Which version of "MMA" has the least rules ?

I think he was asking for evidence of Kung Fu being practiced in a full-contact situation, which is why I posted the Lei Tai / Kuoshu results above.

Then again, one could argue the opposite by citing the outcome of the 1960's Kung Fu vs. Muay Thai matches...

 

If you're practicing how to fight with a fork and that is all that everyone knows, it's quite probable that you'll get quite sick pressure testing with fork against fork. Except when someone brings a 2 machetes and arnis training to the table you're ****ed.

Pressure test bad fighting system against bad fighting system and you'll get refined bad fighting system.
Pit fighting systems around the world against other fighting systems and you'll get one that is more practical than the other.
Paraphrasing Bruce Lees quote "There's no bad system, there's only bad practicioners"(something to that accord) is not valid. Some martial arts are better suited for human physiology and are simply easier to learn.
Watch the videos you posted, it's horrible. My goodness, it's a highschool brawl. They're using 1/100th of potential force in every single technique that they have attempted. It's like two humans trying to mimic cats. Watch boxing and you'll see fluid transfer of force. Watch wrestling and you'll see incredible center of balance. You'll see great footwork in both of those. But these guys lack all of that.

I'm now more convinced that this blind faith in practicality of kung fu in battlefield is completely ungrounded. All of these kung fu techniques inevitably bring you into a clinch or the ground, and it seems to be a quite frequent accuracy. From there, their lack of basic understanding of center of balance puts them in trouble.

I wrote this earlier but decided not to post. To me it seems quite clear that there's underlining grounds that practical combat systems share, I think it's possible to out line it.
For example, great center of balance on your feet regardless of force that is applied against you. Mui Thai, boxing, wrestling, all have that. Commitment moves use largest and strongest combination of muscle for maximum speed and strength: boxing power punches use all your muscles from feet to forearms, wrestling takedowns use both legs, both your arms etc, Mui Thai Kicks, use both legs, lateral twist and arms for maximum force. The offensive techniques must be able to be used in continuous, repetitive manner while maintaining force of the punches and center of balance OR they must gain an advantage in positioning and control. The defensive techniques must reduce the damage and impact force to a minimum while maintaining center of balance OR they must regain equality of positioning and control. Dominant positioning is where you have more control of center of balance(i.e side mount in BJJ, on the other hand guard is even) or where you are able to generate more force than your opponent while maintaining center of balance. At no point should a technique put you into a dominated position unless the pay out was likely a victory.


I know you love poking holes in everything, thats your thing. How about this time while poking holes actually fill them in with something constructive? This way we can outline what are the grounds for good combat system :good

 

Only a closet case could look at a picture of two athletes fighting and becoming aroused by it.

You thinking fighting is gay is a you problem, the educated world recognizes it for what it is, fighting.

 

The problem is, none of the guys who claim to be able to "eye guage" their way out of submissions, bite their way out of armbars, or whatever else "secret trick" they plan on using have any idea what they are doing.

It just doesn't work; like that video illustrates, going for something like an eye guoge is just going to set you up easier; one of the first things drilled in BJJ classes is the set up for an Americana from mount while the guy is trying to gouge your eyes.

So on one hand you have guys who drill thousands of hours working on actually protecting against such things as eye guages, and on the other you have a bunch of fat middle aged divorcees who have never actually performed the move they claim will work.


This isn't ancient China, what worked there worked because of situations such as body armor, swords, things of that nature; things that you will not encounter in a street fight today. There are obviously knives and guns, but nothing other than getting away or having one yourself will protect from that.


For you to say that MMA matches are no more realistic a basis for judging whats effective is garbage; take a look at Rio Heros or any other pure Vale Tudo competition, on the fight the more technical strikers get the best of it, while working takedowns the more technical wrestler/judoka gets the best of it, and on the ground the more technical grappler gets the best of it.


Dirty tricks work both ways, the difference is the more technical fighter actually has other tools in addition to them, and he will be in a more powerful position to execute the dirty stuff if he so chooses.

Spare me the "oh but super secret kung fu masters are so great at eye gouging" bull****, and it is bull****, because how many ****ing eyes have they actually ripped out? None.

You get good at something by doing it, not by thinking you will be able to do it when you want. You fall to the level of your real world training, never raise to your expectations.

 

I understand him. He's a dumbass. Some people are, but why the **** are YOU responding to him. AT ALL? You see a clearly dumbass post, just ****ing ignore it, instead of flooding a discussion.

 

From smart people it will be "no, thats a famous greek statue representing fighting" they will realize that athletes competed in the nude, and take that into consideration. They might even be amazed at the level of work by the sculptor, thats how smart people think.

People like you, with no education, shitty jobs, a thinly disguised homosexual lifestyle, and a penchant for sucking **** will go "yea dude, thats totally gay" while jerking off. Thats how uneducated gay people think.

 

Except that in this case, everybody in the world is equipped with the same metaphorical fork. Same arms, legs, whatever.

And ultimately, a better fighting system. That is the point of refinement, is it not? :think

True, but I don't see why the same couldn't occur within the same region. More difficult due to rules changes, parochialism, etc...but still.

Agreed.

My argument isn't "it's the practitioner, not the system". More along the lines of "systems change quickly when tested because practitioners aren't stupid".

So:

Modern Shaolin monk = bad
Top 19th century participant in the Boxer Rebellion = good(ish)


Not because the second guy's tougher, but because he's probably pressure-tested his stuff and modified it accordingly.

(Unfortunately, the latter got pumped full of lead by Europeans well versed in repeater-fu).

I should have mentioned that some of the participants in the 1986 tournament weren't very experienced with full-contact rules. More or less exactly what we're criticizing here.

Kickboxers and boxers also get into clinches quite a bit, though.

More importantly, most of the guys post-1986 had some background in shuai-jiao, which has many (most, really) of the same throws as Judo except without a gi.

I agree with all of the above in a general sense. Yes, good mechanics are VITAL to combat sports. But I think that there are many different potential mixtures that would look relatively different in the ring and yet still be equally effective.

Take Muay Thai, for instance. Aside from the teep and roundhouse, its usual repertoire of kicks is pretty narrow. It certainly doesn't have the side kick, which can be a pretty nasty weapon in the hands of a good Sanda guy--and which produces a more side-on stance. Unfortunately, the Thais and the Chinese haven't ironed out their differences by putting their absolute best guys against one another in a neutral ruleset...and probably never will. I don't think it matters much, since both styles are clearly effective enough.

Boxing is another example. Technically, the most powerful punch from a mechanical perspective would probably look something like throwing a shot put. Within a generally accepted framework of using leverage, though, there are a lot of different approaches. It's not just about avoiding obvious vulnerabilities and maximizing mechanical efficiency, but about making tradeoffs between a really wide array of options. It gets even weirder when you start looking back in time. I assume you think that 19th century boxing was street-effective. If so, how do you objectively compare the narrow fencing stance, with its heavier left lead, weaker straight right, and lack of hook punches with modern boxing's heavier hooks, heavier straight right, and lighter, faster jab? Put 'em in a UFC ring (and tell the 19th century guy that he's not allowed to throw his opponent) and you'd see an advantage to the 19th century guy, but it wouldn't be enormous, and certainly not enough to label modern boxing as useless.

Just trying to help you refine your thinking. It's far more interesting to see how you fill the holes I poke.

That being said...

My baseline criteria for an effective hand-to-hand, weaponless fighting system are as follows:

* It must be trainable in a resistant setting (so long, groin punches!)
* It must have proved itself effective under some set of full-contact rules, and DEVELOPED within that framework, for a long period of time--at least 15 years.

"But wait!" you cry. "The much-ridiculed system of Tae Kwon Do fits into that framework! Surely, you jest, CT!"

Well, that's why I'd add a third criterion:

* Its number of restrictions closely mirror the environment you'll be facing in violent confrontations in your daily life.

Taking modern (2009 )Kuoshu/Lei Tai as an example, its rules are fairly permissive (throws, kicks, punches), it's been in existence for 20+ years, and it's trained in a resistant setting. I would expect its practitioners to perform reasonably well. As for the best, though...


...We're left with MMA as the best contender. In its current blend (or the blend that it'll acquire in another 20 years), it's roughly as effective as you'll get.



But there are a few issues I have with this:

* It's not the only possible blend. If Barton-Wright had been more successful in the early 20th century, we might think of a blend of Savate, Cumberland-Westmoreland wrestling, 19th century boxing, Schwingen, and Tenshin-Shinyo Ryu jiujitsu when we think "MMA"...obviously, somewhat changed from the original arts, but still pretty different-looking from what we see from St. Pierre and company. It would be roughly as effective, though.

* The fact that there's a "best" art (or group of arts) for a particular ruleset doesn't preclude the possibility that other, relatively decent arts also exist. I'd pick top Kyokushin guys--using the art in roughly the same way that they do in their no-head-punches ruleset--against most journeyman level kickboxers and possibly more than that. There's a wide gulf between Kung Fu being suboptimal (and most styles probably are) and being abysmally useless.





As far as I'm concerned, if people are regularly competing full-contact, we should give them the benefit of the doubt when they say that their stuff works (or ask somebody who we know to be a good fighter to get in the ring with them and find out for sure).

 

This pretty much outlines the whole debate. There are martial arts that will work considering some settings. The point is, if we are to conclude which is suited best for one's life time in hand-to-hand combat, I think it's a safe bet to practice boxing, mui thai, wrestling and BJJ in the way most MMA fighters do. It is tested in real life situation. It can work in almost any conceivable environment.
The point is those martial arts arn't best by themselves, nor all the techniques are applicable. Perfect example would be boxings stance in a kickboxing match. Or pinning any pinning moves from wrestling. It's these martial arts that have the biggest range of usable techniques. I think that is the beauty of MMA because it's basically picking apart all of the worlds best techniques and applying them for the best practical purposes. As it stands right now, the aforementioned martial arts are most applicable for nitpicking useful techniques. Kyokushin is good for some kick techniques as I recall, but is it better to study kyokushin over dutch kickboxing or mui thai when those have more brutal and more useful hand, elbow, and knee strikes? I dont think so. At least not from what Ive seen thus far.
If kung fu has an applicable technique that will be easily learned and adapted, great, bring it to mma and mix it up. Let's see it. Like you said, "systems change quickly when tested because practitioners aren't stupid", MMA is THE system of all system. It welcomes biggest variety of martial arts to be tested because it has the least rules for practical combat. So this combat sport has evolved fascinatingly fast, because it was clear which techniques worked in simplest and most common of environments.

 

Pretty much, yeah, except that I would replace "practice BJJ, wrestling, and Muay Thai the way MMA fighters do" with "practice striking, grappling, and takedowns the way MMA fighters do", since that's what it's going to turn into eventually.

If this is the case, then the best "system" we can develop with current technology would be one that would emerge from early-UFC style competitions in 20 years or so--if we segregated Rio Heroes from the rest of the fight game, for instance. Like you, I would argue that wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ are also rather suboptimal for MMA compared to the hypothetical "style(s) of the future" that we'll see developing after Fedor and company retire and start training fighters and then THOSE fighters retire. We're close, but no cigar yet.

But...

Just because that hypothetical perfect style is better than Kung Fu styles does not mean that Kung Fu is useless, any more than it means that boxing/BJJ/MT/wrestling are useless. Boxers, wrestlers, BJJ guys, and others will still be able to beat some comparable-level MMA guys in street fights from time to time in the distant, glittering future.

On a more personal note, if you're doing a lot of striking training at the moment you could always find out about kung fu's effectiveness firsthand by entering a local Kuoshu/Lei Tai competition. A couple do exist in North America. Not sure about their rules for novices and/or guys from other styles, though.

 

Firstly, "Kung Fu" is just the name given to Chinese martial arts, thousands of different techniques and styles. So, any wrestlers whooping up on Kung fu fighters in medieval China were using KUNG FU.
Kung Fu incorporates wrestling in its purest form, just as karate incorporates wrestling too.

I dont deny that kung fu is an art form, or that 95% of "kung fu practitioners" are learning NOTHING that can be used in a fight, but at the core of real kung fu is stuff that works in actual combat.

Winning UFC competitions doesn't prove much about the effectiveness of any system, except in their effectiveness to win UFC tournaments.
UFC isn't a real fight, so you cant even say all UFC athletes are REAL FIGHTERS.
In an anything goes match, no weapons at hand, to the finish, no referee, who's to say who would be the most formidable fighter ?
It's ridiculous to say you know a guy is ineffective because the stuff he practices is "kung fu" and you've never seen kung fu work in the UFC.

UFC is a sport, and a violent one, most people dont have any desire to prove themselves that way and many martial artists are not trying to "prove their system" or "defend the honour of their school/style" - that's something that is make-believe and from films. :deal

I'm not into make-believe anything, I just accept certain things as historical fact. And I've seen real fights (including real fights with combat athlete/skilled fighters involved) as well as sport, and I've seen people killed in serious fights too, I know what's real and I know the difference.

 

According to historians, all those ancient greeks were practicing homosexuals.
Perhaps athletics was practiced in the nude because they were all gay.

 

You're prejudice against kung fu is ridiculous. You talk about the idiots going to "kung fu classes" who cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and juxtapose them against serious BJJ practitioners.
I'm talking about people who train kung fu in its essential form, as a practical martial art, a fighting skill.
You clearly dont believe those people even exist, that's narrow-minded.

Ok, so you're talking about street fights now. I've seen a 10-year experienced 220-pound BJJ practitioner beaten up by a man who had no "combat sport" experience, because on the street that's what happens sometimes.
I've seen the same man (BJJ fighter) take a knife in his side, and carry on fighting, take the knife off the idiot who had the audacity to stab him, and break the idiot's fingers. These things actually happen on the streets. Neither scenario resembled anything like you'll see in UFC or hear advise about in a martial arts class.
The street is totally different. Knowing martial arts is better than not knowing, but not often major advantage at all.

Vale Tudo is as close as sport gets to real fighting, maybe.
But again, there are thousands of types of kung fu, and the authentic stuff all remains in China. There's no way of saying that the most effective kung fu men wouldn't know what to do in Vale Tudo.
Also, the assumption that all chinese martial artists never spar or test their skills is based on ignorance.

Yeah, I heard that before. Your talk of "the more technical fighter" shows your prejudice, you think technical can only mean what MMA fighters use ?
There's no such thing as dirty tricks, just illegal moves under a specific rule set.
Boxers cant kick because they dont practice kicking, because kicks are banned.
Kung fu practitioners practice ALL techniques - striking, wrestling, grappling and every "dirty trick" you can think of, plus weaponry.

I dont know about "super secret kung fu masters". I dont know who's gouged eyes and who hasn't.
Why dont you spare me the "MMA fighters have proven their effectiveness in real situations" stuff then ? Some of these guys have proven themselves on the street or in the battlefield, but most haven't. And believe me, when they do fight on the street it does not resemble what they might do or get away with in MMA.

I agree with that. That's why there are several dangerous individuals on the streets who have never done any martial arts and could hold their own against any combat athlete or martial artist.

 

Pretty much sums up your intelligence level.

Go back to watching men in orange robes dance and thinking then could eye gouge their way out of a fight, I have no time for you.

 

No, the stuff you are thinking of does not exist in China, it never really did. Things like Shaolin monks are trained in what equates to dancing for tourists. They are paid performers, they have never fought, never will fight, and have no intention to learn how to fight. They are there to scam people like you who instead of actually learning to fight believe that they can just eye gouge and nutshot their way to saftey.

What does exist are some very highly skilled San Shou/San Da fighters, that is the where the real martial art talent in China lies.

So if by "real kung fu" you mean the national sport of San Da, then yes, absolutely; if you mean a bunch of secretive monks who live in seclusion and practice secret ways of killing with super street only moves that are "too deadly for sport" you are buying into the myth they sell to tourists woh have seen far too many movies.

The sports program in China is great, they produce some of the worlds best athletes with some of the worlds best and most modern training methods; in terms of Kung fu they have turned to San Sho/San Da, no this robed monk bull**** that never existed anywhere outside of the minds of stupid western tourists they could make a buck off of.

 

This is what I don't get about you, beebs. Everything you say about the weakness in Kung Fu is exactly what Bruce Lee said in the 60's. He used to clearly tell his students that anyone with proper training in boxing and wrestling would beat the **** out of your average kung fu practitioner or karate black belt. Lee was so far ahead of his times that he basically set the model for what could be seen a mixed martial arts training -way back in 1965. He encouraged cross training in wrestling, boxing, jujitsu, proper diet, nutrition, and condition.

Half the stuff you say comes straight from Lee's textbook Tao of Jeet Kune Do - yet instead of recognizing this fact - you take every chance you can to bad mouth him.

I would like to know why? Is it because he never fought under sanctioned rules regulated matches?