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 ?
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
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.
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. 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. 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.
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)
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. 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? 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 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. 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.
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.
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. Palm strikes are legal, Bas Rutten used them all the time. In fact, They're the only permitted form of hand striking in Pancrase. 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. The neck is a legal target area. 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. Yep. 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
My boy Monkey. http://www.myspace.com/monkeylocal240 Check him out, give em a holler. He is a hell of a guy.
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. 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. 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.
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.
Greetings This is the dumbest discussion I ever heard. 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.
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.
