Could Hapkido Be Used In MMA?

[Korpy]

I got the idea for this about the Pro-Hapkido thread. Well in today's MMA (PRIDE, UFC, ect) we have martial artists from any different arts. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai, ect. Well if a person trained in Hapkido and worked with an MMA coach, could a person do well in MMA with Hapkido?

Well all know Gary Goodridge, and how he has Kuk Sool Won experience.

So basically, could a person who trained in Hapkido do good in the world of MMA?

[firecoins]

Hapkido could be used if you mix it with another MA hence MMA.

[Timmy Boy]

Hapkido could be used if you mix it with another MA hence MMA.

No, you wouldn't have to. It's simply called MMA because usually you have to mix styles so that you've got all ranges covered. Since hapkido does anyway you shouldn't need to mix it with anything else in order to succeed in MMA unless you don't do proper sparring.

[Korpy]

No, you wouldn't have to. It's simply called MMA because usually you have to mix styles so that you've got all ranges covered. Since hapkido does anyway you shouldn't need to mix it with anything else in order to succeed in MMA unless you don't do proper sparring.

Very true Timmy Boy, cause Hapkido has throws, joint locks, striking, ect. Good point there.

I don't know if Hapkido was ever used successfully in an MMA bout.

[BSR]

In one of the early UFCs there was a Hapkido fighter. I don't think he did very well.

I believe small-joint locks are banned in UFC and Pride, thereby eliminating many of Hapkido's more effective techniques. Besides, Hapkido isn't meant to be a sport, and personally I'd rather not see it go in that direction.

[Thomas]

I think Hapkido could be a good base art, but the person would have to cross train and do lots of MMA style sparring (and get some MMA pointers and tips on the competition). I think if a person wanted primarily to participate in MMA matches, they would be better served by attending MMA schools for the most part. If a person just wanted "to try some MMA competition once or twice", I think it'd be okay.

[Alexander]

I've never seen groundwork in my style of Hapkido - that is probably a must if you want to enter MMA. Also you need to train MMA style - practising moves against someone compliant won't transfer that well to an MMA arena.

[blessed_samurai]

I've found Hapkido and MMA to work nicely together. MMA brought my Hapkido to a whole new level.

Keep in mind that there's so much technical work and timing involved in MMA matches that it's pretty much its own animal. The Hapkidoist would have to learn to work without certain techniques.

[LiaoRouxin]

Anything can be used in MMA, but to succeed in MMA you need to train in MMA. It's not a style vs. style thing anymore, and while the old school grapplers like Royce Gracie and Pancrase Ken Shamrock could dominate a fight by taking it to the ground, and pure strikers of world calibre quality like early Bas Rutten could end a fight in seconds with a powerful blow, times have changed. Royce Gracie stopped facing top-tier competition in MMA, Ken Shamrock became more reliant on his boxing, and Bas Rutten became a world class submission fighter. The legendary Judo player Yoshida developed strong boxing defense and a powerful kick.

Will Hapkido come in handy? Sure, anything can, especially if you can successfully use some unorthodox techniques to surpise your opponents. Look at Georges St. Pierre who has incorporated powerful axe kicks and back kicks from his Kyokushin background to gain dominance over such game opponents as Frank Trigg, Sean Sherk, and Jason Miller. But, at his core, St. Pierre's style is MMA, flavoring it with his own preferences.

So, what is MMA? A lot of people will tell you it's wrestling combined with no-gi jiujitsu/sub wrestling and kickboxing/muay thai. It's not. It's MMA style. You can have someone who is proficient in all of those things fail utterly in a vale-tudo competition. Why? Because he hasn't learned to fuse those disparate techniques together and he hasn't discarded those that won't work in favor of those that will. If you want an example, look at the early Gary Goodridge fight when the wrestler puts him into a wrestler hold that works pretty darn good in freestyle... Gary pounds the guy into vicious submission with a series of well placed, incredibly lethal elbows.

So, what makes up standard MMA style?

*Boxing and kickboxing inspired striking. The punching and kicking of kickboxing and boxing does not work wholecloth when you add in wrestling clinches and shoots.
*Freestyle shots and sprawls. Freestyle wrestling contributes most of the takedown work in MMA, from single legs to slams. As a result, it also provides the basis of takedown defense...see Chuck Liddell.
*Greco clinching. Far more common in MMA than Thai clinch is the Greco clinch, mastered by someone like Randy Couture. It provides a good position for takedowns and has potential for knee strikes. The exception to this is a strong Muay Thai fighter like Vanderlei Silva.
*No-gi Judo throws. Sometimes, especially in Japanese competition, you see well executed Judo throws, like hip tosses and tripping. Frequently, fighters seem to find it offers better them positioning than wrestling takedowns, however, Judo throws were designed with clothing in mind and so they are not so often used.
*Some Muay Thai kicks. The staple of the MMA kicker's arsenal is the low outside thigh kick. Some people have utilized the inside kick well. It is a fairly safe kick as opposed to midsection kicks which are dangerous from the possibility of being caught and high kicks for being more open. However, all ranges of kicking are present in MMA, they're just used more sparingly than in kickboxing competition.
*No-gi jiujitsu/sub wrestling positioning and submissions. If wrestling skills are what are used to get the fight to the floor, jiujitsu is what's used when it gets there.
And finally, an element of fighting born of MMA: ground and pound. Utilizing jiujitsu positioning, fighters have developed devestating striking while on top. In some notable cases (see Bas Rutten) they have amazingly powerful strikes from the bottom, too.

From here there's room to improvise, spinning back kicks, teeps, spinning backfists, etc. In an emerging sport like MMA the rules on techique are changing, and something overlooked today could be tomorrow's gold mine. The key is integration, if you can't integrate your Hapkido technique into a more general MMA flavor, then forget it. If you can, like St. Pierre has done, then godspeed soldier.

[Cosmo Kramer]

if done well it might be effective but thats not why its done, i dont want it to become sport

[JimH]

To me,
If one wanted a good all around self defense for street then Hapkido would be Great and is as complete as one would need,provided what was learned was trained in the manner desired.

If one wanted to compete in MMA competition the Hapkido could be an asset as everything required wqould not be foreign,you just need to retweek it,but one would still have to learn the arts they would be facing,you would need to employ those skills and train against those skills,so a MMA Facility would be the best bet.

If we look at the Pro-Hapkido video,I would imagine that many of those men could easily transfer into MMA,many probably already compete in it as they have some great skills,they would just have to become more familiar with what they might encounter,like a stronger ground attack and defense game plan,or keeping the kicks low so as not to be grabbed and grounded (but the low kicks were banned in the Pro hapkido),so they would have to train those kicks in as you are heading into a field of specialists that work these ranges of combat and they make it work within the rules of MMA.

[Plato]

Hapkido is synonomous with versatility, especially since the two largest style divisions are between GM Choi's groundwork emphasis from its Aiki-Daito Ryu roots and GM Ji Han Jae's emphasis on punching and kicking.

Training for the event is key as well: "Know thy enemy" (Sun Tzu?).

Question: do you think there is ample opportunity to employ joint locks in MMA?

[Lucan King]

Well all know Gary Goodridge, and how he has Kuk Sool Won experience.

So basically, could a person who trained in Hapkido do good in the world of MMA?

Hahaha yeah the supposed 4th Dan. When I heard about that I thought, **** Kuk Sool in MMA! Only to realize he actually only went into a Kuk Sool class to challenge a guy who was going into UFC, beat him then ended up representing Kuk Sool when in reality he's not done it at all. Still think he's a good fighter though.

Kuk Sool isn't meant for combat in a ring and it's not meant to teach you to go out and beat someone up, its about preserving an old Korean martial art. I'd think Hapkido is similar.

[AZeitung]

I think most people will agree that MMA still has a lot of room to grow and that there might be techniques and training methods that aren't currently used simply because they haven't been tried in an MMA setting. Who knows, Hapkido might have something to offer MMA. Some of the kicks employed in Kyokushinkai are similar to Hapkido kicks. Maybe some of those could be used. Maybe there are some joint locks that could be used from the clinch or from a mid range between punching distance and the clinch.

I think Hapkido is something that's hard to train well because most of the techniques involve putting a lot of pressure on a small joint, which is hard to do with full resistance without hurting someone. But when I hear stories of people like Takeda Sokaku (founder of Daito Ryu) and Choi Yong Sul, I can't help but think there might be good applications of Hapkido in MMA.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

the only kuk sool "experience" goodridge has is that he wore a gi to his UFC debut. like Kucan said he just went to a kuk sool placem, whooped the guy who was supposed to be going to the UFC, and took his spot. severe level of badassness there.

[shootodog]

I think Hapkido could be a good base art, but the person would have to cross train and do lots of MMA style sparring (and get some MMA pointers and tips on the competition). I think if a person wanted primarily to participate in MMA matches, they would be better served by attending MMA schools for the most part. If a person just wanted "to try some MMA competition once or twice", I think it'd be okay.

honestly, i really don't see why not. it has striking, it has takedowns, it has grappling, it has submissions. for as long as those moves conform to the mma competition's rules like no biting, no eye-gouging, no groinshots, no fishooking, no blow to the back of the head, (for ufc) no knees on the ground, (for pride fc) no elbows...

[Hapkid0ist]

the only kuk sool "experience" goodridge has is that he wore a gi to his UFC debut. like Kucan said he just went to a kuk sool placem, whooped the guy who was supposed to be going to the UFC, and took his spot. severe level of badassness there.

I believe that at one point in time his credintials did say HKD. But I would have to go back to some of the older fights when they had the vital stats listed for each fighter before the fight.
Now I'm curious. I think I'll do an internet search.
Here it says KSW.
http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?fighterID=129
Same here.

http://fighters.itgo.com/G.html
I just coud have swore that at one point in time he said he studied HKD. I'll just have to go back to those old fights to see.

[Legless_Marine]

I just coud have swore that at one point in time he said he studied HKD. I'll just have to go back to those old fights to see.

It's possible he dabbled in Hapkido, but my understanding is that GG is first, and foremost, a boxer.

[Legless_Marine]

So basically, could a person who trained in Hapkido do good in the world of MMA?

I think that HDK would make an excellent base for MMA training, but by itself, would be insufficient. Personally, I think BJJ would be a good complement, along with a hard, striking style, like kickboxing.

I've heard it said, however, that HKD is "The original MMA".

[shootodog]

I think that HDK would make an excellent base for MMA training, but by itself, would be insufficient. Personally, I think BJJ would be a good complement, along with a hard, striking style, like kickboxing.

I've heard it said, however, that HKD is "The original MMA".

and greek pankration would be...? chopped liver?

[Ikken Hisatsu]

lol at hkd being the original MMA. wasnt it only "invented" a couple hundred years ago?

[Legless_Marine]

and greek pankration would be...? chopped liver?

Good point. Consider me enlightened.

(That's what I get for regurgitating without fact-checking)

[wild_pitch]

as for the striking legless, it would depend on the type of hapkido you study. we use the modified boxing guard and delivery method for our hand striking.

it works very well and would transfer over with little modification.

NOW as for prankerton being older than hapkido, that is true. BUT there are literally only like 10 prankerton-ists worldwide.

p.s. i totally made that statistic up to imply there are not a lot of people who actually study prankerton.

as for my sig it is more tounge in cheek than literal. simply implying that there are other arts that would be considered mixed marital arts that existed before the idea became popularized by the ufc etc.

[Hapkid0ist]

The thing is, training for the street and for a ring are not the same kind of training. If you study HKD and train for a competative , rules fight, then there should be no problem. HKD has all the techniques in it one would use in a match. I think the big confusion here is that since we as HKDist are traind with certian crippling techniques, that it can be difficult us envisioning the use of our art without the extremly aggressive and dangerous stuff, as well as the "Dirty" stuff. These things would in much part not be alowed in the ring anyways. As a buddy of mine who is a fight promoter once said to me. He asked if I wanted to become a pro fighter. Told him that I never thought about it. After we talked and I demoed for him a bit this is what he said. Training and fighting in the ring is a different beast from the streats. Were ring techniques can be used in the street, not all street techniques can be used in the ring. The goal is friendly competition, no matter how aggressive it is. The point is to win and not maim or kill. Withthe techniques I know and do I would have a hard time getting fighters to fight me. I would be know as a fighter who hurts other fighters. Pro fighters fight to compete not to get hurt.
So, if you are a HKD stylist then yes, please feel free to compete. But no gouges, fishooks, joint breaking (or intentional bone breaking), or any other technique that could cause you opponent severe harm. Use good takedownss, locks, kicks, kick combinations, hidden kicks, punches and punch combinations. Punch counters and techniques, elbows and knees, pressure point striking that doesn't cause major damage, and a vast majority of our techniques are just as usefull on the ground. And if your in a real HKD school then you'll learn ground fighting as well. So yes you could use it, but remember your not in the street fighting for your life, your fighting someone in a ring who there is a good chance that this is how they make their living and not just a past time...

[Ikken Hisatsu]

NOW as for prankerton being older than hapkido, that is true. BUT there are literally only like 10 prankerton-ists worldwide.

p.s. i totally made that statistic up to imply there are not a lot of people who actually study prankerton.

as for my sig it is more tounge in cheek than literal. simply implying that there are other arts that would be considered mixed marital arts that existed before the idea became popularized by the ufc etc.

first of all if you dont know then dont make crap up it just makes you sound dumb. there are a lot more than 10 people who do pankration. in fact you could argue that people who do MMA are doing pankration in an evolved form. you dont think that the hapkido you practice today is exactly the same as it originally was do you?

And secondly what about arts such as the filipino arts that cover pretty much everything, japanese ju jitsu, the medieaval pugilism and wrestling arts learnt by knights... calling hapkido the original MMA is fairly ridiculous.

god im in a grumpy mood this morning :D

[Thomas]

first of all if you dont know then dont make crap up it just makes you sound dumb. there are a lot more than 10 people who do pankration. in fact you could argue that people who do MMA are doing pankration in an evolved form. you dont think that the hapkido you practice today is exactly the same as it originally was do you?

And secondly what about arts such as the filipino arts that cover pretty much everything, japanese ju jitsu, the medieaval pugilism and wrestling arts learnt by knights... calling hapkido the original MMA is fairly ridiculous.

god im in a grumpy mood this morning :D

Hard time reading, too, huh?

You must have missed the part where he wrote "as for my sig it is more tounge in cheek than literal. ". Now, what was that about not knowing and sounding dumb?

Sheesh

[Ikken Hisatsu]

NOW as for prankerton being older than hapkido, that is true. BUT there are literally only like 10 prankerton-ists worldwide.

p.s. i totally made that statistic up to imply there are not a lot of people who actually study prankerton.

I didnt actually notice his sig until you pointed it out just now :D

oh and
as for my sig it is more tounge in cheek than literal. simply implying that there are other arts that would be considered mixed marital arts that existed before the idea became popularized by the ufc etc.

yeah i agree. HKD isnt one of them though. unless you also consider the darkness to be cutting edge rock n roll.

[Hapkid0ist]

Can"t We All Just............


Get Along! :d

[Hapkid0ist]

Do you think that 100, 300, 500 or more years agoe pratitioners sat down and had similar conversations to this. If so then maybe that means things like this will never be solved or agreed upon.

[BSR]

yeah i agree. HKD isnt one of them though. unless you also consider the darkness to be cutting edge rock n roll.

Hapkido is a MMA in the sense that it combines hard and soft techniques, ground and standup, striking and throws. Plus, it was around well before the UFC made MMA and BJJ household names, so what are you arguing against exactly?

[Hapkid0ist]

Hapkido is a MMA in the sense that it combines hard and soft techniques, ground and standup, striking and throws. Plus, it was around well before the UFC made MMA and BJJ household names, so what are you arguing against exactly?

The problem I think might lay in people's interpritation of what a mix martia art is. What they are used to seing. HKD had evolved further than just a mix MA, it has evolved into an advanced fighting system that like any good art will continue to grow and evolve.

[Thomas]

(Sorry for roughing you up Ikken - couldn't resist! :D )

I think this is a place where semantics really come into play. Using all capital letters "MMA" (Mixed Martial Arts) is seen by the competitive field as a fairly strict interpretation, basically a "style" on its own. If you look at MMA competitors, they follow a fairly similar path (standup, clinch, ground techniques) in order to be successful in MMA competition, which has its own rules, advanatges, disadvantages, etc). Check out the MMA forum and read some of the threads... by becoming a combat sport with fairly standard rules, the mixing has become relatively formulaic (or efficient)... with some new things being devloped within the basic constraints.

Looking at Hapkido as a "mixed martial art" (all lower case) is different. That implies that the art comes form a bunch of different sources and is put together to meet certain situations, philosophies, startegies, and so on. Hapkdio may (or may not) be a mma, but it's not MMA. Different birds.

[wild_pitch]

wow i missed that whole second page until now.. ikken is surprisingly uptight today. i will chalk it up to it being cold.

but wait he does not live in the friged north like the rest of us.

[AZeitung]

lol at hkd being the original MMA. wasnt it only "invented" a couple hundred years ago?
I think it was more like 50 years ago.

[wild_pitch]

hapkido, although certainly not the first mixed martial art DOES predate the popularization of the style, "MMA" by many years.

so if you want to follow your analgy hapkido is more like kiss on the scale of old to new than the darkness. in fact MMA would be more like the darkness.

yeah i agree. HKD isnt one of them though. unless you also consider the darkness to be cutting edge rock n roll.

[Legless_Marine]

I think it was more like 50 years ago.

I agree. Although some Korean martial arts make references to ancient traditions, most of them were formed after the end of the Japanese occupation in 1945.

[Hapkid0ist]

I agree. Although some Korean martial arts make references to ancient traditions, most of them were formed after the end of the Japanese occupation in 1945.

I don't think most Koreans really know the facts, so how the heck are we supposed to. There are so many different beliefs and stories out there that its hard to decipher truth from crap. I am fortunat in one way myself. My GM was a student of Choi and classmate of Ji. So from my GM's point of view I have learnt a few things that tend to lean my opinion one way over the other. True or not I still don't know, Koreans can be very secrative.I will just have to take my GM's word.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

hapkido, although certainly not the first mixed martial art DOES predate the popularization of the style, "MMA" by many years.

so if you want to follow your analgy hapkido is more like kiss on the scale of old to new than the darkness. in fact MMA would be more like the darkness.

so what does that make arts like jujitsu in this ever more silly comparison :D

people seem to think that UFC is where it started. just because something is televised doesnt make it new- UFC type events have been going on for a loooooong time, before hapkido was a twinkle in the milkmans eye. to say its the original mma is silly.

and I feel better now, I went and bought some bling to cheer myself up :D

[wild_pitch]

jujutsu, that is a tough one.. if we are talking bjj it might be kiss as well. if we are talking the core art maybe led zepplin? hard to say really.

as for the *original mma line it was not meant to be serious even at the start. i made it my sig in the middle of an argument with a MMA nutrider that was on the site at the time just to get under his skin.

maybe i will change it.. just for you ikken. we'll see.

true *fights* have been happening for a long time but i do think we can all agree that the UFC has crystallized what contemporary MMA is and brought it to a large audience. your average dad out in the burbs 15-20 years ago would not have known about no holds barred fighting but i bet today he will have seen a few ufc bouts.

again remember i am talking about the *popularization* of mma.

so what does that make arts like jujitsu in this ever more silly comparison :D

people seem to think that UFC is where it started. just because something is televised doesnt make it new- UFC type events have been going on for a loooooong time, before hapkido was a twinkle in the milkmans eye. to say its the original mma is silly.

and I feel better now, I went and bought some bling to cheer myself up :D

[JimH]

Sorry a bit behind ,missed a day of the board,lol.

quote AZeitung
"I think Hapkido is something that's hard to train well because most of the techniques involve putting a lot of pressure on a small joint, which is hard to do with full resistance without hurting someone."

This is one of the points of contention on the part of Hapkidoists/aiki artists and MMA practioners.

MMA practioners say non compliance and realism (as far as can be done in sport) are the paramount factors for their training.

While Aiki practioners say to implement techniques with non compliance is dangerous.

The point you make is the true case for Aiki practioners,if we attempt to throw on techniques with any realism,we must have compliance on the part of our training partners,they must react and throw themselves to avoid injury.

If these techniques were done with non compliant partners and done with intent we would either have an inability to make the technique work or we would have an injury, in training and in sport severe injury is not a goal,so that chance is removed by the rules,in sport.(just in case it works)

The rules are for the protection of the practioners.

If we step outside the arena of sport and we have casue to employ our art (whatever it is) and we employ it right we would attack the knees,we would attack the groin,(no cup),the bladder,limb destruct,attack the joints,attack the neck,the throat,the face the eyes.

These areas of attack are basic points in most arts,so when some say to aiki stylists " you think your art is too deadly to try in the sport arena",that is false,we know in sport we are not allowed to attack vital targets,(which if attacked in sport would reduce the number of fighters by one half each time they competed),but which in life or death scenarios would be the main focus of most of our attacks.(by all practioners of any art)

So in MMA realism and contact are important and in the Aiki arts Compliance for longevity is important,but in ALL the arts we have the vital targets,targets that may or may not cause serious injury or death when needed .(but they are not needed in sport or training)

Depending on our art and our reasons for training we may get what ever we want from each and every art be it Art,Health,sport,culture or self defense.
(just train it correctly for the need(s) desired)

Good Luck to all practioners.

[Vexed]

Some talk about MMA. It then makes you feel like MMA is some sort of mystical art, well it's not, it is however, to some, a combination of what we do. Some more or lesser to an extent. Does that make it any better ?

[Vexed]

Now as for Hapkido. Can it be used effectively in MMA. Damn straight. :D

[JimH]

If I may express a view:

I believe all arts are from a MMA,mixed Martial arts background,MMA being Mixed rather than the supposed desired/specific arts used by many in sport.

People did not fight in one range,fighting since the cavemen were most likely all encompassing,hands,feet,ground,weapons.

Over time complete systems were developed and formalized and recorded, from the complete systems people extracted what they liked and specialized in that aspect,either for sport of for reality.

If we look at Roman and Greek History,Not that it all began there,but free form fighting was written about depicted back then so nothing is new.

Fighting,no matter where it was done was never just a singular application of one range it was everything and anything to win,to survive.

Time created sport,sport created defined ranges.

Mixed Martial art,using and fighting in all ranges, was developed by early man.

Nothing in unarmed combat is new.

The only things new to combat are the man made weapons which can be said to have origins in ancient man as well as a man throwing a rock led to a man using a cloth (sling shot) to make the rock go further faster,that led to catapults,which when gun powder was developed led to cannons,which led to rifles which led to pistols on and on.
Knives and blades are a modern application of sharpened stones and then stones added to sticks.

Nothing is truly new.

my 2 cents

[Timmy Boy]

I'm with JimH as far as history goes. People (particularly men, I would argue) have been pitting their combat skills against each other since time immemorial. Modern MMA as we know it is just the latest incarnation of the most primal contest known to man. People have fought both formally and informally since the year dot, and consequently plenty of the martial arts that developed over time acknowledged the importance of training in all three ranges. When the UFC first came along in the 1990s it was really nothing more than a reminder of the importance of this; plenty of martial artists have always trained this way anyway.

Wild Pitch, it's for this reason that I don't agree that the UFC initiated the popularisation of MMA. It just dispelled the myths that were allowed to accumulate during a very brief era in martial arts history, when people thought that breaking boards = breaking bones, that you didn't need to be able to fight on the ground, and that all you needed to do to beat a grappler was hit him before he could grab you.

Hapkido, like karate and some other arts, contains the techniques to fight in all three ranges. If you train live in all of these ranges, then yes you could use it in MMA.

[Timmy Boy]

Sorry a bit behind ,missed a day of the board,lol.

quote AZeitung
"I think Hapkido is something that's hard to train well because most of the techniques involve putting a lot of pressure on a small joint, which is hard to do with full resistance without hurting someone."

This is one of the points of contention on the part of Hapkidoists/aiki artists and MMA practioners.

MMA practioners say non compliance and realism (as far as can be done in sport) are the paramount factors for their training.

While Aiki practioners say to implement techniques with non compliance is dangerous.

The point you make is the true case for Aiki practioners,if we attempt to throw on techniques with any realism,we must have compliance on the part of our training partners,they must react and throw themselves to avoid injury.

If these techniques were done with non compliant partners and done with intent we would either have an inability to make the technique work or we would have an injury, in training and in sport severe injury is not a goal,so that chance is removed by the rules,in sport.(just in case it works)

The rules are for the protection of the practioners.

One problem I have with this kind of argument is that I can't believe EVERYTHING is too dangerous to be performed against a resisting opponent. For example, I once tried out aikido and I wasn't impressed at all; not only did the techniques not work when I resisted, they didn't work even when I just stood there - I was told I had to actually make myself fall over, and the worst thing was, it wasn't even a dangerous technique! All it involved was them stepping forward and pushing me over with their arm. I understand that some techniques are too dangerous for sparring, but some people would have you believe that simply slapping someone is too dangerous for sparring and it's ridiculous.

If we step outside the arena of sport and we have casue to employ our art (whatever it is) and we employ it right we would attack the knees,we would attack the groin,(no cup),the bladder,limb destruct,attack the joints,attack the neck,the throat,the face the eyes.

This is what I mean. Most of the target areas you mentioned aren't even illegal. You're allowed to attack the knees in MMA and muay thai and it's actually not that effective. Limb-breaking techniques are practiced, you just have to tap, same as chokes/strangles. The face is also a perfectly valid target area. The groin and the throat used to be legal target areas in MMA and it didn't make any difference. Of the list you mentioned, only the eyes have always been an illegal target area.

Attacking an art or competition's realism on the basis that it's a sport is too much of a sweeping generalisation. There is a massively broad spectrum of realism across the different types of sport fighting, some of which bear pretty much zero relevance to real life and some of which are hardly any different to real fights. You can't talk about MMA's lack of realism due to it being a sport as if it's olympic taekwondo or light contact karate points fighting.

These areas of attack are basic points in most arts,so when some say to aiki stylists " you think your art is too deadly to try in the sport arena",that is false,we know in sport we are not allowed to attack vital targets,(which if attacked in sport would reduce the number of fighters by one half each time they competed),but which in life or death scenarios would be the main focus of most of our attacks.(by all practioners of any art)

In MMA, you're not allowed to use techniques that have a high risk of causing permanent serious injury if they work. Pretty much everything else is fair game.

[JimH]

Tim,
I agree everything is not too dangerous,and does not always work:

as I said above
quote
"If these techniques were done with non compliant partners and done with intent we would either have an inability to make the technique work or we would have an injury, in training and in sport severe injury is not a goal,so that chance is removed by the rules,in sport.(just in case it works)"


The point you made about your aikido training is true,many times you are asked to comply,to throw yourself even when the technique is not properly performed on you,but what also is true is the level of the practioner applying the move as we do not want to wait until the application is made full tilt,correctly, to then begin to comply and throw yourself over.

Any techniques if thrown to vital targets or breakable targets(against the designed function of the joint as example) are valid if applied on the street,but they are not all legal or valid for use in the sport arena.

The example of the application of the Muay thai kick to the inside or outside of the thigh,that is allowed agreed,but I do not believe that a side kick,straight on to the knee which halts forward momentum is allowed.

Again my point is that techniques that cause injury and up to the possibility of death are the softening tools of the aiki practioner,but those techniques are not soley employed by the aiki practioner ,they are found in the moves and techniques of all arts.
(just not employable in sport)

[Timmy Boy]

Tim,
I agree everything is not too dangerous,and does not always work:

as I said above
quote
"If these techniques were done with non compliant partners and done with intent we would either have an inability to make the technique work or we would have an injury, in training and in sport severe injury is not a goal,so that chance is removed by the rules,in sport.(just in case it works)"

I know, I was simply emphasising that I think it's silly for people like aikido practitioners to say that they can't spar full stop just because *some* techniques could be too dangerous.

The point you made about your aikido training is true,many times you are asked to comply,to throw yourself even when the technique is not properly performed on you,but what also is true is the level of the practioner applying the move as we do not want to wait until the application is made full tilt,correctly, to then begin to comply and throw yourself over.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't see how it helps tori's training by falling over even when he does the move wrong. How else will he learn?

Any techniques if thrown to vital targets or breakable targets(against the designed function of the joint as example) are valid if applied on the street,but they are not all legal or valid for use in the sport arena.

Yes, but my point is that most of the examples of illegal moves that you mentioned are actually legal, and are often nowhere near as effective as people think.

The example of the application of the Muay thai kick to the inside or outside of the thigh,that is allowed agreed,but I do not believe that a side kick,straight on to the knee which halts forward momentum is allowed.

The side of the knee is a legal target, but it is actually considered less effective than a kick to the thigh. Despite this, many MAists still believe you can break someone's knee with a roundhouse kick to the side of the knee. Stomps to the front of the knee are illegal, I'll give you that, but I hardly think it counts as a trump card.

Again my point is that techniques that cause injury and up to the possibility of death are the softening tools of the aiki practioner,but those techniques are not soley employed by the aiki practioner ,they are found in the moves and techniques of all arts.
(just not employable in sport)

And again, I think you're forgetting that the vast bulk of the supposedly "deadly" techniques are actually perfectly legal in sport martial arts. OK, some techniques are banned even in MMA, but in they're still trying to knock each other out.

[JimH]

Quote Jim
The point you made about your aikido training is true,many times you are asked to comply,to throw yourself even when the technique is not properly performed on you,but what also is true is the level of the practioner applying the move as we do not want to wait until the application is made full tilt,correctly, to then begin to comply and throw yourself over.

reply quote Tim
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't see how it helps tori's training by falling over even when he does the move wrong. How else will he learn?

Tim my point is that beginners need to learn compliance to prevent injury.

If the patners exchange techniques and they do not feel the technique they should give that feedback to each other.

The Goal is to make the technique work and to feel a degree of pain.

example of a point;
we are in a MMA arena
If we are standing and I get inside of your kicking range you punch, I wrap your arm and step in can I palm heel your chin or face?can I open hand to your chest and drive it to your throat?can I step in and do a brachial strike to the side of the neck? after I attack the face can I slide out and bend the up turned arm over my shoulder for a break? Can I step under to throw,twist the arm and pull the arm up and across?

The answers to all of these is NO,they are all illegal,they are all outlawed and prevent me from doing what I would do on the street,so I must conform to fight in the rules and develop strategis and techniques that I do not train and would never actually employ.

These moves are not just aiki art moves but are doable by all artists,it is just we rely on these moves as softening,while other arts have the gross motor responses doable in sport,or they alter and conform to the sport.

I am not claiming deadly moves,just that sport alters moves that are available in all arts, to provide minimum injury or risk to the participants.

[Timmy Boy]

reply quote Tim
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't see how it helps tori's training by falling over even when he does the move wrong. How else will he learn?

Tim my point is that beginners need to learn compliance to prevent injury.

In that case we're in agreement on this point. You have to learn a technique against a compliant partner first so that you know how it basically works before you move on to resistance training. But even against a compliant partner, tori should still be using the correct technique. It should still be down to tori to make it work. Making uke throw himself on the floor is a complete waste of everyone's time and is probably counterproductive.

example of a point;
we are in a MMA arena
If we are standing and I get inside of your kicking range you punch, I wrap your arm and step in can I palm heel your chin or face?

Palm strikes are legal, Bas Rutten used them all the time. In fact, They're the only permitted form of hand striking in Pancrase.

can I open hand to your chest and drive it to your throat?

An open hand strike to the chest is legal. Striking the throat was legal in the early UFCs, and surprise surprise, you still saw the same styles winning.

can I step in and do a brachial strike to the side of the neck?

The neck is a legal target area.

after I attack the face can I slide out and bend the up turned arm over my shoulder for a break?

You can't actually break it, but what you're talking about is an arm lock. The person on the receiving end will simply tap when it's on. When he taps, the fight is over, so it has the same effect of ending the fight. These techniques are used all the time in MMA.

Can I step under to throw,twist the arm and pull the arm up and across?

Yep.

The answers to all of these is NO,they are all illegal,they are all outlawed and prevent me from doing what I would do on the street,so I must conform to fight in the rules and develop strategis and techniques that I do not train and would never actually employ.

Have you ever even seen an MMA fight? For the last time, almost every technique you've mentioned is actually legal in MMA.

If you were talking purely about eye gouges or something, then I might be willing to debate this point about whether your street effectiveness is constrained by the rules, since it's a matter of opinion. But most of the techniques you're talking about are actually perfectly legal in MMA, so you're simply wrong. Watch some MMA fights - don't pay lip service to it, actually do it - and you will see what I mean. Put it this way - there's a reason why people want it banned. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you've got your facts wrong and I'm not going to repeat myself anymore if you're not listening.

[MaxG]

Searching the web it looks like the UFC has 31 "fouls" or things you're not allowed to do. 19-31 are more situational or location rules. i.e you can't grab the fence, throw someone out of the ring, etc. etc.

1-18 are rules governing techniques that can not be used.
Here is a list of those rules and why they were outlawed.

1. Butting with the head (could cause concussion for both opponents)
2. Eye gouging (any form of attack on the eyes could cause permanent loss of sight)
3. Biting (causes transfer of bacteria)
4. Hair Pulling (Unfair leverage advantage)
5. Fish Hooking (can cause permanent damage or lacerations to sensitive areas)
6. Groin attacks of any kind (can cause prostrate cancer or hernias)
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent (spreads infection and bacteria)
8. Small joint manipulation (can cause permanent damage of weakened joints)
9. Striking to the spine or back of the head (can cause permanent spinal damage)
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow (can cause serious lacerations)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (can cause asphyxiation)
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (causes unnecessary lacerations)
13. Grabbing the clavicle (damage to the clavicle can cause respiratory problems)
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (can cause permanent head injury and brain trauma)
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (as in question 14))
16. Stomping a grounded opponent (can cause unnecessary organ damage and or injury)
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel (as in question 16)
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (can cause neck and spinal damage)

Of course these are just the rules set by the event promoters and whatever governing body they are currently under jurisdiction. i.e. Nevada regulations.

This DOES NOT however list techniques that the fighters themselves don't use for etiquette and personal consideration. For example a roundhouse kick to the knee was set as an example earlier. According to these rules this is actually a legal technique but I doubt you will see competitors actually using this technique on other competitors. Very few of these athletes want to end the career of another so they voluntarily limit their attacks in this way. As an example Bas Rutten has even stated that once his ground game was up to par he never used strikes unless his opponent did so. Prefering to keep it civil and use joint manipulations/ground techs.

A standing armbar/break would be difficult or near impossible to submit your opponent but what if the intent was to break instead of submit? If released from the rules and regulations set by the event creators/promoters as well as the unwritten "sportsmanship" rules that the athletes adhere to I believe without a doubt that more permanent injuries would occur in those type of events.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

you are very much allowed to break someones arm while standing. the fact that you dont see it much is testament to it being a pretty low % move epecially against a well trained fighter, more than some kind of rule that YOU made up in your head to justify it. not that you know what you are talking about anyway or you wouldnt have said
According to these rules this is actually a legal technique but I doubt you will see competitors actually using this technique on other competitors. Very few of these athletes want to end the career of another so they voluntarily limit their attacks in this way. my good lord, before you try and make these assumptions why dont you go and learn something about the arts involved. yes, kicks to the side of the knee are very legal. in some cases, they can be useful- ive buckled a few guys coming in with roundhouse kicks to the side of the knee. for the most part though, kicking the side of someones knee isnt very effective and will probably end up causing you as much pain as it does them. if you want to know why this is, go to a muay thai class instead of theorising. a 101 of human anatomy might be useful too.

[Hapkid0ist]

A friend of mine who used to be a competetive mma fighter and is now a promoter told me that fighters will not fight those who intentionally try to cause this type of damage and other types of severe damage. You would be known as a fighter who intentionally hurts others. As was said, this could end someones career. This is a competative sport they get paid to do, not a street fight or Van Damme style Kumite.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

who is this friend?

[Hapkid0ist]

My boy Monkey.
http://www.myspace.com/monkeylocal240
Check him out, give em a holler. He is a hell of a guy.

[Timmy Boy]

A friend of mine who used to be a competetive mma fighter and is now a promoter told me that fighters will not fight those who intentionally try to cause this type of damage and other types of severe damage. You would be known as a fighter who intentionally hurts others. As was said, this could end someones career. This is a competative sport they get paid to do, not a street fight or Van Damme style Kumite.

Quick, someone go and tell this to Tank Abbot and Wanderlei Silva.

[Timmy Boy]

Searching the web it looks like the UFC has 31 "fouls" or things you're not allowed to do. 19-31 are more situational or location rules. i.e you can't grab the fence, throw someone out of the ring, etc. etc.

1-18 are rules governing techniques that can not be used.
Here is a list of those rules and why they were outlawed.

1. Butting with the head (could cause concussion for both opponents)
2. Eye gouging (any form of attack on the eyes could cause permanent loss of sight)
3. Biting (causes transfer of bacteria)
4. Hair Pulling (Unfair leverage advantage)
5. Fish Hooking (can cause permanent damage or lacerations to sensitive areas)
6. Groin attacks of any kind (can cause prostrate cancer or hernias)
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent (spreads infection and bacteria)
8. Small joint manipulation (can cause permanent damage of weakened joints)
9. Striking to the spine or back of the head (can cause permanent spinal damage)
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow (can cause serious lacerations)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea (can cause asphyxiation)
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh (causes unnecessary lacerations)
13. Grabbing the clavicle (damage to the clavicle can cause respiratory problems)
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent (can cause permanent head injury and brain trauma)
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent (as in question 14))
16. Stomping a grounded opponent (can cause unnecessary organ damage and or injury)
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel (as in question 16)
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck (can cause neck and spinal damage)

If you haven't trained using these illegal techniques, then they're not going to be reliable enough to counter the skills of a trained MMA fighter. Especially not if you don't know how to fight without them.

This DOES NOT however list techniques that the fighters themselves don't use for etiquette and personal consideration. For example a roundhouse kick to the knee was set as an example earlier. According to these rules this is actually a legal technique but I doubt you will see competitors actually using this technique on other competitors. Very few of these athletes want to end the career of another so they voluntarily limit their attacks in this way. As an example Bas Rutten has even stated that once his ground game was up to par he never used strikes unless his opponent did so. Prefering to keep it civil and use joint manipulations/ground techs.

MMA fighters are paid to knock each other out. If that's what Bas Rutten really thinks about groundfighting, I think you'll find 99% of MMA fighters don't see things the same way. Plus, if you're as amazing as Bas Rutten is, you can afford to limit yourself like that and still win.

A standing armbar/break would be difficult or near impossible to submit your opponent but what if the intent was to break instead of submit? If released from the rules and regulations set by the event creators/promoters as well as the unwritten "sportsmanship" rules that the athletes adhere to I believe without a doubt that more permanent injuries would occur in those type of events.

There is NO DIFFERENCE in technique between an armlock designed to submit and an armlock designed to break. The only difference is how long you keep pulling for.

[zac_duncan]

Stomps to the front of the knee are illegal, I'll give you that, but I hardly think it counts as a trump card.

Really? That sucks. I love those kicks and as you say it's not easy to break a knee. Kinda sucks that they're outlawed.

FWIW - I'm thinking a bit about having an amatuer bout, just as a learning experience. Of course, I've got a mixed background, but it's mostly in hkd, so that oughta count for something.

[American HKD]

Greetings

This is the dumbest discussion I ever heard. :confused:

Any techniques that's allowed in a MMA events rules can be used.

So anyone can use any HKD tech that's within the rules.

OK?

[Timmy Boy]

Greetings

This is the dumbest discussion I ever heard. :confused:

Any techniques that's allowed in a MMA events rules can be used.

So anyone can use any HKD tech that's within the rules.

OK?

Sorry, maybe this is because I'm "dumb" as you put it, but I fail to see the relevance of what you just said to the discussion at hand.

[Timmy Boy]

Really? That sucks. I love those kicks and as you say it's not easy to break a knee. Kinda sucks that they're outlawed.

The reason they're banned is that they will break the knee IF they land correctly.

EDIT: having said that, I'm not even sure that they're illegal at all; I'm just assuming they are because they're illegal in muay thai.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

Sorry, maybe this is because I'm "dumb" as you put it, but I fail to see the relevance of what you just said to the discussion at hand.

remember this is the same guy who made a post about how people should put their belt rankings in their signature so he would know who is worth talking to. I wouldnt take him very seriously (or listen to him at all for that matter)

[Legless_Marine]

Greetings

This is the dumbest discussion I ever heard.


You're not supposed to actually read it out loud, silly.

[Timmy Boy]

You're not supposed to actually read it out loud, silly.

:D

[Thomas]

Huh??? :confused:

Tim and Ikken: Are you guys trying to start arguments?

I read American_HKD's post as agreeing with you and supporting your argument. I took his post as saying that if you look at the rules, there are lots of places where HKD techniques are fully legal.

And, he didn't call anyone "dumb"... he used "dumb" as an adjective describing "discussion"...

:rolleyes:

[Timmy Boy]

Huh??? :confused:

Tim and Ikken: Are you guys trying to start arguments?

I read American_HKD's post as agreeing with you and supporting your argument. I took his post as saying that if you look at the rules, there are lots of places where HKD techniques are fully legal.

And, he didn't call anyone "dumb"... he used "dumb" as an adjective describing "discussion"...

:rolleyes:

He said it's a dumb discussion. That means tarring us all with the same brush. If that's not what he meant, he should type better.

[American HKD]

He said it's a dumb discussion. That means tarring us all with the same brush. If that's not what he meant, he should type better.

Greetings,

None of you may be actually dumb, but then again I never really met any of you. :woo: :D

I thought it's obvious that a MMA event means a mixture of MA techniques from different styles. Right?

So one can safely conclude Hapkido would be allowed also, as long as if you agree to follow the rules of the contest. Right?

Smart thinking Huh?

[GojuKJoe]

Styles are irrelevant and meaningless, therefore this discussion is meaningless.

Tell me, someone, what is a "hapkido technique"?

[Timmy Boy]

Greetings,

None of you may be actually dumb, but then again I never really met any of you. :woo: :D

I thought it's obvious that a MMA event means a mixture of MA techniques from different styles. Right?

So one can safely conclude Hapkido would be allowed also, as long as if you agree to follow the rules of the contest. Right?

Smart thinking Huh?

Sadly, this view will never be accepted. There will always be those who want to use teh street as an excuse regardless of what the rules actually are. The overwhelming bulk of hapkido techniques should be legal, so it would work fine as long as it was all trained live. Whether or not it is is down to how you train at your club.

[Timmy Boy]

Styles are irrelevant and meaningless, therefore this discussion is meaningless.

Tell me, someone, what is a "hapkido technique"?

Good post. If we all train properly there shouldn't be a huge difference between how we all train, and style names become increasingly irrelevant. The only reasons to not include something from a different style that's proven to be effective are sporting rules and stubborn arrogance.

[American HKD]

Sadly, this view will never be accepted. There will always be those who want to use teh street as an excuse regardless of what the rules actually are. The overwhelming bulk of hapkido techniques should be legal, so it would work fine as long as it was all trained live. Whether or not it is is down to how you train at your club.

Correct!

[Thomas]

He said it's a dumb discussion. That means tarring us all with the same brush. If that's not what he meant, he should type better.
So in other words, despite the fact that he was agreeing with you, you chose to pile on and attack him???????? :confused:

Reminds me of middle school around here sometimes. :rolleyes:

Anyway, on the topic, as I stated earlier, I think Hapkido can be used in MMA, but I think it would be good to get more ground training and training in the specific strategies of an MMA match.

One of our former students is getting into MMA (he won his first match), for him, his TKD and Kung Fu background has made him a very good striking (and a little different than many of the guys he works with... they note his speed especially). He had a real basic background in grappling from us but has since cross trained at a NHB school and improved that aspect, as well as strategies for the ring.

Honestly, I'd be happy with my general background if I wanted to do MMA, but I'd want to be a bit younger, fitter, and cross train in MMA specific tactics (and a bit more ground).

[Hapkid0ist]

Styles are irrelevant and meaningless, therefore this discussion is meaningless.

Tell me, someone, what is a "hapkido technique"?

Well, a majority of our techniques end up with (are supposed to at least) a joint either hyper-extended, broken or dislocated. In a large part of our takedowns we teach that when you take someone down and you are side by side with them, you finish with your body weight and knee into their ribs. Body shots are taught to be delivered to specific open locations. Parts that are more sensetive, more fragile. Its not just a wild punch to the chest. Its purposefull strikes to the sternum, kidneys, ribs. And we don't just use the fist. Knees, elboes, palm strikes are all taught to be used. We teach students to not just punch, but be sure that you are striking in a way that is effective. We also teach that one must always follow through withyour techniques and apply finishes. We just don't train for the sporting aspect.We focus on aggressive self-defense. For sports of course we would apply proper use of force, and train accordingly. A HKD stylist knows what techniques would not be appropriate in a competative arena.

[Hapkid0ist]

[QUOTE=Thomas]

Anyway, on the topic, as I stated earlier, I think Hapkido can be used in MMA, but I think it would be good to get more ground training and training in the specific strategies of an MMA match.
QUOTE]

This says a world of information. Its all in the training and preperation. If you want to be prepaired for the street, then train as so. If you want to fight in the ring then train accordingly.... We know what damage techniques do, and we should be competent enough to know the difference between the street and the ring.

[Timmy Boy]

So in other words, despite the fact that he was agreeing with you, you chose to pile on and attack him???????? :confused:

Reminds me of middle school around here sometimes. :rolleyes:

That was hardly me piling on and attacking him. He just sounded like he was calling us all dumb, not agreeing with me. You know I sound a lot worse when I really am piling on.

[Timmy Boy]

Well, a majority of our techniques end up with (are supposed to at least) a joint either hyper-extended, broken or dislocated. In a large part of our takedowns we teach that when you take someone down and you are side by side with them, you finish with your body weight and knee into their ribs. Body shots are taught to be delivered to specific open locations. Parts that are more sensetive, more fragile. Its not just a wild punch to the chest. Its purposefull strikes to the sternum, kidneys, ribs. And we don't just use the fist. Knees, elboes, palm strikes are all taught to be used. We teach students to not just punch, but be sure that you are striking in a way that is effective. We also teach that one must always follow through withyour techniques and apply finishes. We just don't train for the sporting aspect.We focus on aggressive self-defense. For sports of course we would apply proper use of force, and train accordingly. A HKD stylist knows what techniques would not be appropriate in a competative arena.

ALL OF THAT IS LEGAL IN MMA. STOP USING IT AS AN EXCUSE. WATCH AN MMA FIGHT.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

lol you beat me to it... as I was reading that I was wondering the same thing :D

[Hapkid0ist]

ALL OF THAT IS LEGAL IN MMA. STOP USING IT AS AN EXCUSE. WATCH AN MMA FIGHT.
So your telling me that purposfully breaking someones elbow, wrist, knees, all that is legal and accepted. If so then nothing still changes. Its all in the training and preperation, and as I said before" Yes HKD can be used, if a fighter prepairs properly."

[Timmy Boy]

So your telling me that purposfully breaking someones elbow, wrist, knees, all that is legal and accepted. If so then nothing still changes. Its all in the training and preperation, and as I said before" Yes HKD can be used, if a fighter prepairs properly."

For the last time... the techniques themselves are perfectly legal. The only difference is that the person on the receiving end will tap before the actual breakage takes place. The application is exactly the same.

[Thomas]

I think part of the preparation really lies in the mental aspects as well.

As a Hapkido practitioner, my main weapons are first and foremost awareness and avoidance. My primary tactics that I learn are defensive. My goal is to get out of a situation as quickly as possible with as little damage to myself as possible and the bare minimum damage to my opponent as possible (legal reasons mainly). I also am going to look to use distractions, surprise and any weapons I can to preserve myself.

In a MMA match, much of this is changed: I cannot avoid the fight, I cannot escape, I cannot grab a weapon, and the element of surprise is lost. The basic structure for my self defence philosphy has been lost. The MMA fighter has the right philosophy for the match: he is looking to attack and finish me within the confines of the rules and regulations of the match. He is aware and conscious of anything I attempt (for example, where I may be able to use n escorting technique or joint lock on an unsuspecting drunk, this guy won't be distracted and set up for that).

For me (as a Hapkido guy), I think I have the basic tools... but I'd have to spend time re-arranging my philosphy and tactics to excel in this kind of match. That would mean additional cross training. And, it would mean training to get as good (or better) than the guys who do this as their primary art... that's a tall order.

Now, put the MMAer in my ring, and I have some things that he probably hasn't trained for in his regular classes (but that he could cross train to do).... let's see how he handles the surprise, being caught off guard, being attacked with a weapon or multiple attackers or shot or stabbed.

The rules are different... and I think each art has the right pieces for each situation, but you need to train in those situations.

[Timmy Boy]

I think part of the preparation really lies in the mental aspects as well.

As a Hapkido practitioner, my main weapons are first and foremost awareness and avoidance. My primary tactics that I learn are defensive. My goal is to get out of a situation as quickly as possible with as little damage to myself as possible and the bare minimum damage to my opponent as possible (legal reasons mainly). I also am going to look to use distractions, surprise and any weapons I can to preserve myself.

In a MMA match, much of this is changed: I cannot avoid the fight, I cannot escape, I cannot grab a weapon, and the element of surprise is lost. The basic structure for my self defence philosphy has been lost. The MMA fighter has the right philosophy for the match: he is looking to attack and finish me within the confines of the rules and regulations of the match. He is aware and conscious of anything I attempt (for example, where I may be able to use n escorting technique or joint lock on an unsuspecting drunk, this guy won't be distracted and set up for that).

If you can't handle an opponent who attacks you WITH warning, how are you going to handle someone who attacks WITHOUT warning?

For me (as a Hapkido guy), I think I have the basic tools... but I'd have to spend time re-arranging my philosphy and tactics to excel in this kind of match. That would mean additional cross training. And, it would mean training to get as good (or better) than the guys who do this as their primary art... that's a tall order.

Now, put the MMAer in my ring, and I have some things that he probably hasn't trained for in his regular classes (but that he could cross train to do).... let's see how he handles the surprise, being caught off guard, being attacked with a weapon or multiple attackers or shot or stabbed.

Come on Thomas, I thought I knew your posting style better than this. You're not seriously suggesting that you can take on multiples or people with knives and guns?

[Thomas]

Please re-read my post without just looking for things to argue about and you'll see what I am getting at.

If you can't handle an opponent who attacks you WITH warning, how are you going to handle someone who attacks WITHOUT warning?

It's not all black and white like in the ring.

There is a very big difference between dealing with someone on the str33t who may or may not escalate the situation to the point of fighting. Think for example of dealing with irate relatives, drunks, kids, students, etc where you need to avoid or de-escalate without knocking them out or submitting them. Hapkido, as an art for self defence is looking to deal with those "gray areas"... on a low level of force, we can avoid, de-escalate, and so on... if the level of force goes up, we can avoid, parry, escape, go for an escort technique or lock, and on a high level of force, we respond with more force, for example using a weapon or deadly force.

In the ring, there is a big difference of intent: the MMA fighter is there specifically to knock me out or submit me... putting me already of the most dangerous level of force and giving me no room to use my other skills for lower levels of force. To be successful in a ring enviroment, I have to build up those skills specifically. The difference is also that I know what he is going to do in the ring.... on the str33t, no one knows.

As someone who trains in self defence for the area I live and work in, the high level of force skills necessary for that are out of touch with the "normal" level of incidents I can expect. For self defence, I'd rather train for the higher percentage occassions that I can expect in my life, not for the artifical sense of the ring. Honestly, if I knew that I to face someone like Chuck Liddell in a steel cage and he could use any techniques he trains in and I could use any of mine, I'd shoot him with my pistol from across the ring. That's the difference.

For me, most of what I deal with are downtown drunks and high school students. MMA skills are good for the general aspects but I also need to spend lots of time working on de-escalation, low level of force escorts and defences, and so on. Being able to take an unexpected attack and resolve it without really hurting anyone is a big plus in my job. I don't think those skills would work as well unaltered in the ring.
Come on Thomas, I thought I knew your posting style better than this. You're not seriously suggesting that you can take on multiples or people with knives and guns?
No, I was suggesting that I would have my friends with me and/or that I would be using the knife or gun. I need all of the advantages I can get, especially the surprise factor.

[zac_duncan]

The reason they're banned is that they will break the knee IF they land correctly.

EDIT: having said that, I'm not even sure that they're illegal at all; I'm just assuming they are because they're illegal in muay thai.

I think even if landed correctly, the amount of power you would need to break the knee is such that these techniques are no more dangerous than, say, a knee bar.

I mean, I use them in sparring and though I typically use them to disrupt balance and timing, I've never hurt someone... Oh well.

Still mulling this whole thing over.

[Hapkid0ist]

I think we honestly are beating a dead horse here. We have come to the conclusion of yes, and still going on about this. Now this topic is getting repetative and pointless. I say its time to focus on a different idea.

[GojuKJoe]

Thomas, I do partly agree with stuff you're saying about mma fights being arranged and prepared for, it does make a difference to the mental state of the fighters/people involved. (this point from now is also directed at anyone who cares to comment/think on it, not just Thomas)

My point (which i'd like to have acknowledged by a practioner of your level/amount of time trained), was that all of these techniques are not exclusive to hapkido, judo has a lot of similar techniques, as does karate, as does aikido, as does BJJ. Styles are not relevant, and in my opinion, should be studied with tight scrutiny and real STUDY, which means questioning everything that you do and not staying bound to a particular "system".

Of course those techniques that have been mentioned will work in MMA, it goes without saying for anyone with any real knowledge of martial art. But why people must always post these threads trying to validate their own style, has recently got me annoyed, because, as i say, it doesn't matter which style you choose, if you train it right (which you have to, if you want to consider yourself a real fighting based martial artist) it will always be effective.

So then, what is the difference between any TMA done right, and MMA?

The answer is, there is no difference, the only thing holding anyone back is stupid and ignorant politics or tradition.

[JimH]

Goju,
I would tend to agree with your points as they are similar to my post on page 3 of this thread
Quote:
"If we step outside the arena of sport and we have casue to employ our art (whatever it is) and we employ it right we would attack the knees,we would attack the groin,(no cup),the bladder,limb destruct,attack the joints,attack the neck,the throat,the face the eyes.
These areas of attack are basic points in most arts,so when some say to aiki stylists " you think your art is too deadly to try in the sport arena",that is false,we know in sport we are not allowed to attack vital targets,(which if attacked in sport would reduce the number of fighters by one half each time they competed),but which in life or death scenarios would be the main focus of most of our attacks.(by all practioners of any art)
So in MMA realism and contact are important and in the Aiki arts Compliance for longevity is important,but in ALL the arts we have the vital targets,targets that may or may not cause serious injury or death when needed .(but they are not needed in sport or training)
Depending on our art and our reasons for training we may get what ever we want from each and every art be it Art,Health,sport,culture or self defense.
(just train it correctly for the need(s) desired)"

I would also agree whole heartedly with Thomas's last two posts.

MMA or any sport fight is an agreed to event,all opponents know that they are going to fight.One must be the attacker one must be the defender and both positions are traded off,back and forth.
For the martial artists who is attacked on the street,who has failed to be aware and avoid,the encounter already sees that person in Defense mode,they are reacting to the threat.

They may pretend to comply,they may use verbal disrupt,they may draw the attacker in,they may move the field out by stepping back or side ways,they may choose to preempt and attack or they may wait and draw the attacker in and make them feel superior and then set on them it is up to the practioner and dependent on the actions of the attacker.

Self Defense,in any art,is the use of all the training you have,from verbal skills to fight or flight,these are not found in Sport.

No matter if a person studies for Self Defense or Sport,if they have any intention of using their art for self preservation they had better be training it in some form of reality.

Just my two cents

[nj_howard]

So then, what is the difference between any TMA done right, and MMA?
Amen, brother. Very nicely put.

[Thomas]

My point (which i'd like to have acknowledged by a practioner of your level/amount of time trained), was that all of these techniques are not exclusive to hapkido, judo has a lot of similar techniques, as does karate, as does aikido, as does BJJ. Styles are not relevant, and in my opinion, should be studied with tight scrutiny and real STUDY, which means questioning everything that you do and not staying bound to a particular "system".
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the techniques are not exclusive to any art and that study of various styles can help you better understand your own art and help you become better at what you do. Nobody is really doing anything "new", but we do express it differently based on need.

My only disagreement is that "style" does matter in a way. A "style" is the glue that holds the individual techniques together and provides the underlying rationale and philosophy of what we do. For example, the "style" I do (Combat Hapkido) has a clear philosphy of what and why we do things, from balance disruptions to distractions to our various levels of force and provides our rationale for how we respond. MMA has a different set of rationales and reasons. We use the same tools but we have a different purpose behind what we do. It doesn't mean that styles can't accomodate each other.

Personally I recommend that students focus on one style and learn the how's and why's first... and then cross train to address other needs. Without a style, you just have a collection of tricks and techniques without a binding philosophy of use.


So then, what is the difference between any TMA done right, and MMA?

The answer is, there is no difference, the only thing holding anyone back is stupid and ignorant politics or tradition.
The only difference lies in what purposes you train for. You may use all of the same tools, but you can use them for fitness, sport, or self defence. This will change the way you train and what you focus on, but not necessarily the techniques.

MMA, as regarded as a (specific) style for MMA competitions, in my book is just another adaptation of TMA skills for a specific purpose.

[GojuKJoe]

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the techniques are not exclusive to any art and that study of various styles can help you better understand your own art and help you become better at what you do. Nobody is really doing anything "new", but we do express it differently based on need.

My only disagreement is that "style" does matter in a way. A "style" is the glue that holds the individual techniques together and provides the underlying rationale and philosophy of what we do. For example, the "style" I do (Combat Hapkido) has a clear philosphy of what and why we do things, from balance disruptions to distractions to our various levels of force and provides our rationale for how we respond. MMA has a different set of rationales and reasons. We use the same tools but we have a different purpose behind what we do. It doesn't mean that styles can't accomodate each other.

Personally I recommend that students focus on one style and learn the how's and why's first... and then cross train to address other needs. Without a style, you just have a collection of tricks and techniques without a binding philosophy of use.



The only difference lies in what purposes you train for. You may use all of the same tools, but you can use them for fitness, sport, or self defence. This will change the way you train and what you focus on, but not necessarily the techniques.

MMA, as regarded as a (specific) style for MMA competitions, in my book is just another adaptation of TMA skills for a specific purpose.

Again i agree with most of what you say, except my opinion is that what you're describing about hows and whys, are not styles, but philosophies. I'm not trying to say that martial arts is completely about fighting, but i'm describing my own path that i've chosen to take. I'm saying that too many people are bound by these actual "styles" which include some techniques, and not others because their tradition or rulebook says not to. Also, i see a lot of MMA as one of these styles, as although, there are a lot of very open minded people, most MMA people i might never look outside what they're taught by one (or maybe several) instructors and don't seem to validate any other "style" that is not within their except 4 or 5, even though it is quite clear those other "styles" do include things that will work in MMA.

What you seem to be saying (correct me if i misinterpret) is that you believe students should follow a philosophy, rather than a style, which i am in complete agreement with, although they should not be bound by one person's idea of the right philosophy, and should always try to look outside of it for the chance to learn more.

[Thomas]

What you seem to be saying (correct me if i misinterpret) is that you believe students should follow a philosophy, rather than a style, which i am in complete agreement with, although they should not be bound by one person's idea of the right philosophy, and should always try to look outside of it for the chance to learn more.
I think we're on basically the same page... just using different words.

I look at style (or philosophy of the art) as occupying at least 3 levels:
Top: overall concepts of the art, e.g. Hapkido or MMA

Middle: How a particular school or group interprets it: this should contain most, if not all, of the concepts and philosphies of the Top level, but with some different changes because of goals or individual leadership, e.g. Combat Hapkido (or other "kwans") or a MMA camp like Team Quest (etc.)

Personal level: How an individual interprets the style to fit their own goals and objectives... and this wil vary from person to person.

So for me, for example, my "style" is Combat Hapkido and my basic philosphies of my art come from that, and they are further streamlined and modified by my own school and my own ideas. In my book, it's my "style", but I would also say my "philosophy."

[GojuKJoe]

I think we're on basically the same page... just using different words.

I look at style (or philosophy of the art) as occupying at least 3 levels:
Top: overall concepts of the art, e.g. Hapkido or MMA

Middle: How a particular school or group interprets it: this should contain most, if not all, of the concepts and philosphies of the Top level, but with some different changes because of goals or individual leadership, e.g. Combat Hapkido (or other "kwans") or a MMA camp like Team Quest (etc.)

Personal level: How an individual interprets the style to fit their own goals and objectives... and this wil vary from person to person.

So for me, for example, my "style" is Combat Hapkido and my basic philosphies of my art come from that, and they are further streamlined and modified by my own school and my own ideas. In my book, it's my "style", but I would also say my "philosophy."

That's more what I like to see. You said "it's my style". That's what the word should mean, not a style in the sense of "that's not in the rulebook, you can't use that" or, "master (enter various names here) says that technique is secret, for black belts only, you can't do that", but rather, it's an individual's style of fighting.

Personally though, i'm getting to the point where i don't want to allign myself with a named style any more, because it boils down to politics, rather than anything else.