3 ms·
"The advent of MMA gave us hard evidence on which martial arts were real." I see your point, but playing the devil's advocate here, fighting in a ring under ru
by plinkplonk 17y ago
"The advent of MMA gave us hard evidence on which martial arts were real."
I see your point, but playing the devil's advocate here, fighting in a ring under rules is still very different from a fight on a street (no "rounds", no referee, multiple opponents, no holds barred, weapons, uneven lighting and general chaos). Japanese martial arts may have been designed to deal with fighting armored swordsmen on a battlefield, for example. So the "framing" of MMA may just show the effectiveness of various styles within that frame. Still useful, but not the ultimate lab (as you point out).
- wyclif 17y agoI've seen very few unarmed fights on the street that didn't end up as a ground fight in the first 30 seconds. This is the specific criticism of styles like Brazilian Jiu-jitsu that emphasize grappling and holds over striking: real-world street fights rarely employ strikes refined in sparring sessions or exotic weapons.
- plinkplonk 17y ago"I've seen very few unarmed fights on the street that didn't end up as a ground fight in the first 30 seconds" you are talking about one on one fights? The few (street) fights I've seen were gang on gang or gang on one Any one grapplng on the ground in those situations would probably have their heads kicked in in the first minute (This isn't to vilify acquiring skills in groundfighting/grappling. Both are useful skills to have in a well rounded fighter. I would be wary of a style with zero striking however). The best strategy might be(as with programming) learn many styles (languages), one per important paradigm, and mix and match as the situation (project) warrants)