Which version of "MMA" has the least rules ?

Then there will be very few fights. Too many people will be walking without eyes.

 

Yes, there will be a lot of limping, one-eyed guys that will never pick another fight with a stranger for the rest of their lives.

 

It was called pankration. Pancreas is what hurts when you are punched in the belly.

 

LOL on that!

And Pancrase is the Japanese "hybrid-wrestling" version of MMA which disallowed strikes with a closed fist or elbow - yet allowed knees in the clinch and a full range of kicks.

 

It's already been pointed out and confirmed. Read the forums.

 

I almost made david carradine my childhood hero..:rofl

 

They are part and parcel of REAL LIFE-AND-DEATH FIGHTING. If you can gouge an eye out in a fight, that greatly increases your chances of surviving. If you can gouge two out, you're probably home and dry.

Kung Fu must have worked back in the day, although obviously the emphasis was on weapons fighting. But even without weapons it was designed and TESTED in war situations.

MMA is just a sport, even Vale Tudo.

 

One complication:

A lot of the weapons-based systems ALSO have unarmed components (Medieval knightly grappling, early jiujitsu, 19th century singlestick/boxing/quarterstaff/fencing combo, etc.) that are designed to closely mirror the movements in the "armed" part of the system. Unfortunately, this means that they're not optimized for unarmed combat.

So how do we evaluate a system that produces a better fighter overall (he can kill his opponent with a wider variety of weapons, and is pretty decent unarmed) but leaves him inferior in a no-weapons situation to a specialist?

 

Yes, but how do you effectively practice them in live sparring?

 

Well at this point we're betting on situation. We have to map out rules to effectively evaluate a system's usefulness. Real life situation leaves it open to readers imagination. You can be the deadliest and most perfect warrior without a weapon or with variety of swords and nun-chucks w/e, give me AK47 and I will win against the guy.
Thats why I always point out that in an "unarmed" fight without foreign objects or obstacles, I think that safer bet will always be a guy who practices the combat arts that are often practiced for MMA.

 

The same argument, alas, can be made for boxing compared to MMA. What I'm getting at is how do we evaluate the usefulness of different systems designed for different sets of rules and different weapons?

 

Not really. That put's restriction on a person and not a situation. That's very different from putting a restriction on a environment and situation. Situational restriction would be something like neither fighter has a gun in his pocket or 5 friends to back him up. Environmental restriction would be something like "the fight isn't happening in a casket". Putting restriction on a person would be like you can't use anything but your fists to hit a person. Right now, MMA puts least restrictions out of all martial arts on a person with workable and acquired skills(i.e I don't consider eye gauging an acquired skill).

We put a restriction on environment that give no advantage to either system. I think an empty endless plane, is such an environment. Next we can categorize the weapons such as firearms, cold weapons, and unarmed. So, as the saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Imo this is fair.

 

Agreed on the eye gouging (at least until 100% accurate virtual reality programs). But there is one important overlap between the "environmental" and "situational" restrictions that you mention: both are largely outside of the individual's control. That is why I chose to consider them as a unit.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question: out of the numerous environments and situations that a normal person will face in his lifetime, which set of skills would ensure his survival in most of them?

Bear with me. Abstruse reasoning ahead:

For instance: "modern" MMA would be comparatively less useful over the course of an individual's lifetime if he lived in a society like, say, 1200's England, where everybody has knives and defensive systems need to be designed with that in mind. Yeah, he's better at beating people up on an open plane with no weapons, but that isn't very useful to him because a situation like that doesn't arise very frequently. To a lesser degree, differences like this pop up in different areas and cultures all the time. Heck, different weapon-concealment laws ALONE probably mandate this. Self-defense in Victorian England, where everybody was carrying a cane, was VERY different from self-defense in a modern American college. (Good luck explaining to the campus police why you just battered a guy to a pulp with a shillelagh...)

Reality abhors a "neutral" situation even more than it abhors a vacuum. A lot of this stuff is frustratingly context-dependent.

I generally agree.

Hypothetically, though, wouldn't you recommend that a guy who spends 95% of his life in very tight places spend most of his training time sparring in tight places?

I guess the other question is: Which set of weapons/unarmed skills should a person pursue for normal purposes?

 

This is the ultimate in failed logic.

The super kung fu guy can eye gouge all he wants, the problem is so can the MMA guy; the difference is one can actually fight besides that.

The better "sport" fighter is going to beat the eye gouger even worse, because he will be in more powerful positions to perform "dirty" moves.

Not only that but going for "dirty" moves leaves you vulnerable; reaching your arm down to my nuts leaves you with only one arm to defend yourself, which is either going to get used as part of an arm triangle variation, broken in an armbar, or simply sit there as I pound your face in.

Furthermore it isn't like BJJ isn't aware of these so called "anti-grappling" moves, it is constantly drilled into you to keep your eyes away from fingers, to not allow distance for headbutts.

There are actually a lot of set ups that come from the inevitable moves that people who can't grapple use (eye gouges, nut shots, biting, and headbutts), my favorite being the americana from mount when the person goes for your eyes, here is an example if what would happen if somebody tried for my eyes while I had them mounted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIn3nQbobtE

The guy puts his hand on the grapplers face, the grappler goes with a two hands on one arm grip, pushes it to the floor, looks away from the fingers, hooks up a figure four, and breaks the idiots arm.

 

Well that's my point. Here we still have environment as an adjustable restriction.

For tight spaces it will be martial arts that were studied and researched in tight places. Medieval times will be best for some type of knife fighting.

In essence this question:
"Which set of weapons/unarmed skills should a person pursue for normal purposes?"
Is flawed and cannot be answered without huge margin of error. "Normal is a very subjective word in today's world." If we consider being least likely arrested I still would go with MMA and a hand gun. These two will most likely be the two best options for most people's lifetimes. Places where they allow defending yourself with a knife they will allow guns as well.
Thus, going back to hierarchy of weapon availability
Gun(and krav maga or military Sambo) will be more useful in almost all situation for personal survival in today's society.
Clearly if guns are simply not available with I would go with Kombatan Arnis and MMA.
If neither is available I go with MMA.