Definition of Martial Arts

[Erts]

A friend and I were recently having this discussion.

A note on our backrounds and experience:
He is a 3rd degree Tae-Kwon-Do blackbelt (and I mean real Tae-Kwon-Do, not just a belt factory.)
I took Tae-Kwon-Do for 3 or so years when I was young, wrestled a bit in high school, and have been doing Muay Thai for 2 years or so. I also just began Jujitsu a month or so ago, and plan on trying Sambo at some time.

Back to the question.

How do you define Martial Arts?

I took the stance that Boxing and Wrestling both count as Martial Arts; just because they do not have a Eastern backround doesn't mean that they aren't viable. Sure, there isn't much "art" in them, but the same thing is true for many popular martial arts styles. I can't think of many that are primarily art, though capoira would fall under it. (No disrespect to capoira users.)

Any thoughts on this discussion?

[Spiryt]

Kinda weird...

Boxing and wrestling are both martial arts - they are traditions of teching techniques that may be used in actual combat.

Very effective ones too, even when if they don't look "artful".

In fact in 90% of cases the less "artful" something looks, the more practical it may actually be.

The only distinctions I can think of is with stuff like Krav Maga - which is not an martial arts, but combat/martial system - dealing with actual situations and strategies of surviving/dealing with different situations rather than "pure" martial techniques.

But even here distinction can be little blurry AFAIK.

[Erts]

Boxing and wrestling are both martial arts - they are traditions of teching techniques that may be used in actual combat.

Very effective ones too, even when if they don't look "artful".


I agree.

One of his arguments was that they aren't effective in combat situations (I know, he does TKD, but the difference is that he dislikes sport TKD on principle.)
I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.

[Don Julio Anejo]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

[Erts]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

Thats always nice to say :smalltongue:

I'm not sure. Any high enough kick gives a wrestler ample oppurtunity to grab the leg, and boom, single leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takedown_(grappling)#Single_leg_takedown) take down right there.

Of course, it is the martial artist, not the martial art, which determines the outcome.

[Spiryt]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

MMA history tells that he would probably would do awfully against wrestler, ending controlled and punched/whatever on the ground.

Although I'm not sure how much TWD focus on any wrestling techniques, but I suspect that not enough to avoid/stop takedown from competent wrestler. But that depends on person.

[Liffguard]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

Easy to say, difficult to do. At the risk of turning this into a "my kung fu is stronger than yours" kind of thread, MMA has shown how difficult it is for a non-wrestler to stay on his feet if a wrestler is trying to put him on the ground.

[Altaria87]

Well, first, to answer the question, in my opinion a martial art is just any... well art that has vaguely military roots (hence 'martial'), eg Iado (sp?) being used by Samurai, Taekwondo being used by Korean soldiers for things like dismounting people from horses. And that generally teaches self-defence to use in a case where you are threatened.
Now, on the subject of Taekwondo, I'm unsure as to how your friend is opposed to 'sport Taekwondo', sure, the new rulings do encourage flashy kicks and stuff more, but that is purely to make it mor exciting to watch and bring more people into the art. So, basically, what would he define as 'non-sport Taekwondo', because in my experience, in my club, any fight training we do fits in neatly to go alongside the Poomsae and Self-Defence aspects of the class.

[dps]

Fencing/swordplay also counts as martial arts.

[Prime32]

I've heard that some people in Eastern countries think that "martial arts" is a single discipline taught throughout Europe. Thus you'll get, say, a swordsman in a fighting game who is listed with "Fighting style: Martial arts".

:smallconfused:

I have no sources for this, mind.

[Coidzor]

Italian Longsword is a martial art. The methods and techniques of the samurai in wielding a bow is a martial art, though I can't remember the name for it offhand.

If it's about fighting, it's martial. If there's any kind of structure at all, it's probably going to qualify on the art side as well.


One of his arguments was that they aren't effective in combat situations (I know, he does TKD, but the difference is that he dislikes sport TKD on principle.)
I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.

Well, I think you can see why he thinks that. He's self-blinded. Like those kids who think that double-bladed swords are cool rather than stupid and impractical compared to a staff.

[Dr.Epic]

Pretty much any form of combat. If you need training in it I'd say it's an art.

[Exeson]

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

Or that is how I think about it anyway.

[Coidzor]

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

Or that is how I think about it anyway.

Ahh, minion-jutsu. Truly the greatest of all martial arts. :smallbiggrin:

[Liffguard]

I think the definition has to be narrower than just any form of combat. Boxing? Sure. Fencing? Yep. Shooting? Ok. Driving a tank? Operating an artillery cell? Launching a cruise missile from 1000 miles away? You might say that these things are martial arts but then I think the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

[Irenaeus]

I kind of liked the first line on the Wiki article about Martial Arts:

Martial arts or fighting arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of Combat."The codified practices and traditions of combat" part means that purely military or reality-based self defense systems can easily fall outside the definition, as they to a lesser degree has either a central philosophy or a focus of effectiveness within a certain ruleset.

Boxing and Wrestling are martial arts as they for example have a huge amount of named techniques that are drilled repeatedly, and most certainly are martial. Just because they lack a philosophical/religious side does not mean they fall outside of most definitions.


He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.Assuming an equal level of athleticism, size and level of experience, no he probably wouldn't.

[Erts]

Now, on the subject of Taekwondo, I'm unsure as to how your friend is opposed to 'sport Taekwondo', sure, the new rulings do encourage flashy kicks and stuff more, but that is purely to make it mor exciting to watch and bring more people into the art. So, basically, what would he define as 'non-sport Taekwondo', because in my experience, in my club, any fight training we do fits in neatly to go alongside the Poomsae and Self-Defence aspects of the class.

To clarify, he appreciates sparring and competition for the purposes of teaching students, but he dislikes the point system at the Olympics for the flashy kicks and such.





Assuming an equal level of athleticism, size and level of experience, no he probably wouldn't.

He'd probably do average assuming that.

[katans]

Tough question... I'd define a martial art as an activity aiming at providing its practitioners with the physical and mental skill to survive a life-and-death combat situation with minimum damage. In this aspect, boxing and MMA are no martial arts because although they provide skill, their purpose is generally competition and not survival. Similarly, military or police training is not a martial art because the purpose is to defeat the enemy and not to survive with minimum damage (those are two very distinct things).

Notice that the definition is aimed at the activity in itself, not at the tradition or the name. You can practice grandma-style tai chi or martial tai chi, sports sambo or street fight sambo, dress-up ninjutsu or killer ninjutsu, arm-flapping kung fu or martial kung fu. The difference is in the point of the training, the assumptions, the objectives; not in the name. Of course, certain traditions/systems are better suited than others and claiming you're training for life-and-death situations doesn't mean you actually do, but nevertheless, it is HOW you train that determines if you're practicing martial sports, martial arts, health-supporting activities, or some weird kind of aerobic.

[Erts]

Tough question... I'd define a martial art as an activity aiming at providing its practitioners with the physical and mental skill to survive a life-and-death combat situation with minimum damage. In this aspect, boxing and MMA are no martial arts because although they provide skill, their purpose is generally competition and not survival. Similarly, military or police training is not a martial art because the purpose is to defeat the enemy and not to survive with minimum damage (those are two very distinct things).


In boxing, dodging is emphasized, as is fitness. In military martial arts, so much is about escaping.

And in many martial arts escaping isn't emphasized. TKD for example.

[katans]

So much for the effort I put into differentiating the NAME and the actual ACTIVITY. Did you actually read my second paragraph?

[Erts]

So much for the effort I put into differentiating the NAME and the actual ACTIVITY. Did you actually read my second paragraph?

Yes, I did, and I agree with you on what you mean about the activity. I just don't think you should exclude competitive martial arts from the definition.

[katans]

I don't. But in my opinion as long as you're training for competition you're practicing sports, not a martial art. If your training purpose is a friendly opposition against one opponent within a given set of rules and a referee, then you clearly aren't training for survival. Of course, your training my provide you with speed, strength, fitness and technique that would be useful in a life-and-death situation, but ultimately it's not a martial art. Not by my definition.

It may not be the best definition there is, but it works for me, and I feel it covers everything even remotely related to combat.

[Xuc Xac]

How do you define Martial Arts?

I took the stance that Boxing and Wrestling both count as Martial Arts; just because they do not have a Eastern backround doesn't mean that they aren't viable. Sure, there isn't much "art" in them, but the same thing is true for many popular martial arts styles. I can't think of many that are primarily art, though capoira would fall under it. (No disrespect to capoira users.)

Any thoughts on this discussion?

I define "martial arts" as "fighting techniques (on the scale of the individual)". Capoeira is a martial art: it's intentionally flashy so it looks like dancing, but it's actual fighting. Wushu is just the opposite: a performance art designed to look like fighting. Boxing and wrestling are definitely martial arts. They didn't call boxing "the sweet science" because it lacked technique. Professional wrestling would be like Wushu: it's a performance that looks like fighting but it's not real fighting.


A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)


The "art" refers to technique as in the phrase "there's an art to it". It's not the same meaning as "painting and sculpture and stuff". I would say "martial arts" would be on the scale of the individual. Arts are techniques performed by one skilled person. Using small groups in fighting would be "tactics". On a large scale (using armies), it's "strategy". In an ideal army, the soldiers all know "martial arts", the squad leaders have good tactics, and the higher ranks have good strategy.


The only distinctions I can think of is with stuff like Krav Maga - which is not an martial arts, but combat/martial system - dealing with actual situations and strategies of surviving/dealing with different situations rather than "pure" martial techniques.

Many martial arts are "systems". It seems to be the latest "selling point" to call them "systems" in English to make them sound more special (because "art" is now more associated with painting and stuff), but fighting styles have been called "systems" in other languages for a long time. I know at least one kung fu style that has been called a "system" in Chinese for about 350 years now.


I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.


He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

Boxers can dodge and block too. And they spend all their training time on improving their punches and learning to dodge or block a hit. The TKD guy has to divide his time between kicking, punching, blocking and everything else. Boxers usually do a lot of damage when they go up against other martial artists just because the boxers' techniques are much more practiced.

[Erts]

Boxing and wrestling are definitely martial arts. They didn't call boxing "the sweet science" because it lacked technique. Professional wrestling would be like Wushu: it's a performance that looks like fighting but it's not real fighting.


I believe you know the difference, but just to clarify, I meant wrestling wrestling. Not professional wrestling, which is, as you said, theater made to look like a fighting.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Doesn't the art part of the name come from when parts of Japan were occupied by china and the peasants had to disguise their fighting styles as dances?

[BisectedBrioche]

Doesn't the art part of the name come from when parts of Japan were occupied by china and the peasants had to disguise their fighting styles as dances?

No. It just means art in the sense of "the practise and improvement of". As mentioned above.

In fact, I think the phrase "Martial Art" is a construct of the English language.

EDIT: According to wikipedia it was coined in the 15th century and refered to European Martial Arts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

[Xuc Xac]

In fact, I think the phrase "Martial Art" is a construct of the English language.

By way of Latin. "Martial arts" are the "crafts of Mars, the god of war". I think most Asian languages refer to them by words that are more closely analogous to "war skills" or "fighting techniques".

[xPANCAKEx]

using MMA as a basis for showing which martial art beats what is not a good idea. Most MMA organisations are governed by pretty strict rules that ban this that and the other for being "too dangerous" etc to the competitors. When you throw back in to the equations all those things that most MMA organisations ban, then it gets a lot more interesting

[LurkerInPlayground]

By way of Latin. "Martial arts" are the "crafts of Mars, the god of war". I think most Asian languages refer to them by words that are more closely analogous to "war skills" or "fighting techniques".
Or to put it shortly, few things that are around today really qualifies as a martial art. Particularly since most such "arts" are watered-down, poorly understood or bastardized versions of their antecedents. And in any case, they no longer have cultural relevance in training soldiers.

[Liffguard]

using MMA as a basis for showing which martial art beats what is not a good idea. Most MMA organisations are governed by pretty strict rules that ban this that and the other for being "too dangerous" etc to the competitors. When you throw back in to the equations all those things that most MMA organisations ban, then it gets a lot more interesting

Eh, it's not an absolutely accurate measure but it's pretty much the closest safe approximation that exists right now. Besides, a lot of the things that are banned in MMA are very difficult to train safely anyway and if you can't train something then it's difficult to rely on it in a combat situation.

[BisectedBrioche]

Or to put it shortly, few things that are around today really qualifies as a martial art. Particularly since most such "arts" are watered-down, poorly understood or bastardized versions of their antecedents. And in any case, they no longer have cultural relevance in training soldiers.

I disagree. While many have been formalised for points based sports, they're still effective on their own. Just because someone swings around a piece of metal with a button on the end or a blunt piece or wood doesn't mean they aren't extremely good with a real sword. Just because boxers wear padded gloves, doesn't change the fact that boxing techniques are one of the most popular strikes for "self defence" moves.

The real issue with classical martial arts is simply that combat itself has changed. Most "modern" martial arts are limited to firearms, hand to hand combat and knives (most explosive based weaponry generally don't involve direct combat) for the sole reason that only those see any practical use on modern battlefields (and the latter two are last resorts).

[Xuc Xac]

Just because boxers wear padded gloves, doesn't change the fact that boxing techniques are one of the most popular strikes for "self defence" moves.

Actually, boxers hit harder when they're wearing gloves. The gloves aren't to soften the blow and protect the guy getting hit. The purpose of the gloves is to protect the hands of the guy doing the hitting so he doesn't break any bones in his hands. A strong bare-knuckle boxer will pull his punches to avoid hurting himself. If his hands are wrapped and protected, he'll strike with full force. The gloves might be a little softer than the boxer's bare knuckles, but they're also heavy and add a lot of mass to the blow.

[Spiryt]

using MMA as a basis for showing which martial art beats what is not a good idea. Most MMA organisations are governed by pretty strict rules that ban this that and the other for being "too dangerous" etc to the competitors. When you throw back in to the equations all those things that most MMA organisations ban, then it gets a lot more interesting

Early UFC events had minimal rules, so any of those is quite accurate.

And all banned stuff like groin, eye etc attacks aren't really super vital elements of anything, like Liffguard said, save things like Krav Maga, and could be anyway applied by anyone, mostly on the ground.

So, yeah, MMA is pretty good basis for showing what can beat what.

Again, especially some old old events, where one actually could find "TWD vs Judo" fight, because guys training just and only "their" art where facing each other.

[Worira]

Tough question... I'd define a martial art as an activity aiming at providing its practitioners with the physical and mental skill to survive a life-and-death combat situation with minimum damage. In this aspect, boxing and MMA are no martial arts because although they provide skill, their purpose is generally competition and not survival. Similarly, military or police training is not a martial art because the purpose is to defeat the enemy and not to survive with minimum damage (those are two very distinct things).


Uh. That's... what? No.

[Umael]

Early UFC events had minimal rules, so any of those is quite accurate.

And all banned stuff like groin, eye etc attacks aren't really super vital elements of anything,

Wait, what?

I know I misunderstood.

Are you saying that none of the banned attacks go for vital areas?

Because you listed the eye, and I'm pretty sure the eye is a vulnerable area. I'm also betting you knew that and that what I think you are talking about isn't what you are actually talking about.

[BisectedBrioche]

Wait, what?

I know I misunderstood.

Are you saying that none of the banned attacks go for vital areas?

Because you listed the eye, and I'm pretty sure the eye is a vulnerable area. I'm also betting you knew that and that what I think you are talking about isn't what you are actually talking about.

No, he's saying they aren't particularly vital elements of the styles. i.e. that they're not important.

[Umael]

Okay, I was correct; I did misunderstand.

Carry on.

[TheThan]

Interesting question.

I think any coifed form of martial training qualifies, so boxing, wrestling and even something like say fencing and sword fighting (look up European martial arts) all fit the bill.

I think what really matters is whether your martial art focus on the martial aspects of its curriculum, or the artistic part.

[Mathis]

I'm going to second the definition the users of Wikipedia have already kindly offered us. It's plainly the best suggestion to a clear definition so far.

Martial arts or fighting arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of Combat. Martial arts all have a very similar objective: defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honor. Martial arts are considered as both an art and a science. Many arts are also practiced competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
While it's still a subjective submission, it touches upon areas of martial arts that have been overlooked or simply ignored in previous suggestions in this thread. The main part is the two first sentences, this is the core of the definition. I'd like to see someone come up with something that this definition excludes.

[katans]

Uh. That's... what? No.

Well, the purpose of police and army is to ensure security to others, including, as far as it's possible, the transgressor's; that implies taking risks and acting not only in defense, but in offense as well. Plus, they are most of the time following orders. Both are not always compatible with minimizing hazards to self, which is in my opinion the main point of martial arts: survival. When confronted with a screaming, knife-wielding lunatic in the middle of the street, a civil person better run without even thinking. A policeman will try and arrest him, and that means neutralizing and restraining him as humanely as possible, even though the guy's a crazy lunatic. Do you know the difference between a police lock and a civil self-defense lock, for example? A police lock is meant to immobilize and is usually carried on by more than one officer. A civil lock is meant to break.

But it's a purely didactical point we're discussing here; I'm not in any way judging the contents and/or the quality. I just proposed a definition according to which army and police work are not martial arts. Feel free to come up with a better one, I'd be glad to read it.

[Worira]

If your definition of martial arts precludes the military, it's time to scrap it and come up with a new one.

[katans]

If your definition of martial arts precludes the military, it's time to scrap it and come up with a new one.

Sure, let's make the gross reductionism of saying martial = military and keep calling karate a martial art. Or hell, MMA. Or boxing. 'Cause they're totally related to the military, you see.

You're referring to symbolic associations that were never intended or addressed in my definition, or in anybody's definition in this thread. Just because the world martial literally means related to warfare, it does not mean anything labeled "martial" has to be. You don't think of suffering when you use the word "sympathy" either, don't you?

[Liffguard]

If your definition of martial arts precludes the military, it's time to scrap it and come up with a new one.

This is pretty much why I don't like the term "martial arts" at all. It's far too broad and means too many different things to different people. I prefer using more specific terms to describe different activities. So for example, combat sports, civilian self defense and military unarmed combat. There's a lot of overlap between them, but fundamentally different activities.

[Zen Monkey]

Lethality shouldn't enter into the discussion of requirements. A common bar fight may have two people who intend to hurt each other but have no intention of killing each other. Therefore, it's not a life-or-death situation but still one wherein the outcome is heavily affected by the level of martial skill possessed by each participant and is not merely for sport. A skilled wrestler or boxer, with no experience in lethal techniques beyond that of the average person, could still gain a significant advantage over an untrained opponent and put a swifter end to the confrontation without serious harm.

[Cealocanth]

As I see it, a martial art is a style of fighting or originated from one that is now more of an art because it is rarely used in actual combat.

A couple common martial arts are:
Kung Fu
Tae Kwan Do
Wrestling

A couple uncommon ones are:
Archery
Rapier
Heavy Fighting (sword + shield in platemail armor)

[Asta Kask]

I prefer the marital arts - I'm a lover, not a fighter

[Erts]

I prefer the marital arts - I'm a lover, not a fighter

You mean the term martial arts?

Martial- Derived from the Roman God Mars. The God of War.

I agree, I think martial arts should be redefined as "fighting styles," but the word has already been inserted into pop consciousness, so there's nothing now to do about it.

[Castaras]

You mean the term martial arts?

Martial- Derived from the Roman God Mars. The God of War.

I agree, I think martial arts should be redefined as "fighting styles," but the word has already been inserted into pop consciousness, so there's nothing now to do about it.

You missed the joke. :smallwink:

[Anteros]

I would agree that you can't really use MMA as a gauge to determine the effectiveness of particular arts in real world situations. There are plenty of moves that get used in MMA that leave the vital areas wide open...but since there are rules against striking there it doesn't matter.

A lot of the most effective moves used in MMA would get you killed in a real fight.

[Erts]

You missed the joke. :smallwink:

I believe I did... :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

I believe I did... :smallconfused:

Marital status. Marital Arts. Marital Bliss. Marital aids. :smallwink:

Boudoirs and all that jazz.

[Megaduck]

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

Or that is how I think about it anyway.

I have to agree with this definition. The Martial Arts are simply the study of the Art of War, all facets of war. Including Strategy and Tactics. So a general studying tactics is studying the Martial Arts as is fighter pilot training.

Fighter-Fu

[LurkerInPlayground]

I disagree. While many have been formalised for points based sports, they're still effective on their own. Just because someone swings around a piece of metal with a button on the end or a blunt piece or wood doesn't mean they aren't extremely good with a real sword. Just because boxers wear padded gloves, doesn't change the fact that boxing techniques are one of the most popular strikes for "self defence" moves.
ARMA's entire thesis pretty much does state that it's impossible to be effective if you train incorrectly. Or more specifically, modern fencing ignores cutting and other ranges of motion including grappling. And they never really train in full-contact. And of course, swords are simply misrepresented as a part of theater, roleplay or gaming. To put it bluntly, it usually does mean you're not good with a real sword if you've never touched one even in practice.

But without going into an overly involved rant about the minutiae, nobody today depends on swords for combat anymore. By definition, this means that there are no "masters." Anybody who claims to be a "master" is simply a fraud. They weren't raised in a culture where skill with a sword is a way of dealing with civilian or military conflict. Or for that matter, they weren't raised in a culture where learning to use a sword was a prelude to an education in other aspects of warfare (e.g. horsemanship).

As for unarmed combat, there is actually no real division between armed and unarmed fighting. Sword fighting evolved from combat foremost. It's just fighting that happened to involve swords. As with "swordsmanship," MMA mostly ignores a well-rounded education in favor of artistic choices for athletic or competitive purposes. ARMA even goes so far as to declare that it's easier to learn unarmed fighting by learning armed fighting instead.

Fiction is rife with stories about knightly challenges and samurai cutting each other apart for no greater reason than to enhance or prove their prowess. And I suspect this has a basis in reality. Martial arts was practiced to kill people. And there were probably many people quite willing to take on great personal risk to better their art. It wasn't debated on internet forums.

Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do isn't a system so much as it is a philosophy. And even then, most military men would probably have understood his philosophy implicitly without needing to baptize a "style." You take what works and adapt it to your needs (cultural or personal). There's nothing revolutionary in what Bruce Lee might say on the topic.

Modern instructors who train cops, correctional facility guards and soldiers probably would end up telling you the same. And they'd just likely roll their eyes at you for calling yourself a "master" of anything.

As with all things in life, there are certain things which distinguish a legitimate education and work experience from a title received out of a diploma mill.

[oximoron98]

mma is pretty cool with all the mixed moves and unbreakables

[oximoron98]

yuknow war is no art it is death and destruction
stay away from it kids

[Worira]

Sure, let's make the gross reductionism of saying martial = military and keep calling karate a martial art. Or hell, MMA. Or boxing. 'Cause they're totally related to the military, you see.

You're referring to symbolic associations that were never intended or addressed in my definition, or in anybody's definition in this thread. Just because the world martial literally means related to warfare, it does not mean anything labeled "martial" has to be. You don't think of suffering when you use the word "sympathy" either, don't you?

No, not everything labeled "martial" needs to be related to warfare, seeing as that's only half the definition of martial, the other half being related to combat. However, a definition which precludes military use, and bases itself around self-defence as opposed to use of force for other purposes, bears no relation to the term. There's nothing about the term "martial" that requires it be used solely for self-defence. As for your examples: Yes, karate certainly meets the definition of combat-related, as does boxing. Karate arguably also meets the definition of war-related. Whether MMA does or doesn't is irrelevant, as it's not a martial art regardless.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I would broadly disagree.

I would say that karate has aspects of it that might be used for combat.

And in any case, arguing out of the dictionary is kind of futile. It's really just a watered-down appeal to authority.

[Liffguard]

There are plenty of moves that get used in MMA that leave the vital areas wide open

Such as?


A lot of the most effective moves used in MMA would get you killed in a real fight.

Really? Because the most effective moves in MMA are pretty much the safest rock solid basics like jab-cross-hook combos, double-leg takedowns and ground-and-pound.

[Anteros]

Such as?



Really? Because the most effective moves in MMA are pretty much the safest rock solid basics like jab-cross-hook combos, double-leg takedowns and ground-and-pound.

Yes. Really. If you try most of those take down or ground-and-pound positions in real life you're going to get your eyes jabbed out or your throat crushed in. Even in the tamest of fights your opponent isn't going to kindly avoid cheap-shotting you in the groin when you expose it to him.

[Liffguard]

Yes. Really. If you try most of those take down or ground-and-pound positions in real life you're going to get your eyes jabbed out or your throat crushed in. Even in the tamest of fights your opponent isn't going to kindly avoid cheap-shotting you in the groin when you expose it to him.

First off, "dirty fighting" goes both ways. And frankly, someone in a good ground-and-pound position is going to be in a much better position to do it. You can't go for someone's throat or eyes from underneath mount or knee-on-belly.

Second, groin shots and eye pokes are not magic bullets capable of overcoming a fundamental lack of technique. Footwork, timing and position are infinitely more important and the fighter with a better grasp of these fundamentals will be better able to launch attacks and defend against attacks, regardless of what those attacks might be.

[absolmorph]

This is pretty much why I don't like the term "martial arts" at all. It's far too broad and means too many different things to different people. I prefer using more specific terms to describe different activities. So for example, combat sports, civilian self defense and military unarmed combat. There's a lot of overlap between them, but fundamentally different activities.
Well, when your definition of "martial arts" doesn't include something meant for actual combat, given how the term was created, it's gonna be criticized.

Also, it's quite possible to trap your opponent's arms under your legs while ground-and-pounding. My brother has demonstrated this enough times (on me) that my reaction is "Not again...", though he doesn't actually proceed with the pounding.
Plus, I cannot begin to count the number of times someone has gone for a groin shot (outside of a fight, when I was not expecting it) and I blocked it easily. Because turning your hips moves your legs so you can block and/or deflect a strike with them.

[Anteros]

First off, "dirty fighting" goes both ways. And frankly, someone in a good ground-and-pound position is going to be in a much better position to do it. You can't go for someone's throat or eyes from underneath mount or knee-on-belly.

Second, groin shots and eye pokes are not magic bullets capable of overcoming a fundamental lack of technique. Footwork, timing and position are infinitely more important and the fighter with a better grasp of these fundamentals will be better able to launch attacks and defend against attacks, regardless of what those attacks might be.

Everything you said there is true, and I agree with all of it. However, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of what we see in MMA wouldn't work in a real fight, which makes me question the validity of simply stating "well this style is more effective in MMA matches so it must be better!"

[PhoeKun]

Also, it's quite possible to trap your opponent's arms under your legs while ground-and-pounding. My brother has demonstrated this enough times (on me) that my reaction is "Not again...", though he doesn't actually proceed with the pounding.
Plus, I cannot begin to count the number of times someone has gone for a groin shot (outside of a fight, when I was not expecting it) and I blocked it easily. Because turning your hips moves your legs so you can block and/or deflect a strike with them.

First rule of fighting - your opponent is never as open as he looks. Human reflexes, even undeveloped ones, are very good. If you're punching someone, you'd better already know where the counterattack is going to come from after they block it and you expose yourself. If you're kicking, be ready to end up on the ground.

Anyway, the point of all of this is that a fight looks very different when you're standing to one side and watching it, and you would be very foolish to discount the abilities of a trained MMA fighter in a "real" combat situation. They are in better control of their adrenaline than most anyone they would be fighting, and they know to attack with strong, high percentage maneuvers. It's arrogance to think that they don't know how to fight.

[Irenaeus]

Dwelling to much on the component words of "Martial Arts" seems less than useful to me. The term as a composite is used to describe something else than the meaning of the individual words, and any useful definition would have to fit roughly with current and historical usage. I'd stick to the wiki definition. It's good enough for me, and such things as the Operational Art of War and fighter pilot training seems to fall somewhat outside of it, while it nicely encompasses both pajamas-wearing and western arts.

If I need to be more specific, I'll use a more specific term. Arguments like this is the reason a French diplomat stopped talking about Scandinavia, and invented the term "Nordic Countries".


Yes. Really. If you try most of those take down or ground-and-pound positions in real life you're going to get your eyes jabbed out or your throat crushed in. Even in the tamest of fights your opponent isn't going to kindly avoid cheap-shotting you in the groin when you expose it to him.No.

Video of fight included between a man with allegedly 20 years of Kung Fu experience, against a smaller and younger man with 3 or 4 years of MMA training (I think). The bigger man goes for the eyes, and accomplishes being bit in the finger and not much else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m3HcgR2_vA

[Spiryt]

Seriously with all that magical "dirty stuff" one can just watch few first UFC's where just biting, eye gouging and something else I always forget were prohibited.

Everything else went, along with (in)famous Joe Son groin being destroyed.

http://www.yorkblog.com/mma/hackneyjoeson.gif

And that's pretty much it - notice that it was done from pretty proper dominant position - side control.

Not much of krav dirty mac brutal stuff helped that much. :smalltongue:

[TheThan]

I’m on the fence on the matter if warfare training should be classified as martial arts, mostly because of the advent of reliable firearms. For the past 400 or so years, man has been dependant on firearms to wage war. Soldiers train to use them, from primitive hand cannons, to muskets to revolvers and leverguns to modern assault rifles and machine guns. Guns are designed to do one thing, kill, they make an easier job of it, therefore the amount of training and skill involved is dramatically reduced. Granted some train in guns as much as any professional fighter, but that is the minority of gun owners in the world. Weapons systems that have developed from the gun, missiles, tanks etc also fit in here.

But on the other hand, hand to hand fighting techniques are still taught, back in WWII US soldiers learned boxing, wrestling and weapons training (bayoneting, knife fighting, butt strikes etc). Modern militaries still teach this sort of fighting, though now they use systems like Jiu Jitsu and Krav Maga. The techniques may have changed but the basic idea of “fighting without your gun” is still present.

So really, its hard to say whether military training falls into the category of martial arts.

[Erts]

Dwelling to much on the component words of "Martial Arts" seems less than useful to me. The term as a composite is used to describe something else than the meaning of the individual words, and any useful definition would have to fit roughly with current and historical usage. I'd stick to the wiki definition. It's good enough for me, and such things as the Operational Art of War and fighter pilot training seems to fall somewhat outside of it, while it nicely encompasses both pajamas-wearing and western arts.


The reason is because I am tired of listening to people not thinking that wrestlers know how to fight, and that if you do karate at a McDojo for a year you're an unstoppable machine.

This may sound petty, but, eh. Ignorance pisses me off in general.

[Anteros]

Dwelling to much on the component words of "Martial Arts" seems less than useful to me. The term as a composite is used to describe something else than the meaning of the individual words, and any useful definition would have to fit roughly with current and historical usage. I'd stick to the wiki definition. It's good enough for me, and such things as the Operational Art of War and fighter pilot training seems to fall somewhat outside of it, while it nicely encompasses both pajamas-wearing and western arts.

If I need to be more specific, I'll use a more specific term. Arguments like this is the reason a French diplomat stopped talking about Scandinavia, and invented the term "Nordic Countries".

No.

Video of fight included between a man with allegedly 20 years of Kung Fu experience, against a smaller and younger man with 3 or 4 years of MMA training (I think). The bigger man goes for the eyes, and accomplishes being bit in the finger and not much else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m3HcgR2_vA

So what? You're telling me that because one dude on the internet got his finger bit that lots of the styles used in MMA don't leave your vitals wide open? I'm sorry but that's not a good conclusion.

I don't even see what the confusion here is. I'm not arguing that certain styles are better than others here...or even the effectiveness of dirty fighting. I'm stating a simple fact that MMA isn't a perfect measuring stick for comparing combat types, simply because a lot of potential moves and counters you'd see in real world fights are banned.

[PhoeKun]

So what? You're telling me that because one dude on the internet got his finger bit that lots of the styles used in MMA don't leave your vitals wide open? I'm sorry but that's not a good conclusion.

I don't even see what the confusion here is. I'm not arguing that certain styles are better than others here...or even the effectiveness of dirty fighting. I'm stating a simple fact that MMA isn't a perfect measuring stick for comparing combat types, simply because a lot of potential moves and counters you'd see in real world fights are banned.

You're vastly overstating the effectiveness of these banned moves. Eye gouges, groin shots and the like are very effective, but they aren't instant wins or even high percentage moves when compared to non-competitively banned strikes. They're banned because they're dangerous, not because they're too good. The fighters your watching still take care to minimize their openings, and I think the chances you think you see them presenting would be much more difficult to take advantage of then you're giving credit for.

MMA tournaments may not be perfect, but they are useful for learning what works against what.

[ForzaFiori]

So what? You're telling me that because one dude on the internet got his finger bit that lots of the styles used in MMA don't leave your vitals wide open? I'm sorry but that's not a good conclusion.

I don't even see what the confusion here is. I'm not arguing that certain styles are better than others here...or even the effectiveness of dirty fighting. I'm stating a simple fact that MMA isn't a perfect measuring stick for comparing combat types, simply because a lot of potential moves and counters you'd see in real world fights are banned.

Yes, MMA is not a great representation of the effectiveness of fighting. However, it is one of the best representations we have at the time that does NOT involve trying to permanently maim someone.

As for leaving vital areas open, most of the "vital areas" (throat, eyes, groin, etc) are very small, and therefor VERY easy to block. Most martial arts also teach ways to keep them safe from the get-go. Finally, as has been pointed out before, due to the fact that you cannot practice the strikes to those areas very much (because they are dangerous) they will not be as clean, or as quick to jump to your mind, and are actually very unlikely to appear in a fight. I have been in probably close to 30 fights, none of which had any sort of rules. In those, I think maybe... 5 of the opponents went for a vital spot on me, and none succeeded, and I tried the same about as many times, with about as many successes, and I'm a trained fighter.

In all honesty, it is a much better use of your time to try for a sweep, or a joint lock, or something that uses a large, open part of the body to gain an advantage, than it is to attempt to attack the eyes, throat, or groin. Of course, if you get the chance, go for it, but it shouldn't be your main goal. more like a nice secondary benefit to a more reliable move.

[Anteros]

Yes, MMA is not a great representation of the effectiveness of fighting. However, it is one of the best representations we have at the time that does NOT involve trying to permanently maim someone.

As for leaving vital areas open, most of the "vital areas" (throat, eyes, groin, etc) are very small, and therefor VERY easy to block. Most martial arts also teach ways to keep them safe from the get-go. Finally, as has been pointed out before, due to the fact that you cannot practice the strikes to those areas very much (because they are dangerous) they will not be as clean, or as quick to jump to your mind, and are actually very unlikely to appear in a fight. I have been in probably close to 30 fights, none of which had any sort of rules. In those, I think maybe... 5 of the opponents went for a vital spot on me, and none succeeded, and I tried the same about as many times, with about as many successes, and I'm a trained fighter.

In all honesty, it is a much better use of your time to try for a sweep, or a joint lock, or something that uses a large, open part of the body to gain an advantage, than it is to attempt to attack the eyes, throat, or groin. Of course, if you get the chance, go for it, but it shouldn't be your main goal. more like a nice secondary benefit to a more reliable move.

I agree with this, but it doesn't really address my point. It's not about how effective eye gouges/groin kicks/whatever actually are in a fight, but the fact that since they are disallowed completely it fundamentally alters the manner in which both fighters behave.

I wouldn't call myself a "trained fighter" but I've participated in my share of MMA matches. (Everything on a strictly amateur or practice level.) And I'd say that you're half right. If we're talking about striking, then it's not very easy to jab someone's eyes or groin, because they're generally small targets, and people are generally very wary about protecting them.

However, this changes when you're grappling someone. (And let's face it, 90% of fights end up on the ground.) How many times has someone had you in a grapple hold where you could easily reach their eyes or throat, but choose not to because it's a friendly competition and not a life or death fight? I don't know about your personal experience, but for me it's easily in the dozens if not the hundreds of times.

I mean, here I am...twisted up in a pretzel underneath someone who is trying to force me into submission by twisting my arm/leg/whatever, and my hand is literally pressed up against his face, 2 inches from his eyes the entire time, and he's not even thinking about protecting them because it would be against the rules for me to attack him there. If we were engaged in a real fight, his reaction would be very different, and he wouldn't even think of using such a hold.

I'm not saying MMA is completely worthless as a tool for gauging styles. It may even be, as you say the best tool we currently have. However, it is hardly a foolproof method.

I'm not disparaging the sport at all here. However, it seems that people tend to forget that it's just that. A sport.
Is MMA fun to participate in? Yes.
Is MMA entertaining? Yes.
Would I personally want to get into a fight with a professional MMA fighter? No. (He'd kill me.)
However, is MMA a foolproof method for comparing and contrasting martial arts styles? No it is not, and it irks me when people treat it as such.

[Erts]

snip

What you say about ground fighting is why I don't plan on taking BJJ much. The basics are good (I took one complementary class at my gym,) but so much of it seems like that in a real fight, you'll be too tied up to react to anything outside of your opponent. The guy's friend hits you, you hit head on concrete, etc.

[katans]

However, a definition which precludes military use, and bases itself around self-defence as opposed to use of force for other purposes, bears no relation to the term.
That's an opinion, not a fact (as much as my position is, but as least I do label mine as such). We're talking semantics here. Word meanings change, as do the associations. Some words do not have one true and universally accepted meaning. This is why I prefer approaching the whole definition from a more abstract, symbol-unrelated point of view.

There's nothing about the term "martial" that requires it be used solely for self-defence.
Of course not. Though if you take a close look at the "traditional" combat arts, those that are not originally sports-related, they all emphasize heavily on self-defense and non-aggression. To cite two of the twenty tenets of karate:
"There is no first attack in Karate"
and
"Do not try to win, rather try not to lose"

which are all better suited for a self-defense perspective rather than for a military of sports one. But then again, hints, not truths.

Karate arguably also meets the definition of war-related.
I have to strongly disagree with that. Karate was usually meant as a means of folk self-defense and was never intended, in its original form, as a military combat system, as opposed to, say, jiu jitsu.

Because the most effective moves in MMA are pretty much the safest rock solid basics like jab-cross-hook combos, double-leg takedowns and ground-and-pound.
Ground fighting is never safe in a self-defense situation. Furthermore, MMA practitioners usually have no or very limited understanding of weapons or mass fights with multiple opponents, and most of them, those with a mostly grappler background, can't deliver a proper strike.

First off, "dirty fighting" goes both ways.
True that. Though if you never learn and never practice the dirty tricks, you won't pull them off in a real fight either, unless by sheer luck.

Second, groin shots and eye pokes are not magic bullets capable of overcoming a fundamental lack of technique.
Certainly, but they sure do help.

Footwork, timing and position are infinitely more important and the fighter with a better grasp of these fundamentals will be better able to launch attacks and defend against attacks, regardless of what those attacks might be.
Yes and no. It's hard to defend against an attack you know nothing of (and there are some bizarre attack forms, particularly with knives, that will work 99,9% of the time against someone who's never seen them before), and it's also hard to defend against an attack form you never actively practice yourself. The first UFCs showed how helpless strikers can be against grapplers, although wrestling (in a broad sense of the world) is a very old and very popular sport and those strikers certainly knew about the possibility of wrestling and ground fighting. Same goes with dirty tricks: if you never train them, you're ill suited to counter them too.
It's not about how effective eye gouges/groin kicks/whatever actually are in a fight, but the fact that since they are disallowed completely it fundamentally alters the manner in which both fighters behave.
Amen.

[Irenaeus]

So what? You're telling me that because one dude on the internet got his finger bit that lots of the styles used in MMA don't leave your vitals wide open? I'm sorry but that's not a good conclusion. It's a better and more evidence-based conclusion than yours. I'm saying that among the vast amount of video evidence we have of fights, I have seen or even heard of very few won by dirty tricks, and a huge amount won by either by ground control with strikes, or what would be legal standing strikes in an MMA match. This single video is an extreme example, when a muscle bound Kung Fu instructor with a huge experience and size advantage can't pull of such moves, are they high percentage? Do they really alter the fight on a fundamental level, or are they simply another aspect that has to be considered.

However, this changes when you're grappling someone. (And let's face it, 90% of fights end up on the ground.) How many times has someone had you in a grapple hold where you could easily reach their eyes or throat, but choose not to because it's a friendly competition and not a life or death fight?As the video clearly shows, just being able to reach the eyes or throat does not mean you will be able to pull off any efficient attacks against them.


I don't even see what the confusion here is. I'm not arguing that certain styles are better than others here...or even the effectiveness of dirty fighting. I'm stating a simple fact that MMA isn't a perfect measuring stick for comparing combat types, simply because a lot of potential moves and counters you'd see in real world fights are banned.There isn't any confusion. You stated the following:

A lot of the most effective moves used in MMA would get you killed in a real fight.Which is just plain wrong. You were challenged by Liffguard to give some examples, to which you replied:

Yes. Really. If you try most of those take down or ground-and-pound positions in real life you're going to get your eyes jabbed out or your throat crushed in. Even in the tamest of fights your opponent isn't going to kindly avoid cheap-shotting you in the groin when you expose it to him.Then I posted a video showing one instance where this was clearly not the case, which you dismissed as irrelevant.

A lot of posters also explained how many of these attacks were low percentage, as well as most easily applied from a superior position, which you agreed to, which I'm going to have to assume means you no longer support the claim that the most effective techniques in MMA will get you killed. Despite this you continue to state that such low percentage attacks changes the game fundamentally.

Is it another aspect that has to be considered: Yes.
Does it mean that somebody with an MMA background needs to have changed their training methods specifically for self defense: No, they just need to apply a very basic and conservative game (no deep half guard, or some such). More RBSD training would certainly be an advantage, but MMA won't get you killed.

Edit: I realize that we are only discussing the fighting aspect of self defense here, which really is secondary to e.g. avoidance and de-escalation. That said, avoidance is a much more boring (and useful) subject, so let's keep it that way.

[Anteros]

Yes. Congratulations. You posted a video of one fight in the entire history of forever. What do you want me to do in rebuttal? Post videos of people getting their eyes gouged out during fights? I hardly think that would be appropriate material for this forum. If you truly wish to see examples of such things there are ample sites on the internet that provide them.




Is it another aspect that has to be considered: Yes.
Does it mean that somebody with an MMA background needs to have changed their training methods specifically for self defense: No, they just need to apply a very basic and conservative game (no deep half guard, or some such). More RBSD training would certainly be an advantage, but MMA won't get you killed.


I don't think I ever implied anything different. Even you admit that there are certain moves used in MMA that wouldn't be wise to use in a real fight. I fail to see where the confusion stems from.

Also, no. MMA itself wouldn't get you killed in a real fight. I'd even wager that most MMA fighters would be much, much more effective in a real fight than your average joe. However, there are several MMA moves that could get you killed. The difference is that a MMA fighter would never use such moves in a real street fight. And that is the inherent problem of using what you see during a televised sporting event to measure real world combat.

[valadil]

A couple uncommon ones are:
Archery
Rapier
Heavy Fighting (sword + shield in platemail armor)

I was wondering about archery. I just started up with a swordfighting group and they asked about past martial arts experience. I brought up archery but told them I wasn't sure if it counted. They weren't sure either.

Target shooting probably isn't. Legolas style archery (read: non existent archery) would probably qualify. In between stuff, like the parthian shot or shooting from any sort of weird position might qualify.

[Anteros]

I think target shooting would qualify. In my opinion, anything you can practice in order to make you better in a fight should technically qualify. This is how I can justify archery and shooting as martial arts, while excluding things like launching a cruise missile by pressing a button on a computer. (I guess this could be a slippery slope though. By this definition are computer programmers martial artists? :smallconfused: Maybe I should rethink my stance...)

[Jack Squat]

Just solidify your stance as a martial art being a system that directly translates to use in a fight/war.

Static target shooting, either with guns or a bow and arrow, is the foundation of being able to use the weapons. Even in traditional martial arts you've got to learn how to punch before you can pick up the fun stuff. It's just that more people don't move beyond this step when shooting/arching than those who do a martial art.

[Anteros]

Just solidify your stance as a martial art being a system that directly translates to use in a fight/war.

Static target shooting, either with guns or a bow and arrow, is the foundation of being able to use the weapons. Even in traditional martial arts you've got to learn how to punch before you can pick up the fun stuff. It's just that more people don't move beyond this step when shooting/arching than those who do a martial art.

Sure, but if we go by that then what isn't a martial art? Are fighter pilots martial artists by this standard? What they do definitely falls under the category of fighting/war. If not. Why?

[Jack Squat]

Sure, but if we go by that then what isn't a martial art? Are fighter pilots martial artists by this standard? What they do definitely falls under the category of fighting/war. If not. Why?

I'd say they are - in relation to dogfights anyways. They use the same base skills as traditional martial artists (physical and mental discipline, reflexes, agility, etc.), they just do it in relation to a 20-ton hunk of electronics, fuel, and metal. As technologies advance, so do warriors.

Flying over a target and deploying a missile that's guided to it's target via an autotargeting system doesn't quite fit in though, since it takes out the "art" portion.

[snoopy13a]

As I see it, a martial art is a style of fighting or originated from one that is now more of an art because it is rarely used in actual combat.

A couple common martial arts are:
Kung Fu
Tae Kwan Do
Wrestling

A couple uncommon ones are:
Archery
Rapier
Heavy Fighting (sword + shield in platemail armor)

Archery isn't as uncommon as you think. It is taught at summer camps and in physical education classes at some high schools. Additionally, there are many adult archers, including bow-hunters.

I'd wager that more Americans have tried archery than Kung Fu or Tae Kwan Do. Of course, as wrestling is a sport at the junior high and high school level and taught in physical education classes it is very common.

[Anteros]

Archery isn't as uncommon as you think. It is taught at summer camps and in physical education classes at some high schools. Additionally, there are many adult archers, including bow-hunters.

I'd wager that more Americans have tried archery than Kung Fu or Tae Kwan Do. Of course, as wrestling is a sport at the junior high and high school level and taught in physical education classes it is very common.

I somehow doubt that. At least in my area there are martial arts dojos everywhere. Meanwhile I can think of perhaps two places in my local area that teach archery, and both are college courses.

I've never heard of a school in my area teaching archery during P.E. either...but perhaps things are different in other areas of the country? I can't imagine my high school handing out a deadly weapon like a bow and arrow to the students for any reason.

You may have a point about the summer camps though...

[Irenaeus]

Yes. Congratulations. You posted a video of one fight in the entire history of forever. What do you want me to do in rebuttal?Don't act as if you really wanted me to post a statistically significant amount of fights, when you were even unwilling to discuss the specifics of a single video. I wanted you to either refute or at least try to discuss the point I used the video to illustrate using written arguments and possibly referencing to documented cases (not limited to video evidence), or agree with my conclusion. You didn't do any of those at all, so we'll just move on. It's not nearly as relevant with your new position.

I don't think I ever implied anything different. Even you admit that there are certain moves used in MMA that wouldn't be wise to use in a real fight. I fail to see where the confusion stems from..There is a marked difference between "a lot of the most effective moves will get you killed" and "certain moves wouldn't be wise". This might not have been your main point, but it was the part of your argument that drew heat from me and others.


Also, no. MMA itself wouldn't get you killed in a real fight. I'd even wager that most MMA fighters would be much, much more effective in a real fight than your average joe. However, there are several MMA moves that could get you killed. The difference is that a MMA fighter would never use such moves in a real street fight. Ok, then we are at least largely in agreement about this. I did not agree at all with parts of your earliest posts, which were far less moderate, and contained erroneous statements. No confusion.


And that is the inherent problem of using what you see during a televised sporting event to measure real world combat.True. Which is why I believed you might be more interested in discussing an actual documented encounter between trained practitioners instead. Such instances are actually quite rare, and if we chose to ignore them, MMA really is the best measuring stick we're left with.


P.S.
On a completely different note, however, just for my own curiosity's sake:

I wouldn't call myself a "trained fighter" but I've participated in my share of MMA matches. (Everything on a strictly amateur or practice level.) Are we talking about sanctioned amateur bouts, club smokers or friendly sparring? What is your background?

[Anteros]

Don't act as if you really wanted me to post a statistically significant amount of fights, when you were even unwilling to discuss the specifics of a single video. I wanted you to either refute or at least try to discuss the point I used the video to illustrate using written arguments and possibly referencing to documented cases (not limited to video evidence), or agree with my conclusion. You didn't do any of those at all, so we'll just move on. It's not nearly as relevant with your new position.
There is a marked difference between "a lot of the most effective moves will get you killed" and "certain moves wouldn't be wise". This might not have been your main point, but it was the part of your argument that drew heat from me and others.

Ok, then we are at least largely in agreement about this. I did not agree at all with parts of your earliest posts, which were far less moderate, and contained erroneous statements. No confusion.

True. Which is why I believed you might be more interested in discussing an actual documented encounter between trained practitioners instead. Such instances are actually quite rare, and if we chose to ignore them, MMA really is the best measuring stick we're left with.


P.S.
On a completely different note, however, just for my own curiosity's sake:
Are we talking about sanctioned amateur bouts, club smokers or friendly sparring? What is your background?

Well, the reason some of those moves wouldn't be wise is because a lot of them could get you killed. Or at least severely hurt.

As for the video...honestly, what do you want me to say? You know perfectly well that there are literally thousands of instances every year where fights are resolved by moves deemed illegal to use in MMA between both trained and untrained participants. Yes. I'm quite aware that there are numerous instances where someone tries such a move and fails (As your video demonstrates). This doesn't invalidate all of the times that they don't fail. Also, I don't want to rehash the conversation about the effectiveness of dirty fighting again when it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Actually this whole conversation is pretty irrelevant to the thread topic. We should probably drop it.

As far as my personal experience goes...I'm generally pretty leery of posting stuff about my personal life on internet forums, but I'll answer your question. I've done some amateur matches, but everything in my area is strictly amateur hour. A lot of the fighters will literally quit the first time they take a solid hit. It's somewhat ridiculous actually. The vast majority of my experience is with sparring. I practice with some guys who take it pretty seriously.