OT--Martial Arts

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Andrew, may I request a clarification, please?

In your post #100 you tell us that MMA has made the mixing of a number of styles of martial arts "de rigueur".

I am not a martial artist, in fact for a long time I've been a firm believer in the wisdom of Sun Tsu, however I did have a little involvement in some physical combat during my misspent youth, and this has resulted in an ongoing interest in martial arts in general.

It is my understanding that perhaps the most effective art overall is BJJ, with the best foundation for MMA being traditional wrestling --- I won't nominate a particular style, but I feel that possibly greco-roman might be the most effective base, simply because of its artificial restraints, which militate a chess-like approach to competition.

You clearly have a far greater knowledge in this area than do I, as well as the benefit of being an active participant, so do you think you could explain for me how multi skilling in a variety of arts contributes to success in MMA?

I do follow this spasmodically, and from what I can see it is mostly wrestlers with a few added in BJJ skills who have dominated overall, except for the early years when it was all BJJ.

But I do not have your knowledge nor your experience, so perhaps I'm wrong.

This is well and truly off-topic, so if you wish respond privately, or direct me to a website, I'm fine with that.

Thanks, Alan.

Continuing the discussion started here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...701#post148701

Alan:

Like so many "non-traditional" martial arts, what we now call "Mixed Martial Arts" has morphed many times since the Gracies introduced BJJ to the world at UFC1.

Personally, I agree with your analysis that wrestlers have the best base for modern MMA. This is, in my opinion, due primarily to the combination of superior conditioning, strength and techniques obtained through wrestling's grueling training regimen. However, as we saw in those early UFC tournaments, while high level wrestlers were able to compete with BJJ stylists, it wasn't until the wrestlers learned to finish (with strikes and submissions) that they began to dominate MMA competition.

While some fighters rely heavily on their base art and are known as "submission specialists" or "strikers", the reality is that success in MMA today requires the ability to employ advanced grappling, striking, take-downs (and take-down defense) and submissions.

Today's elite MMA competitors usually employ:

a. Wrestling take downs/grappling;
b. BJJ "guard" and submissions;
c. Muay Thai elbows, knees and kicks;
d. Western boxing punches.

Often, you will see a fighter with years of (wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, MT, Karate, Judo, etc.) competition decide to compete in MMA. Those guys will, regardless of their base art, go from school to school training in the individual disciplines. In recent years, schools and camps have sprung up where an integrated system of MMA is being taught and most competitive fighters now train in this fashion.

I have long been of the opinion that there generally isn't a "best" martial art. Most practitioners of striking arts, if they train sufficiently long and hard, will become good strikers, etc. Modern MMA in general (and BJJ in particular) has, however, directed a much-needed spotlight on the shortcomings of traditional martial arts insofar as combat is concerned.

Back to your original inquiry--my comment was really not accurate. Bouncing from traditional art to traditional art really nets one very little if insufficient time is spent to progress past the basics. Cross training can be intellectually and physically rewarding, but it will not often make one a great fighter. Training in a style that selects the effective techniques from multiple sources and discards the ineffective, however, will. Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do is often considered by many to be the first true "MMA", and he stressed this exact point.

Best,
Andrew

[fearn]

I agree that there's no best martial art. Moreover, in the purest sense, mixed martial arts as currently practiced are a sport, and are only very partial martial arts. It's too bad we can't call it modern pankration, because that's what it is.

These days, the best martial art (and it is truly mixed) is probably practiced by SEAL Team 6 and their special forces brethren around the world. They use it for killing people on the battlefield, and that's what truly martial arts are for. I point to the SEALs only because they seem to be pretty effective at what they do, though they're enormously expensive on a per-warrior basis.

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.

Best,

F

[spiral]

Originally Posted by fearn

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.
F

As Kipling said in one verse of Arithmetic on the Frontier..

A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride

Spiral

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by fearn

I agree that there's no best martial art. Moreover, in the purest sense, mixed martial arts as currently practiced are a sport, and are only very partial martial arts. It's too bad we can't call it modern pankration, because that's what it is.

These days, the best martial art (and it is truly mixed) is probably practiced by SEAL Team 6 and their special forces brethren around the world. They use it for killing people on the battlefield, and that's what truly martial arts are for. I point to the SEALs only because they seem to be pretty effective at what they do, though they're enormously expensive on a per-warrior basis.

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.

Best,

F

That's like saying the only "real" auto racing is F1.

I would agree only if you define "true" martial arts as those techniques actually employed to kill, maim and injure the opponents. However, in a civilized society, we cannot kill, maim or injure our training partners and opponents. The only way to effectively practice these things is to stop short of the ultimate intended result...

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Being a walking stick user these days the W.E. Fairbairn school of 'dirty tricks' is perfectly adequate for my purposes but having seen the attached I may switch allegiances.
Regards,
Norman.

[kronckew]

talk softly and carry a big stick. - teddy roosevelt

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Andrew.

Alan.

[Spunjer]

Nice to meet a fellow bjj practioner

[fearn]

Originally Posted by Andrew

That's like saying the only "real" auto racing is F1.

I would agree only if you define "true" martial arts as those techniques actually employed to kill, maim and injure the opponents. However, in a civilized society, we cannot kill, maim or injure our training partners and opponents. The only way to effectively practice these things is to stop short of the ultimate intended result...

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

[Lew]

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

[Battara]

As a martial artist I am a real cut up?

Uh.......Filipino martial arts also use bladed weaponry?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Lew

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

I agree with Lew .
Also I believe the discussion was originally oriented to Civilian/Competitive MMA; not Military; so let's stay on that level if we continue at all .

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

Nice to meet a fellow bjj practioner

I don't really claim to be a BJJ practitioner, Ron. I roll about 2x/month with a couple Gracie purple belts--hardly high level instruction, and my jits is rudimentary, for sure.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by fearn

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

Ah. Now I understand your point. It's a matter of degrees, I suppose. (No pun intended).

In deference to my fellow staff members and the subject matter of this forum, however, I'm going to close this thread.

I'm happy to continue the discussion via email or PM.