matches and not once have I felt the fear sensation I get from a street fight. In fact I find it easier to fight a skilled opponent than some nut case whose flailing around and freaking out on the street because there's always some measure of predictibility when 2 skilled opponents square off.

I must agree with your last point. Now, I've not been a chinese martial artist for long but before kung fu, I was a fencer, in fact captain of my university team. One thing I noticed is how difficult it is to beat complete beginers cleanly. What I found happening is I would, for example, feint low, expect a parry and none would come. This made complete beginers dificult to fight.

I always said, you can fence if you can disarm a man who can't, without getting a scratch. I can, but then I fenced for years.

I'm only really a beginner at kung fu but I'll bet i'll find the same thing later in my progress.

This suggests that competition fighting is no panacia (sp?) of martial assesment.

Mind you, to put my views in context, I think the perfect martial artsist is the one that never fights.

[SevenStar]

"This is what I think is lacking in NHB/MMA. Those guys train hard and could kick my ass, but the skill and technique seems rather limited. It just looks like brawling and to me that isn't really "Martial Arts"."

I think I disagree there. I've always been told that real kung fu in action isn't pretty, and it makes sense. When you fight, you aren't trying to look pretty. I think that a good muay thai roundhouse in action is beautiful, as is a good skip knee. But in a fight, I care not about how it looks. The skill isn't really limited, but there are factors in play. If a CMA does a form repeatedly for several hours, while tired, how pretty is the form? In the ring, I may come out looking good, but as time goes on, you gas out and also you are focusing on beating the other guy, not on how good you look doing it. There is a high level of skill in proficient grapplers, thaiboxers, etc.

As for technique being limited, does that really matter? If I know 10 punches and do them as well or better than someone else does their 40 punches/palm strikes, will someone say "wow he has good punches!" or "Wow, he has good punches and uses them well, but he doesn't know enough of them"? If a person can be effective with limited techs, then that's really of no concern. Also, there are more techs than you may think. the thai roundhouse itself has at least 4 different variations. there are at least 5 different knee strikes, etc. they use different mechanics and like anything else, take time to master.

[David Jamieson]

It's a good gauge of the skills and abilities required within the framework of the rules of the venue.

Holistically, it doesn't apply.

A fight can end in seconds or less with real applied martial skill.

Kickboxing matches and groundfighting matches can be short too, but only if one of the fighters really doesn't belong in the ring to begin with.

So, it's a gauge in contect to the venue and not really the holistic arts used in those venues.

peace

[Ford Prefect]

So if a guy that trains kickboxing or nhb get's whipped in seconds because "he doesn't belong in the ring", then how would an average guy do against the fighter handing out the whoopin?

[Kumkuat]

so um, which martial art is effective against multiple attackers holding weapons while their pigs are biting your ankles?

[Merryprankster]

E-fist-- you finally posted something we can both agree on. YAY!! :)

Not that you are looking for my validation.

Once again--what sevenstar said. The reason people think that fights should look pretty is because they are watching somebody VASTLY skilled vs somebody moderately skilled, or watching too many MA flicks. When skill level is close to equal, fighting is UGLY.

Kung--I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. It hurt my head.

Are you saying that MMA events are a good measure of one-on-one combat and little else?

Hence my original comment that one is not required to be a good sportfighter to be martially proficient.

Note to all--I chose the words martially proficient for a reason. Too many of us disagree on what "martial skill," really means. Some term Thai Boxing artless and brutal, possessed of little that would indicate "skill." Personally, I believe that delivering a good ass-whooping to whatever comes your way qualifies, but that's neither here nor there.

However, I believe that even if you don't like the "ground and pound," the practitioner who successfully executes this strategy can be termed martially proficient by us all, even if you don't associate that with skill.

Hence the question about sportfighting and martial proficiency...

[Merryprankster]

Kumkuat;

Cohmrac Bas, Temple Kung Fu, Donkey Punch Do and Puroresu are all styles effective in multiple opponent, weapon wielding, pig-biting scenarios.

[Ray Pina]

Tiger Jaw, I can apreciate what you are saying. The Gung Fu equivalent is being able to drop a larger man clean, within three moves, never taking his direct power.

As for a thing of beauty. I wouldn't say they way I fight looks beatiful or even graceful.

But to me it is beautiful because it works and is graceful because of the way it works, its never power against power, its finess to get it and then power to end it. To me, that's beautiful no matter the shape it takes to accopmlish.

[Tigerstyle]

LOL @ Cohmrac Bas! I didn't think anyone else had heard of it :D

[bamboo_ leaf]

I feel the measure that it measures is the preparation for the event your skill and expectations are set up for.

i agree very much with what Kung Luk, said.

I think the misstake that some make is feeling that their training alone is enough to enter into one of these events/ not. you need to prep for the event at hand. your level of training may not be enough for the ring but enough to give some reactions againts an unexpected attack.

my question is why is it that many feel they need all this prepration to fight with the "street fighter" i mean what are the street fighter guys doing? are they training to go 3 rounds or take you down and pound you? or are they just cultavating a mind set coupled with the keen desire to hurt those that they feel are easy to hurt?

[Merryprankster]

Bamboo--

You don't know what the streetfighter is trained in. Maybe a good boxer or an ex wrestler.

Best to train as if your opponent is skilled.

Beware the trap of the "untrained opponent." Dangerous assumption.

[crumble]

Full contact MMA sportfighting events are indeed a decent gauge of fighting skill.

-crumble

[David Jamieson]

just going off topic for a bit.

merryprankster, What I was taught was to always expect the unexpected. To me, this also meant to always regard your opponent as better and more skilled than you.

With this in mind, you will always do your best in an altercation.

Also, training for the ring is different than the standard regimen.
My Si Fu, Wes Cameron, would ask each of us students when a tournament was coming up if we would like to enter to let him know so that the training could be altered to ensure the best results in the rules of the tournament. The tournament training regimen would last approximately 3 months (if there was that much time) and the focus would be strictly ring fighting.

Makes perfect sense.

Now, back on topic and I reiterate...
The ring is a gauge of the skills needed for the ring. It is no gauge of deadly reality on the streets and alleys.

So, it has a purpose as does all sportive competition.

peace

[Shooter]

my question is why is it that many feel they need all this prepration to fight with the "street fighter" i mean what are the street fighter guys doing? are they training to go 3 rounds or take you down and pound you? or are they just cultavating a mind set coupled with the keen desire to hurt those that they feel are easy to hurt?

Those are good questions, leaf. I don't think the people who fixate on the topic of this thread are going to think it through beyond the superficial as expressed already by merry prankster. When discussing this with people who "get it" the consensus is that a lot people who think they're training for real self-defense look to the MMA model and think that's what a person needs to be doing to "prepare" for a 1-on-1 with an "ex-boxer or wrestler type"...the technicentric trap is a distraction from what a person should really be focused on. The business of really fighting for your life has nothing to do with Kung Fu, MMA, BJJ, or any other "style" It's about survival...not "martial proficiency". MMA isn't a measure of anything beyond one's athleticism, TECHNICAL proficiency and how they deal with the basic fear of losing, pleasing the crowd, or whatever else drives the fear every athlete experiences before they go out and perform.

End of rant...now I'll try to answer the leaf's questions:

Preparing to fight a "street-fighter" entails thinking like one and knowing the different behavioral patterns that predators home in on. It means removing the bull's-eye from your persona and carrying yourself with an awareness that minimizes your profile as someone who can be easily preyed upon. It means empowering yourself with a few basic strategies that apply to your own personal lifestyle. eg...Do you have to enter an underground parking lot every day? Do you have to use an elevator to get to work and home again? Do you wear shoes that are going to be practical while you're enroute? Do you know what resources are available to you in terms of weapons/defense, environment, terrain, etc?

WHO are you preparing for (street-fighter, mugger, rapist, burglar, bully)? WHAT will you do? WHERE are you most vulnerable? WHEN are you vulnerabe? WHY are you vulnerable?

[Ryu]

Yes it is. I think NHB very much shows true fighting skill. They're obviously fighting physically, trying to use whatever they can (in that venue) to beat the other person. So on the physical level of fighting, yes NHB is a good guage for skill at fighting.

HOWEVER, being able to "fight" on the street isn't always physical in nature. You need to be streetsmart, have the ability to difuse situations, trap people in certain areas, be able to avoid losing situations. So for that, no NHB is not a good gauge. Possibly police training is.

But fighting, hand to hand "mono e mono", yes I think it is.
What I don't agree with though is making NHB competition the ONLY way to say someone knows how to fight or not. I don't plan on ever entering any NHB, it's just not me, but that shouldn't mean I'm a "phony" or anything. There's plenty of police officers who are great fighters and never compete in the ring. And if they did they'd probably get beat if they didn't train exclusively for it.
Though if that same NHB fighter wants to take them out on the street, the cop can pull his gun, get 4 guys to get him down and handcuff him. Who wins? ;)

Ryu

[Ryu]

Shooter, that was a very good post.

Ryu

[Merryprankster]

Ryu, you're right, it was a very good post, and Shooter happens to be correct.

However, I don't particularly like having my thoughts called superficial...especially when I have distinctly broken down the concepts for a reason.

To survive a streetfight and to compete in Sportfighting are not the same. The training is different, the expectations are different, etc. I thought that I'd made that abundantly clear.

Sportfighting could be seen, as shooter said, as strictly "how good are you at a specific subset of martial applications," coupled with appropriate levels of fitness to execute a quality performance in that environment.

Self-defense should encompass environmental awareness, engage multiple opponent scenarios, verbal de-escalation, fear management, among other things. None of these are particularly important to sport fighting.

I could be a great ringfighter and rotten in a street situation because I don't pay attention to what's going on around me, escalate the situation, not notice the man has friends eyeing me from halfway across the room, etc.

I can't remember if Vanderlei Silva or Vitor Belfort had some guy hold him up and demand his car keys. Guess what? He gave them away and let the guy drive off. Pretty good self-defense right there.

Renzo Gracie's wife was insulted by a gas station owner, and Renzo went BACK to the gas station, and slapped him across the face. Rotten self-defense. Does the man have a gun behind the counter? A knife? Pepper spray? Friends in the garage with large wrenches?

So shooter, sorry to disappoint. I've thought pretty long and hard about this. I've chosen to address a VERY specific aspect of Martial Arts because I've seen what happens when you start open ended questions without boundaries. I happen to believe the question, as it was asked, is a reasonable one.

[Ryu]

Did he call you superficial?? :( I didn't see that, but I was reading very fast because I'm about to get out of here.

The post was good, but so are yours, Merry. They always are.

Ryu

[Merryprankster]

Ryu,

He may not have been calling me superficial. I took it that way, but it is equally possible that I am being oversensitive.

I've been overtraining for a week. 1.5 hours of boxing and 3 hours+ jiujitsu does not make for a strong mind. I had to take boxing off today :)

[Shooter]

The question's premise is another angle on what I call "technicentric" and has the quality of superficial enquiry. Martial proficiency (in the title heading of this thread which seems to suggest something other than what it really means, hence its being put in quotations in my previous post) is being efficient in warfare (minimizing damage and removing the threat through evasion, cunning, tactics, etc)...not sport. Two different things, and perhaps just a matter of semantics. Didn't mean to grate on your sensibilities, Merry Prankster.

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

No offense taken Shooter. Like I said, probably just me being a bit testier than I should have been.

I would definitely call this a matter of semantics. I think we've got two differing definitions. I would consider technicentric something more along the lines of learning all the techniques in the air or in light sparring and never having put them into practice against a fully resisting opponent. We all know them... I can punch the air and kick the wind. I can break so many bricks/boards, can blow out a candle with my punch from "x" feet away... the bag folds when I punch it...I can do a jumping spinning back kick... but put them in front of a live opponent who wants to win and it all goes to pot.

Since sportfighting is full contact, by my definition, it does not fit the criteria for being technicentric--we've now moved into the area of being proficient in the techniques you have learned, hence, martial proficiency

But as you said, that is semantics, entirely!