Originally Posted by TheNegation
Well, MMA the sport, the fighting style, which is now what we see when we tune into 'Mixed Martial Arts' competitions
has come about in the recently, but the concept of no holds barred fighting, vale tudo matches etc. are not.
So MMA the fighting style is in it's infancy, but thats not what I was talking about, which couldhavebeen confusing.
I mean when TKD was tested against other martial arts in these competitions it did poorly. As a striking art, well it is miles behind Muay thai.
And what six effective techniques from TKD? So take three different punches, three different kicks from TKD, walk into a match and then put your opponent in an armbar, are you gonna say ''My victory is down to my TKD training!'
Well, what was the point of styles in the first place?
They weren't excluding techniques for a laugh, they did it because they thought other techniques were inneffective.
Styles are methodsof fighting, some have provenmore effective in actual combatthan others, and TKD is not one.
It's true that no holds barred fighting has been around for a while, but I'd find it hard to argue that it hasn't grown leaps and bounds since the arrival of modern day MMA. No one from the olden days of vale tudo could compare with the athletes of today, simply because everyone is so much more well rounded.
In the example you gave about taking six striking techniques and seizing victory by armbar... Well, I'd say that the practitioners striking experience (TKD in this case) aided him in evading blows and closing the distance to bring the fight to the range that he apparently desired. I mean, just if I were a BJJ stylist and I managed to defend against a flurry of strikes only to end the match with a submission, I would assign credit to where its due. My grappling skills was the offense, and my striking skill was the defense. Any win that I'd achieve, I would credit it to every applicable technique that I had applied in the match.
Admittedly, TKD doesn't tend to do well against other striking styles. However, I would attribute that to how they train more than the style itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. However, most who wield it do a poor job. It's like a boxer who throws straight punches from really close, and throws hooks from a distance. He has the tools, he's just using them wrong.
A counter arguement that I would expect to arise would be that TKD practitioners in general tend to utilize their techniques poorly. That is unfortunately the result of its evolution as a sport. Karate has gone that way as well, despite the fact that there's not much inherently wrong about it. I guarantee you that, if Muay Thai became afflicted with the same circumstances, it too would become victim to charlatans who would tarnish it for the sake of money.
An advantage MT has in this case is that there is no belt system. The curse of the belt has played a major part in the downfall of traditional martial arts. Say MT had reached the levels of popularity that TKD and Karate had achieved. Now also, lets say that MT had a belt system.
People would flock to instructors, hoping to learn how to fight just like their favorite Muay Thai film stars. However, coming face to face with the sometimes grueling hardships and discipline involved with hard training, many would drop out. Instructors would find it difficult to maintain their gyms without students to pay for it. So, some clever businessman would start a buy-a-belt dojo, where everything would be toned down. The sparring would be lighter and more bearable to the average shmuck hoping for an easy belt. Standards for competency would drop for the sake of dispensing belts to assure students of possibly undeserved progress. And that would sell.
Flash forward several generations, everyone wants to do MT -- master it quickly, and with little difficulty. They would further warp the sparring environment for the sake of participant comfort. Perhaps get rid of free sparring altogether, and just apply a 'first-touch' point system. Then, because dealing actual damage would no longer be a factor, techniques would change to meet the circumstances. Why bother with a full out roundhouse? Its so slow compared to a simply flick of the leg, and so obsolete in a 'first-touch' environment.
Next thing you know, everyone on youtube is like "MT IZ A JOKE Y DO U LZRS DO MOO TAI WIT ITZ FLIPPY KICKZ?"
So, despite the fact that MT was solid at its core, the changes made to suit the lazy consumer would warp it into pure junk.
I only bring up with hypothetical situation, because I realized that when most people refer to TKD, they have olympic bull**** in mind. They're painfully unaware of how TKD had been modified, and consequently weakened.
My main arguement would be about how one can simply take certain techniques from any art and utilize them effectively. However, if one has little reference to real TKD, they probably couldn't even see any such techniques within the style regardless.