Kind of interesting...

What do you think?

http://ju-sport.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-makes-up-martial-art.html

wow.. good read. it never occurred to me..

I think it's bullshit. The only thing I agree, is that martial art, means the art used in warfare.

For example, some of the bullshit I quote below:

"Often within a martial arts school it is taught that 'this exact style is the best system and it was created to beat all the others'. Of course every martial artist would seem to think their style is the best because that is the style they have chosen to do, but in actuality what they are saying is 'this is the best style for me as it suits myattitude and I like the teaching environment'. "

This is a quantifiable thing. It can be tested, it can be proven. And it already has been proven.

"Just because a style doesn't focus on whatever it is you are interested in doesn't make it a bad style, it just makes it not the right style for you."

Remember, what is martial art again? That's right, an art used for warfare. If you bring a sword to war, and I bring an M-16, who's going to win? There's no bad style? How about if you shoot your pistol gangland style without aiming, and I use the weaver stance? Who's going to hit more targets?

"You must maintain 100% safety when entering into the opponents attack range, this means to control any dangers that could occur by being in control of them. (Methods of entry must be sophisticated yet simple, fast as well as safe!) "

This is absolute bullcrap and just goes to show the writer has never even been in a hard sparring match before. There is no 100% safety in a fight. Even the best boxers get hit. A fight is like trying to control a car without brakes down a hill. You just do your best. Anyone who says otherwise if full of crap and has never been in a real fight before.

"The ability to change and - Techniques, attacks and defenses must flow but not necessarily at a constant pace. Adaptability to choose what's next is vital! "

What nonsense is this? You have time and inclination to think about how well your techniques flow in a real fight? And aren't attacks and defense techniques? What's the diff? You don't choose what's next, when your opponent attacks, you defend. It's that simple.

People who know will break it down simply for you. People who don't will try to weave up complicated bull crap to cover up their ignorance.

"P. Sundbye who has been training in various martialarts for the last 11 years including Wing Chun Kung Fu, Aikido, Tong Long and the Lee Total Control system."

No wonder he writes such crap.

Here's a video that shows you how:

1) An ineffective martial art tries to come up with complicated theories about fighting to explain "principals" etc.

2) An ineffective martial art actually looks very deadly and dangerous when done against their own students who're cooperating and not actively tryiing to defend and attack back.

Then it shows you what happens when said martial art, with all its theories and "showiness" and "deadliness" look like when you put them in a real fight.
Despite how good and "effective" it looks in demonstrations and training, in an actual fight it doesn't work. In fact, none of their techniques seem to work at all. That's the funny part.

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=283564

"The best form of defense, is to attack,

The best form of attack is to focus all your energy at one point and deliver it onto your opponent,

The best martial art is the one that brings down your opponent."

Jet Li

This is a quantifiable thing. It can be tested, it can be proven. And it already has been proven.

Care to explain it? What is a quantifiable thing?

"You must maintain 100% safety when entering into the opponents attack range, this means to control any dangers that could occur by being in control of them. (Methods of entry must be sophisticated yet simple, fast as well as safe!) "

This is absolute bullcrap and just goes to show the writer has never even been in a hard sparring match before. There is no 100% safety in a fight. Even the best boxers get hit. A fight is like trying to control a car without brakes down a hill. You just do your best. Anyone who says otherwise if full of crap and has never been in a real fight before.

While definitely there's no 100% safety, but I don't assume it would be as bad as this: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=283564

"The ability to change and - Techniques, attacks and defenses must flow but not necessarily at a constant pace. Adaptability to choose what's next is vital! "

What nonsense is this? You have time and inclination to think about how well your techniques flow in a real fight? And aren't attacks and defense techniques? What's the diff? You don't choose what's next, when your opponent attacks, you defend. It's that simple.

While true that one may not have the time to think, but everything must still flow smoothly and one must be flexible, whatever techniques you choose.

Not sure for Western arts, but from a Chinese martial arts view, there's the 5 elements. Each element on its own is a weakness, but when together, is a strong. Water counters fire, fire counters metal, etc.

The defender will need to identify the type, and choose a suitable counter attack. It doesn't necessary need to flow in the 5 elements order, but the attacks and defends used will be based on the 5 elements itself.

I think this beat everyone of the others...

Quantifiable means it can be measured. It can be tested.

How is it tested? By putting the best of the best a martial arts has to offer into a fight with minimal rules, and see which one comes out on top.

Repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

If you keep getting the same results over and over again, you've got a conclusion.

When has it been tested? Vale Tudo. Early UFCs. The evidence abounds on youtube, just search for it.

On another forum I read, a "kung fu expert" who's had more than 20 years experience and training, started a street fight by slapping a girl, and an MMA fighter with 2 years training only kicked his ass. Said kung fu expert got taken down, mounted, and punched in the face repeatedly. He cried for the other guy to stop.

Then one of the kung fu expert's cronies, who's had more than 25 years? experience and has trained with the top names in chinese kung fu in China, his sifu is supposedly the decendant of some chinese general, challenged another MMA fighter (who's severly overweight and out of shape, and has only 9 months training) to a fight, this time in a ring. He got punched so bad he tapped out under 2 mins.

Quantifiable.

And yes, it will be as bad as that video suggests. Or even worse. At least the guy getting into the cage is in good physical shape.

>>While true that one may not have the time to think, but everything must still flow smoothly and one must be flexible, whatever techniques you choose. <<

Please elaborate on what you mean by "everything must still flow smoothly" and "one must be flexible."

Then explain how it will help you in a real fight. Please use simple terms and explain it simply for me, using facts that we all understand.

>>Not sure for Western arts, but from a Chinese martial arts view, there's the 5 elements. Each element on its own is a weakness, but when together, is a strong. Water counters fire, fire counters metal, etc. <<

How does that translate to fighting? If you tell any guy in the street that, will he be able to understand what you've just said? Will it make sense to him? Because it makes no sense to me, and has no relevance to real fighting.

There is no difference whether it's western or chinese or middle east martial art. The only thing we should be interested in is, does it work? Is it effective in a real fight? Can it be done with a high probability of success?

If the answer is yes, I will take and use it, I don't really care where it comes from.

>>The defender will need to identify the type, and choose a suitable counter attack.<<

You have an argument with someone at the pub. He insults your wife (or husband). You call him some unflattering names. He starts charging at you and starts to swing for your head.

Now, what element is he? Water, fire, metal, earth, wind, ninja? You have exactly 1/2 a second to answer before his punch lands in your mouth.

>> It doesn't necessary need to flow in the 5 elements order, but the attacks and defends used will be based on the 5 elements itself.<<

Please just answer this very simple question for me. How many real fights have you been in?

Please elaborate on what you mean by "everything must still flow smoothly" and "one must be flexible."

Flowing smoothly means the moves will come naturally to you.

Being flexible means one will be able to use a technique in all circumstances. They shouldn't be restricted by the techniques at all.

Then explain how it will help you in a real fight. Please use simple terms and explain it simply for me, using facts that we all understand.

As above.

How does that translate to fighting? If you tell any guy in the street that, will he be able to understand what you've just said? Will it make sense to him? Because it makes no sense to me, and has no relevance to real fighting.

Why would I tell that to someone on the street? You yourself will have to know when to use what techniques.

The 5 elements is a cycle, each element by itself has its own strong and weak points. You need to understand them to use them effectively.

The only thing we should be interested in is, does it work? Is it effective in a real fight? Can it be done with a high probability of success?

No, it won't work without understanding the underlying principles.

You have an argument with someone at the pub. He insults your wife (or husband). You call him some unflattering names. He starts charging at you and starts to swing for your head.

Now, what element is he? Water, fire, metal, earth, wind, ninja? You have exactly 1/2 a second to answer before his punch lands in your mouth.

Swinging movement - water

Please just answer this very simple question for me. How many real fights have you been in?

1

bleah.. if you disagree with the article.. don't need to get so passionate la.

lets agree to disagree, in the spirit of aikido.

i don't see the link of fight experience with the article la.

its true that if the skills you pick up, are so finely tuned it becomes instinct, you will react to situations with the skills you learnt.

the problem is that very seldom people reach that standard, that's why the skill don't work well when you employ them.

at least that's what i think.

and no, i've never been in a real fight, i try to be peaceful. even my NS life is dedicated to saving lives.

is aikido inferior to muay thai? depends on the user also and how long is their experience

it gives power. Justice without power is empty thus power is crucial. Power refer to the ability to protect.

True martial arts is about RESPECT

Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:

1

Wrong mayi jie jie, if someone is charging at you as well as swinging as fist at you, you cannot see the path of the blow. Swinging as in using his hands not literally doing a country-style hook with the body charging as a cover for the real movement.

Originally posted by wats_up:

True martial arts is about RESPECT

The Asian Martial arts is about RESPECT but martial arts is about fighting as the word Martial comes from the Roman God Mars(Greek God Ares).

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:

Quantifiable means it can be measured. It can be tested.

How is it tested? By putting the best of the best a martial arts has to offer into a fight with minimal rules, and see which one comes out on top.

Repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

If you keep getting the same results over and over again, you've got a conclusion.

When has it been tested? Vale Tudo. Early UFCs. The evidence abounds on youtube, just search for it.

On another forum I read, a "kung fu expert" who's had more than 20 years experience and training, started a street fight by slapping a girl, and an MMA fighter with 2 years training only kicked his ass. Said kung fu expert got taken down, mounted, and punched in the face repeatedly. He cried for the other guy to stop.

Then one of the kung fu expert's cronies, who's had more than 25 years? experience and has trained with the top names in chinese kung fu in China, his sifu is supposedly the decendant of some chinese general, challenged another MMA fighter (who's severly overweight and out of shape, and has only 9 months training) to a fight, this time in a ring. He got punched so bad he tapped out under 2 mins.

Quantifiable.

And yes, it will be as bad as that video suggests. Or even worse. At least the guy getting into the cage is in good physical shape.

>>While true that one may not have the time to think, but everything must still flow smoothly and one must be flexible, whatever techniques you choose. <<

Please elaborate on what you mean by "everything must still flow smoothly" and "one must be flexible."

Then explain how it will help you in a real fight. Please use simple terms and explain it simply for me, using facts that we all understand.

>>Not sure for Western arts, but from a Chinese martial arts view, there's the 5 elements. Each element on its own is a weakness, but when together, is a strong. Water counters fire, fire counters metal, etc. <<

How does that translate to fighting? If you tell any guy in the street that, will he be able to understand what you've just said? Will it make sense to him? Because it makes no sense to me, and has no relevance to real fighting.

There is no difference whether it's western or chinese or middle east martial art. The only thing we should be interested in is, does it work? Is it effective in a real fight? Can it be done with a high probability of success?

If the answer is yes, I will take and use it, I don't really care where it comes from.

>>The defender will need to identify the type, and choose a suitable counter attack.<<

You have an argument with someone at the pub. He insults your wife (or husband). You call him some unflattering names. He starts charging at you and starts to swing for your head.

Now, what element is he? Water, fire, metal, earth, wind, ninja? You have exactly 1/2 a second to answer before his punch lands in your mouth.

>> It doesn't necessary need to flow in the 5 elements order, but the attacks and defends used will be based on the 5 elements itself.<<

Please just answer this very simple question for me. How many real fights have you been in?

I think you're confusing martial arts with beating the crap out of people.

Originally posted by jondizzle foshizzle:

I think you're confusing martial arts with beating the crap out of people.

Its the same lar UFC or Pride usually beat the crap out of their opponent 1st then shake hands with them one...

Originally posted by wats_up:

Its the same lar UFC or Pride usually beat the crap out of their opponent 1st then shake hands with them one...

On the other hand, I have also seen a beginner sanshuo practitioner kick the arse of vetran MMArtist and even giving away 2 weight classes(close to 20 kg lighter) and being female.

Hi, NoRiceBoys.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
This is a quantifiable thing. It can be tested, it can be proven. And it already has been proven.

Actually, it is not provable. Most encompassing claims can only be falsified, not proven.

For instance, we can test the claim that "crows are always black" by looking at all the crows we can get our hands on. If we have looked at a goodly number of crows and indeed all of them are black, then we have supported our claim.

However, we have not proven it, because there may be some crow out there that is not black. The single exception disproves the claim, so the only way to prove this is to look at *each and every* crow there is in existence. Actually, that's still not enough, because our original claim is not time-limited. Therefore, we would never be able to prove the claim without being omniscient, because some crow somewhere some day may not be black.

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Quantifiable means it can be measured. It can be tested.

How is it tested? By putting the best of the best a martial arts has to offer into a fight with minimal rules, and see which one comes out on top.

Repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

If you keep getting the same results over and over again, you've got a conclusion.

When has it been tested? Vale Tudo. Early UFCs. The evidence abounds on youtube, just search for it.

Problems:
1. Are the ones identified as the best truly the best?
2. Are the best in the various arts today true representatives of their arts? That is, are they the best there can ever be?
3. No matter how minimal the rules are, there are rules. Do these rules disadvantage some more than others? Do they give advantages to some?
4. An inductive conclusion is very far from deductive proof, as explained above.
5. Is there ecological validity? That is, would these results carry over to 'real life'?

For instance, Western boxers tend to lose to BJJ people in the UFC, right?

1. Are the boxers in these fights the best in the world? What about the BJJ people? It's hardly fair pitting C students against lecturers.

2. Let's say we get the best boxer today into the UFC. Is he the best there ever was? Even if he loses to a particular BJJ fighter, can we conclude that Ali or Dempsey in their prime would have also lost too? The answer is that we cannot.

Let's look at sport versus real life now. What happens when you transfer our two fighters from the UFC ring to a bar? This bar has stools all over the place, and broken glass all over the floor. Each of them is separately accosted by a fellow with a hidden knife. The moment the fight gets into full swing, another 2 guys will appear to take knife boy's side.

Who's more likely to get badly hurt from this encounter? The boxer keeping his distance and staying on his feet? Or the wrestler who goes into grappling range without immediately disabling his opponent's body weapons, thinking he can take a few good punches while trying to choke out his opponent, not knowing he's about to become good friends with the pointy end of a steel blade? Even if he prevents his opponent from drawing his knife, can he survive being stomped on by two new foes? And even if he wins, he gets to take home lots of glass shards as souvenirs.

Let's say that tomorrow, a Ninjado fellow joins the UFC. He has really fast and strong legs, and nobody can take him down. He wins all his fights. Does this now mean that Ninjado is teh uber martial art? Or does it mean that this *one* guy is better than the rest, and would likely have won whether his fighting style was Ninjado or ballet?

Ok, let's say that a bunch of 400lb monsters all take up ballet for 3 months now, and then they all enter the UFC. They win all their fights against non-ballet people. So we can conclude that ballet is the Most Deadly Martial Art in human history? After all, 3 months of ballet > years of Boxing and BJJ, right? Clearly, such a conclusion would be naive, to say the least.

The only thing a UFC fight proves is that one individual can beat another individual under some circumstances.

By the way, as an aside, I read in another post of yours that western boxing is a skill-based martial art and isn't just about brute force. I absolutely agree with you. Jack Dempsey's methods of fajin, for instance, are really something.
http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/box/dempseycfbook.html

I've never done boxing, BJJ, Ninjado or ballet before, by the way. I'm neither pro-boxing nor anti-grappling.

Edit: Added in the word 'would' in '...can we conclude that Ali or Dempsey in their prime would have also lost...' because I missed it out in the original submission.

Actually, it is not provable. Most encompassing claims can only be falsified, not proven.

For instance, we can test the claim that "crows are always black" by looking at all the crows we can get our hands on. If we have looked at a goodly number of crows and indeed all of them are black, then we have supported our claim.

However, we have not proven it, because there may be some crow out there that is not black. The single exception disproves the claim, so the only way to prove this is to look at *each and every* crow there is in existence. Actually, that's still not enough, because our original claim is not time-limited. Therefore, we would never be able to prove the claim without being omniscient, because some crow somewhere some day may not be black.

The black swan theory. I'm familiar with it. But now, let's be practical. If every single crow you've seen is black, and I made a bet with you to guess the colour of the next crow we'll see.

Will you put your money and say it's a white crow?

This can be translated into fighting and self-defense. If every fight between a kungfu/akido/TKD/etc. guy against an MMA fighter has been a beatdown for the kungfu/akido/TKD guy, will you still go train in that art?

Problems:
1. Are the ones identified as the best truly the best?

The best were invited to fight. They declined. In his prime, Tyson was personally invited to a fight by Rorion Gracie. Tyson never replied. I don't blame him, he was making millions, why risk it to fight a relative unknown?

The UFC is open to anyone good enough to compete. As long as you can get past the preliminaries, you can fight.

2. Are the best in the various arts today true representatives of their arts? That is, are they the best there can ever be?

Why do they have to be the best they can ever be? Doesn't this same standard apply to the MMA fighter? Not every MMA fighter that enters the cage is the best nor is he the best anyone ever can be.

3. No matter how minimal the rules are, there are rules. Do these rules disadvantage some more than others? Do they give advantages to some?

A usual ploy used by those who will not compete. But I'll humour the question.
What are the rules in question? No eye gouging? No groin strikes? No fish-hooking?

These rules are there to protect the sportsmen entering the cage to fight. Nobody wants to do a sport and end up dead.

The only rules in the initial UFC were no eye-gouging. I think that was all. Yet I still see the same people dominating the field. And the same people getting the beat down.

Let me ask this. If eye-gouging and groin strikes were removed from your repetoire, does that then make an entire martial art useless? That kinda sucks doesn't it, if your entire syllabus focused only on eye-gouges and groin strikes?

And an eye-gouge in mechanics is really no different then a punch. If you can't punch my face (big target), it's unlikely you'll get my eyes (small area).

5. Is there ecological validity? That is, would these results carry over to 'real life'?

For instance, Western boxers tend to lose to BJJ people in the UFC, right?

1. Are the boxers in these fights the best in the world? What about the BJJ people? It's hardly fair pitting C students against lecturers.

Again, it can't be helped if the lecturers were smart and refused to take part, isn't it?

2. Let's say we get the best boxer today into the UFC. Is he the best there ever was? Even if he loses to a particular BJJ fighter, can we conclude that Ali or Dempsey in their prime would have also lost too? The answer is that we cannot.

Again, a strawman argument. Why does it have to be the best boxer against a mediocre MMA fighter? The MMA/BJJ fighter is also not the best in all time. Do you see why this argument is irrelevant? Maeda is dead. Helio is old and frail.

And what does putting Jack Dempsey or Ali to the test do? You're never going to be them, and that's what you want when you train, to protect yourself.

Let's look at sport versus real life now. What happens when you transfer our two fighters from the UFC ring to a bar? This bar has stools all over the place, and broken glass all over the floor.

LOL! And lava too! I've never been to a bar with glass all over the floor, have you?

Ok, I've seen this argument so many times its not funny.

Fact: When you get into a fight with a grappler, it's you who's going to end up on the bottom, not the grappler. So glass, lava, razors, stale pizzas is going to hurt you more than the grappler.

Each of them is separately accosted by a fellow with a hidden knife. The moment the fight gets into full swing, another 2 guys will appear to take knife boy's side.

So why can't another 2 BJJ guys with guns appear and take the grapplers side? Or M16s and bazookas? Why does the grappler always have to be unarmed and outnumbered and out weaponed but the other guy does not face the same? See where this argument is going?

Who's more likely to get badly hurt from this encounter? The boxer keeping his distance and staying on his feet? Or the wrestler who goes into grappling range without immediately disabling his opponent's body weapons, thinking he can take a few good punches while trying to choke out his opponent, not knowing he's about to become good friends with the pointy end of a steel blade?

Do you go everywhere with a knife on you? I don't want to be your friend.

I don't advocate going to the ground in a street fight. The skills are there so you can get up if you were taken there. We don't choose where we want in a fight, it's a dynamic, harsh situation, we deal with what's thrown at us. BJJ just gives one the skills to handle situations on the ground. It's not the be all and end all of martial arts.

Personally I prefer to be well-versed in stand-up, ground and weapons.

But just to play along, you're assuming the grappler won't charge you, lift you and slam you on the back of your neck. Your knives are not going to be much help in this situation.

Even if he prevents his opponent from drawing his knife, can he survive being stomped on by two new foes? And even if he wins, he gets to take home lots of glass shards as souvenirs.

See, again the friends, buddies, knives and glass shards are always presents for the grappler, and never the other way around.

Let's say that tomorrow, a Ninjado fellow joins the UFC. He has really fast and strong legs, and nobody can take him down. He wins all his fights. Does this now mean that Ninjado is teh uber martial art? Or does it mean that this *one* guy is better than the rest, and would likely have won whether his fighting style was Ninjado or ballet?

Until this unlikely event happens (I won't hold my breathe) it's pointless arguing this.

Ok, let's say that a bunch of 400lb monsters all take up ballet for 3 months now, and then they all enter the UFC. They win all their fights against non-ballet people. So we can conclude that ballet is the Most Deadly Martial Art in human history? After all, 3 months of ballet > years of Boxing and BJJ, right? Clearly, such a conclusion would be naive, to say the least.

You do know there's such a thing called the weight category, yes? If you're a 400lbs tutu wearing monster, you're going to be facing a 400lbs muscled monster who has monster cardio, monster punches and monster kicks. Plus monster takedowns and monster chokes to boot.

HINT: No ballet fighter has yet to win the UFC. Does that tell you something?

I like you, at least you're intelligent. Peace.

Kung Fu ant?

Hi again, NoRiceBoys. Thanks for taking the time to write back. Here are some thoughts I have on your reply.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
The black swan theory. I'm familiar with it. But now, let's be practical. If every single crow you've seen is black, and I made a bet with you to guess the colour of the next crow we'll see.

Will you put your money and say it's a white crow?

I'd be pretty dumb to bet on white, of course. That said, inductive support is still not deductive proof, which was my point here to begin with.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
The best were invited to fight. They declined. In his prime, Tyson was personally invited to a fight by Rorion Gracie. Tyson never replied. I don't blame him, he was making millions, why risk it to fight a relative unknown?

That still means that the best boxers in the UFC aren't the best in the world, possibly by a long shot.

On the other hand, didn't the Gracies invent BJJ? I would imagine they're at the top of their game.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Why do they have to be the best they can ever be? Doesn't this same standard apply to the MMA fighter? Not every MMA fighter that enters the cage is the best nor is he the best anyone ever can be.

Of course the standard applies to everyone. Since it cannot be met, a UFC contest only proves that one man beat up another man. It does not prove that one art is superior to another art. Again, this was my point in the first place.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
A usual ploy used by those who will not compete. But I'll humour the question.
What are the rules in question? No eye gouging? No groin strikes? No fish-hooking?

These rules are there to protect the sportsmen entering the cage to fight. Nobody wants to do a sport and end up dead.

Dying would be quite a downer, wouldn't it?

The rules I was talking about include things like the fighting environment. A cage with a flat, clear floor in the case of the UFC, and a square ring in the case of K1. Would the usual suspects fare as well on a flight of steps, for instance? That said, I would imagine that if matches were played out on a greasy surface the groundfighters would win even more easily than they do now.

Another rule would be the one-on-one, bare-handed, refereed nature of the fights. Effective self-defence calls for the ability to defend oneself from multiple armed opponents with no safety net. A good cage fighter may not actually be a good street fighter. Of course, this doesn't mean that a bad cage fighter would automatically do well on the streets.

What's fish-hooking, by the way? I'm guessing it's sticking fingers inside someone's mouth and yanking at the flesh.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Again, it can't be helped if the lecturers were smart and refused to take part, isn't it?

Yep. However, this does cast quite a shadow on the "UFC fights have proved..." statements.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Again, a strawman argument. Why does it have to be the best boxer against a mediocre MMA fighter? The MMA/BJJ fighter is also not the best in all time. Do you see why this argument is irrelevant? Maeda is dead. Helio is old and frail.

And what does putting Jack Dempsey or Ali to the test do? You're never going to be them, and that's what you want when you train, to protect yourself.

Actually, that's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's position with an easily refutable one and then tear that down.

Your statement was "MMA fights have proven which martial arts are the best". All my responses were directed at the fallacy of that statement, and I have not at any point pretended that your position was anything else.

If anything, your response here was the strawman argument. That part of my post you were responding to there was one reason I gave why results from the UFC et al do not prove your statement: that the different martial arts were not evenly represented. Whether or not Maeda is alive, Helio is young, and I am Dempsey does not make my reason less cogent.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
Fact: When you get into a fight with a grappler, it's you who's going to end up on the bottom, not the grappler. So glass, lava, razors, stale pizzas is going to hurt you more than the grappler.

It's the stale pizzas I fear most, of course!

I concede your point here: when two fighters clinch, the one who knows how to grapple is more likely to be able to control the fall.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
So why can't another 2 BJJ guys with guns appear and take the grapplers side? Or M16s and bazookas? Why does the grappler always have to be unarmed and outnumbered and out weaponed but the other guy does not face the same? See where this argument is going?

Because in both versions of my story, the outnumbered person was the martial artist. If two BJJ guys with guns get to come in to save their BJJ friend, then I demand that they come in to save the boxer too!

You've kind of missed the point here, really: Ending up on the floor is not a good idea unless you're the one with all the friends.

Edit: Oops. I got longwinded and the post wouldn't show properly. Have cut it into two chunks.

And the post goes on:

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
I don't advocate going to the ground in a street fight. The skills are there so you can get up if you were taken there. We don't choose where we want in a fight, it's a dynamic, harsh situation, we deal with what's thrown at us. BJJ just gives one the skills to handle situations on the ground. It's not the be all and end all of martial arts.

Personally I prefer to be well-versed in stand-up, ground and weapons.

Absolutely yes! It's silly for someone to handicap himself by refusing to learn a certain aspect of fighting on principle. Remember, my argument was never that BJJ/groundfighting is useless; it was that the UFCs haven't proven anything.

Actually, do I sense support for my arguments here? If you would not willingly go to ground in a real fight, and most UFC fights are concluded on the ground, then UFC fights are not representative of real combat. Maybe there is no choice but to go to ground, in which case you would be wiser to take a real fight to the ground quickly to end it, wouldn't you? But that latter scenario would contradict your advice...

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
But just to play along, you're assuming the grappler won't charge you, lift you and slam you on the back of your neck. Your knives are not going to be much help in this situation.

Yes, my knives would be useless here, because I like to stand still to get charged, lifted and slammed onto the back of my neck.

Seriously, don't you think it's silly to argue that, all else being equal, an unarmed martial artist would have the advantage against an armed one?

What I was saying was that the tactics of the modern grappler put him in danger much more than the moves of a good striker in a real situation. Of course, in a serious self-defence situation, both the grappler and the striker are probably going to get it real bad. Nobody ever picks a fight he doesn't believe he can win, and someone who starts something with you almost certainly has backup you can't see.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
See, again the friends, buddies, knives and glass shards are always presents for the grappler, and never the other way around.

Actually, they are there against both the grappler and the boxer. Read what I wrote again, if you please.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
You do know there's such a thing called the weight category, yes? If you're a 400lbs tutu wearing monster, you're going to be facing a 400lbs muscled monster who has monster cardio, monster punches and monster kicks. Plus monster takedowns and monster chokes to boot.

Not all the UFCs had weight classes.

Also, even now, the highest weight class (Super Heavyweight) is 265lb+ with no upper limit.

Originally posted by NoRiceBoys:
HINT: No ballet fighter has yet to win the UFC. Does that tell you something?

It tells me that the right ballet fighter hasn't yet entered the UFC.

Summary
I agree that if you watch 100 fights and in all 100 the Muay Thai + BJJ guys beat up everyone else, that suggests that Muay Thai + BJJ is a very effective combo in the ring. It's probably plenty effective outside the ring as well, and I'd be stupid to not give these fighters respect.

However, there is a logical problem with claiming that this (or any other) combo has been proven to be "the best", because these are fights between individuals and not between martial arts styles. Also, what works most well in one environment (e.g. the ring) may not work well at all in another (e.g. the streets, a bar, a swimming pool, etc.). Hence, "the best" is a title that is very much environment/rule-dependent.

Another important issue is that the different martial arts are very differently represented. While the Muay Thai and BJJ fighters in the UFC tend to show some modicum of skill, the Taekwondo, Wing Chun and Ballet crowd tends to be clumsy and poorly trained. Sometimes, a Wing Chun (or whatever) guy wins a match, but he does so using MMA tactics - this suggests that either Wing Chun (for instance) is so completely useless that even their best fighters have to resort to MMA moves, or that the Wing Chun representatives don't actually know any real Wing Chun.

For once, I'd like to see someone employing real Wing Chun in one of these tournaments - only then could we learn a little something about the relative merits of Wing Chun and BJJ, or Wing Chun and Muay Thai - while taking into account the fighters' individual style-independent strengths and weaknesses, of course.

Lastly, one reason why fights in the UFC almost always go to the ground (is this correct?) is because UFC fighters generally punch like pussies. Actually, just about everyone today punches like a sissy, including most boxers. And don't even get me started on the kickers. What's happened to the expert boxers and kickers of 50-100 years ago?

Disclaimer: I do not do Wing Chun either. I used to do Taekwondo years and years ago, but modern Taekwondo is a joke.

By the way, NRB, are you based in Singapore? I get the sense you are fairly knowledgeable about groundfighting, and I sure wouldn't mind learning something about it from you if I get the chance. That is not a veiled challenge, by the way; I know nuts about groundfighting. I promise to leave my knife, assault rifle and yo-yo at home.

Edit: Changed "p-u-s-s-y" to "sissy" because the board's swear filter doesn't like cats.

CHUCK NORRIS PWNS THEM ALL!

RHK=BEST MOVE IN THE UNIVERSE

Anybody here interested in sharing there martial arts skills, knowledge and practising it? I would like to have sessions with you guys and gals. Learning from each other will be cool.

PM me if interested.

I wouldn’t mind if it’s a sharing session. Don’t turn it ugly. sgForums won’t be responsible for any funny things that go behind the scenes.