by

The title covers a typical exchange between the MMA and traditional martial art crowds when they start arguing. Usually, the arguments are something like this:

You need to know how to fight at all ranges, including the ground.

MMA is “real” because there are minimal rules and traditional arts suck because they don’t fight for “real”.

Traditional arts are better because they focus on fighting without rules and the techniques used are ultra-mega-instantly lethal.

MMA doesn’t protect you against multiple opponents or weapons. In fact, MMA tactics get you killed in those situations.

Now at face value, all of these points are valid. There’s something to be said for each of them and to a degree, you can’t really fault the logic behind. There’s only one thing: they’re all totally missing the point. As in, missed it by a mile. More on that later.

It reminds me of the old arguments of judo vs wrestling or boxing about 50-60 years ago. Later on karate hit the scene and it was compared to those too. This happened with every “new” martial art or combat sport to hit the big time over the decades. Just page through a few MA rags of 20-30 years ago and read the articles. You’ll find it’s all there.

With the rise of the Internet, it got worse. I’m old enough to have been training in the arts before there were chat rooms and bulletin boards. If you are too, you know what I mean. If you’re not, here’s some perspective: It used to be a big ass argument about who would beat the other in a real fight: Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris. We all know what happened on film at the Colosseum but what if they’d have gone at it for real?

You got long winding arguments that Chuck had fought in and won dozens of tournaments where Bruce never competed in anything so he sucked. The kung fu lovers would counter that Chuck only fought within rules where as Bruce had plenty of street fighting experience where anything goes. These are just two of the arguments and there were many, many more.

But don’t they ring a bell? Compare them to the latest fad in martial arts land, MMA, and look at the type of arguments I listed in the first paragraph. It’s the same type of logic, over and over again. The inherent flaw in it is the lack of an overall picture regarding violence. I claim there are a few crucial elements missing in the logic chains. Here’s what I said elsewhere:

I train mostly in Chinese MAs. I have yet to find one that has anything resembling BJJ or any other ground fighting system. All that I’ve seen is moves to get the other guy off/away from you and get up. Shuai Jiao (Chinese wrestling) has almost no techniques where you go to the ground to throw somebody (I know of only one but there might be more). Everything else is just putting the guy down and not following him. Sanda/Sanshou matches allow all sorts of striking and throwing but no ground work. You get a penalty if you aren’t on your feet in three seconds after a throw, even if you’re the one throwing. You also fight on a platform, forcing you to take your environment into account. If you get tossed of the stage twice, you lose the round. And even though there are mattresses around the stage, it can hurt big time to fall off. I’ve seen broken arms and guys flying into their coaches sitting a long way off as they were kicked off the stage. All that to say this: Maybe, just maybe there’s a reason why fighting arts in China don’t go to the ground… The way I learned it, if you fall on the ground, you die. No quarter was given nor expected. You got stomped to death, stabbed, speared, chopped up or run over by horses. So your goal was not to fall and if you did, to get up as fast as you can. If you wanted to control somebody without hurting, you did the chin na (joint locks) every frikkin’ Chinese style forces you to learn.

The whole key to the previous paragraphs is context. Context is king when fighting is involved. I’ll explain in a bit, here’s some more.

Rules make the fight. Here’s the list of fouls in the UFC: Butting with the head.

Eye gouging of any kind.

Biting.

Hair pulling.

Fish hooking.

Groin attacks of any kind.

Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.

Small joint manipulation.

Striking to the spine or the back of the head. (see Rabbit punch)

Striking downward using the point of the elbow.

Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.

Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.

Grabbing the clavicle.

Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.

Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.

Stomping a grounded opponent.

Kicking to the kidney with the heel.

Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. (see piledriver)

Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.

Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.

Spitting at an opponent. Funny thing how these are the exact same things many traditional Chinese arts will turn to first against a grappler. They won’t go for a sprawl and turn to a mount position simply because they don’t want to be on the ground. They’ll try to wrench the guy’s neck off as they rip his lips off and gouge out an eye. Easy to say then that traditional arts are crap in the Octagon. They weren’t made for it. Duh…

This is one aspect of context. Now let’s follow this line of thinking a bit further:

The UFC is not the only MMA game around. Take a look at Pride and you’ll see differences in the way they fight. The critical difference in rules is this: Pride allows kicking and kneeing the head of a downed opponent who is on his back. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules, which only allows kicks and knees to the head of a standing opponent.

Pride allows a fighter to stomp the head of a downed opponent. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules.

Pride allows a fighter to Spike (piledriver) an opponent. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules. As soon as the stomping and soccer kicks start on a downed opponent, you see a totally different fight. The stompee gets into a defensive mode by turtling up or bringing his legs in front, tries to close the distance to grab the stomper’s legs and most of all, looks for an opening to get up. I’ve yet to see one of these situations turn into anything but a frantic attempt at not getting knocked out… I’d like to offer this as exhibit A in my thesis that traditional arts have it right about not wanting to go to the ground.

And there it is: change just a couple of rules and the tactics and techniques used change too. Allowing to strike a downed opponent has a huge impact on the fight game. It forces you to react differently when you hit the ground. Pretty much like in a real street fight…

Now before you MMA fans starts howling for my blood, here’s some more:

I love MMA and trained in shoot fighting for a while; I had a blast there and would have continued to this day if the teacher hadn’t moved. But MAs and combat sport styles (like MMA) are just tools. They work great within a certain context and not so in others. Of course there is overlap but as Randy said, the differences are just as important. People should get over themselves and learn to live and let live. I don’t see any military men arguing that the techniques and tactics for arctic warfare are better/worse/easier/etc. than those employed in the desert or in an urban environment. They seem to instinctively grasp the idea that snowshoes are great to speed up a foot soldier on snowy terrain but not so hot for cruising the streets of Fallujah… I’ve yet to see an argument break out over this. But a lot of martial artists seem unable to follow that line of thinking and apply it to their respective fighting arts. I believe that context (environment) overrules everything you might think about how a fight should go. One small difference in context can force a totally different set of techniques on you. I really, for the life of me, can’t understand why it’s so hard to accept that. But apparently the egos and political crap are more important for a lot of folks. To each his own I guess.

And that’s where it all comes together. Traditional arts come from a totally different time and context. China 500 years ago was not like Boise, Idaho in 2009. You can’t just transpose the arts from that era to today. It doesn’t work like that, life is different today. Back then the situation was not what we live in: you learned to take care of yourself or you died:

There was no local PD like we have now. You couldn’t just call for a bunch of cops to come over and deal with the gang of looters/thieves/pillagers/bandits that came to town. Either you hid/ran and didn’t get caught or you fought.

If you fought and lost, you probably died.

If you fell down you probably got trampled by horses, speared, stabbed with a sword or stomped. And probably died.

If the fight with one guy took too long, his buddies would help him out and you probably died.

If you survived and were injured, chances were you ended up crippled or still died. Medicine then was not what it is now.

what it is now. In event of a natural disaster, you took charge or you died. There was no fire brigade, national guard or rescue team coming.

There was no social security or health care like today. You got sick, injured, ran out of food; you probably died.

When you consider all these bullets (and the list is much longer but I won’t go into it now), think of how stupid it would be for a Chinese guy from that era to spend his time learning a submission fighting system. It wouldn’t make any sense at all. If you showed him those moves, he’d shake his head and think you’re a crazy gwailo…Simply because in that time and context, fighting on the ground was not what you wanted to do to survive. Survival was a daily concern for most folks in those times. They didn’t need adrenal based scenario training because every day life gave them plenty of that already.

The problem with the whole discussion of MMA vs. traditional arts is this: in many many contexts outside of the cage or octagon, you still don’t want to go to the ground:

Any type of war or armed conflict involving hundreds/thousands of participants. A soldier never fights alone so going to the ground with one of them gets you killed by his buddies.

Any fight where weapons are involved. Or could be involved because you never know upfront what the other guy brings to the dance. A slit throat while you’re going for an armbar is not a good thing.

Any environment that puts you at risk when you go to the ground: rocky terrain, concrete, debris filled terrain, etc. You can hit your head when you slam into the floor, he can slam it into the concrete for you, grab a rock/bottle/whatever to mess you up, etc.

These are just a couple of criteria, the list is longer than that but I’m just trying to make a point here: it’s not MMA vs. TMAs. That’s like arguing if a hammer is better than a screwdriver. They’re both tools and have their limits/uses. You don’t hear carpenters arguing over which is better, right?

In my opinion and experience, it’s the same with fighting arts. They’re tools and useful in some areas, not so much in others. Pick one you like and know where it works well while not ignoring the weaknesses. Feel free to disagree though, I’m OK with my own choices and you should be with yours. It’s your ass on the line when that crazy maniac swings a tire iron at your head, not mine. :-)

Just as a parting shot: A soldier on active duty in a not so nice part of the world, a guy who converts people from living to dead said this:

Anybody know of a weapon (other than the rifle) that is best used from the ground?

That one sentence sums up the whole point I tried to make here. I can think of no personal weapon that is specifically designed to work better from the ground than standing up. Let’s expand on that and look at all weapons throughout the history of mankind. I can’ t find any examples. So maybe, just maybe, there is a good reason why going to the ground in a violent conflict is not always a good thing…

Caveat: this is just my opinion and personal experience. I won’t get upset if you disagree with me. However, this blog is my house and so is the comments section. Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas there, you’re more than welcome. But rudeness or infantile arguing will not be tolerated. Life’s too short for that crap.

IMPORTANT:

I’ve received lots of negative comments on this post, which is fine. It’s OK to disagree. That said, please read the comment policy before you share your opinion here. Those are the rules, no discussion.

Also, read the other parts of this post and the post mentioned in Update 2. That’s where I give more background and also say good things about MMA while saying bad things about TMAs. If you don’t read them, it’ll show in your comment and I’ll just delete it without it ever showing up here. I don’t mind arguing but at the very least, we have to be on the same page. If you don’t read these other posts, then you can’t be on the same page. If you just don’t want to, then I don’t want to talk to you because all you’re interested in is saying “Neener, neener, you’re wrong and I’m right.” Life’s too short for that infantile crap.

So either argue like an adult or leave.

UPDATE: Here’s part two of “MMA sucks”.

UPDATE 2: For all the haters, check out “From the Octagon to the street” and the two follow ups on it before you start spouting your bile.

.