MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - MMA vs Street Fighter
View Single Post
post #29 of (permalink) Old 12-05-2012, 11:24 PM
MMA fighter
Kin's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
I replied to all of that, only to now realize that it didnt come through.

Basically, the summary of what I was saying was that Street Fighting and Untrained are two different things. For example, one of the two martial arts I do pretty much specialises in techniques to be used in the street. While I probably can't do any of it, the sensei and other high grade practitioners would have a very high level of ability regarding it.
So you're not very good, but your sensei and sempai are... But if you're not very good, how credible is your assessment of their abilities?

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
An MMA fighter might have a guillotine or a triangle up his sleeve, but just because we see that stuff in the cage doesnt mean it's the most effective. Wrist locks are equally as effective, and because small joint manipulation isnt allowed in the cage, an MMA fighter won't have come across it. I believe this levels up the playing field between what techniques will change the fight.
Wrist locks are far less effective because the lack of control they afford. They're definitely worthwhile techniques, but lower on the pecking scale than chokes in general unarmed combat. A lot of times, a fully resisting opponent can rip free or won't be in a position to catch them in a good one. That said, I do agree that they have value when someone grabs your clothes and that is where they are most viable.

However, you are flat-out wrong about it evening the playing field. There's a saying that novices talk about gear, while professionals discuss tactics. The same is true about martial arts. You're trying to make an argument about how "this technique will beat these techniques." No, that's not how it works.

Techniques are secondary to delivery systems. How good you are at performing techniques -- whatever they are -- against an uncooperative opponent. How do you get good at that? Live drilling and heavy, realistic sparring on a regular basis. The more frequently you do that, and the better partners you have, the better you will become.

And that is why anyone who claims that they can beat a high level professional fighter because they have more street-ready techniques is an idiot, a fraud, delusional, or any combination there of.

Simply put, if a BJJ brown belt fought your sensei, the brown belt is more likely to land a wristlock than your sensei. Why? Because, the brown belt is already extremely accustomed to controlling and dominating COMPETENT grapplers, who are fully resisting his attempts to do so. Meanwhile, your instructor has only his underlings (who, evidently, are so bad at grappling they think they can bite their way out of triangles) to practice his moves on. Ultimately, its not about who's got the bigger payload; it is about who can deliver it.

The sport fighter, who devotes hours upon hours to non-compliant training will be that guy 99 times out of 100.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
Adding to that, an MMA fighter has holds barred, while a martial artist training in a non sports enviroment has none. Eye gouges, groin shots and hair pulling or whatever you mentioned might not be the best techniques ever on their own, or as a counter, but when mixed in with technique and intent they are a lot more damaging than otherwise.
The bold part is true. Combat athletes are good at fighting. Self defense martial artists are (theoretically) good at surviving dangerous scenarios.

A legitimate Reality Based Self Defense practitioner would survive a lot of scenarios are sport fighter would not. However, if they were to collide in unarmed combat, the sport fighter would definitely have a HUUUGE advantage. Because fighting is his domain.

Really, the most effective thing to do would be to get good at actually fighting (via sports training) then tacking on some scenario-based drilling and 'street techniques' later.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
The person training for combat on the street will have an obvious home field advantage. Martial arts takes street fighting in, as martial arts was not developed as a competition, but as a self defence system. Everything stems from that, and unlike MMA which is 100% focused to competing, the techniques are designed to prevent threats on your life, not victory. Street fighting isnt the drunk guy outside a nighclub, it's a non disqualification fight to the finish, whether that be by it being broke up or worse. Take weapons in too. An MMA fight will have no clue how to disarm a martial artist with a weapon, let alone defend against it.
The bolded portion holds *some* truth, but definitely doesn't apply to the surprising amount of people who cross train MMA and Kali.

The advantage in a fight would go to the guy who's better at fighting. That will be the MMA guy -- regardless of rules.

The funny thing about this is that the only people who seem to think otherwise ARE PEOPLE WHO CANT FIGHT.

I've met plenty of people in MMA, who have tons of street fighting experience, bouncing experience, self defense experience, or something of that sort. All of these people, who have street experience, have said the exact same thing I said above.

The LARPers, the delusional, and the phonies are the ones who try to sell you this idea of 'magic techniques' that will somehow outclass superior skill.

Originally Posted by ClydebankBlitz View Post
It's pretty much what I said earlier. It's only relevent when you take a trained fighter against an untrained fighter. When you're trying to use techniques like a triangle, in which you'll either have to pull guard or use it from the top, you had better make sure it's an untrained fighter. You pull guard on the street, instead of trying to punch you, someone with intelligence could just repeatedly slam your head onto the concrete. You can lock in a triangle, but if they have any sort of martial arts knowledge, you could be picked up and slammed, with a massive chance of suffering a huge injury. If you go for the guillotine, even basic fighters can keep it standing and put it against the cage. Take the cage away. You're getting thrown into actual things. Buildings, cards, lampposts. That isn't going to knock you out but if people can use the cage to slip out of submissions, I'm sure using a solid surface will be a lot easier. Thats what I'm saying that using the natural abilities of an MMA fighter is the best thing to do. An MMA fighter will have more experience in sparring than any "street fighter", because they don't need real life fights to have punches coming at them with the intent of knockout and damage. Keeping it standing allows the MMA fighter to use his reactions and reflexes against the less experiences opponent, but taking it to the ground allows a trained fighter the oppertunity to exocute techniques the MMA fighter has never even heard of.
This whole part was retarded and again displays your gaping lack of knowledge. If you get picked up so easily on triangles, you clearly suck. I mean, it happens once in a while maybe, but most of the time it results on them falling on to their side or on the wrong end of a mounted triangle. So no. Just no.

Anyways, some thing I always bring up to people who think dirty techniques will trump actual skill and experience in dealing with resisting opponents... Do you think your revered sensei would lose to a white belt if only the white belt could use dirty techniques? Because that's pretty much what your argument is.

Though almost everything you've said is dumb, I will give you credit for being very gentlemanly about it while I continue to be rude and disparaging. So props for that, if nothing else.

Highly opinionated but out of touch with the current MMA scene.

Support my FB athlete page!

Watch my pro highlight reel

Kin is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome