ReMA vs. MMA

[Stewart Sackett]

It's the same non-answer you always get in situations like this: In the contest of a Killer vs an Athlete bet on the Athlete in a sport and bet on the Killer in a fight.

I've been watching this thread since I joined the forums and... I think this is the most eloquently it's been put yet.

-Eric

Athlete. Killer.

What makes the 2 terms mutually exclusive?

[carlo arellano]

MMA guys also train in Wrestling, Judo, Jujutsu, Capoeira, blah, blah, etc, etc...

What they do NOT train is many of the brutally effective real combat techniques that exist in these systems (and in Krav Maga, SASG, Wa Lu, name your kung fu, again I say etc...) because they are illegal.

If we had a time machine and we sent an MMA fighter (say Chuck Liddel) back to face a Ringen fighter (Say Ott the Jew) the MMA guy would most likely get stabbed to death (unless they were just practicing in which case I figure he would hold his own quite nicely with his countergrappling skills).

It's the same non-answer you always get in situations like this: In the contest of a Killer vs an Athlete bet on the Athlete in a sport and bet on the Killer in a fight.

Whoa there, Just because MMA does not use killing techniques in the ring does not mean they can't kill. My MMA instructor teaches Navy Seals such techniques. constant training in MMA against a resisting, athletic and agressive opponent gives one a strong athletic, mental and reflexive base. A simple paradigm shift can turn an athlete into a killer.

I am by no means saying that a jujitsu guy that prefers fighting on his back will prevail in a bar fight, because he will in fact get his head kicked in by his opponent's friends.

"Killers" know that combat athleticism is a powerful tool, that's why good Krav Mag guys regularly cross train MMA. Quinton Rampage Jackson was involved in a tv program where they were measuring what the hardest hit in sports is whether it was a hospital slam in rugby, a football tackle or a hockey check and they even measured a heavyweight punch. Rampage's body slam hit the hardest, with a whopping 400 Gs to the back of the head, now if that isn't a killing blow when you hit unpadded ground, I don't know what is.

Open your mind, cultivate a balanced view and come and play.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

That's the thing, though. A lot of martial art are created for combat in real life and death situation, ofourse. That is what martial art is for...that's a given. but not all usually go out of their way to killed, or mamed each other in a in a ring to test out their techniques like Muay Thai--and maybe some ohter martial art thta I'm not aware of,--which was used for war and blood sport in ancient time. They literally beat each other to death during peaceful time... That's what I'm trying to say.

Well, why the hell would anybody want to do that short of getting paid very well to do that? Of course there have been prize-fighters in a great many cultures and times, willingly to risk their bodies for great reward. But is that really proper martial arts, interested in preserving one's being?

Well, I guess it had to do with superstar status. Those who have proven to be the best fighters usually gain fame and proven htemselves to be a good fighter, which I guess was very important. This was much like the gladiators in Rome except the fighters weren't slaves and they probably gain wealth from nobles and kings which rewards the best fighters handsomely. They may also gain many wives as a result. There was one king who loved this bloody sport so much that he used to disquise himself as a commoner and travel around the country to fight with other fighters. Today Muay Thai matches aren't as brutal as it was in the past, but there are moves, like using the tip of hte elbows to strike, that is considered illegal in UFC and Pride, I believe.

[Eric Chisler]

ath·lete
–noun
a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.

game
–noun
1. an amusement or pastime: children's games.
2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games.
3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance in the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

sport
–noun
1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

kill·er
–noun
1. a person or thing that kills.


The point I'm trying to make here, is that the comparison is just, well, incomparable. We're talking about people who participate in a martial art as a sport, with a set of rules they've been trained to uphold since the day they began practicing it. Something that must be ingrained in them as fighters, so in the great fatigue of a bout they don't slip up and seriously injure or kill one of their opponents.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have martial arts like Krav Maga and some of the older forms of Muay Thai and our own Ringen. These martial arts are for combat. They are for killing, and that is the intent given when you are trained in them. In simple terms, your MMA fighter goes for some choke... and the Killer breaks your frickin' neck.

Now this is not to say that an MMA fighter cannot be trained to kill effectively, as his body is a human weapon and he is highly conditioned. But if you put equally skilled practitioners of each in the same room, using the INTENT of their respective martial arts... there is no doubt who would come out alive. Only one would have a trained lack of hesitation to do copious physical harm or cause death.

Disclaimer: I am trained in exactly 0 martial arts, but the argument is a cerebral one, so I will continue to post

-Eric

[Stewart Sackett]

The point I'm trying to make here, is that the comparison is just, well, incomparable. We're talking about people who participate in a martial art as a sport, with a set of rules they've been trained to uphold since the day they began practicing it. Something that must be ingrained in them as fighters, so in the great fatigue of a bout they don't slip up and seriously injure or kill one of their opponents.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have martial arts like Krav Maga and some of the older forms of Muay Thai and our own Ringen. These martial arts are for combat. They are for killing, and that is the intent given when you are trained in them. In simple terms, your MMA fighter goes for some choke... and the Killer breaks your frickin' neck.

Now this is not to say that an MMA fighter cannot be trained to kill effectively, as his body is a human weapon and he is highly conditioned. But if you put equally skilled practitioners of each in the same room, using the INTENT of their respective martial arts... there is no doubt who would come out alive. Only one would have a trained lack of hesitation to do copious physical harm or cause death.

Disclaimer: I am trained in exactly 0 martial arts, but the argument is a cerebral one, so I will continue to post

-Eric

I see where you’re coming from but there are a few problems with your theory. First of all the definition of athlete is not: “a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill who does not posses the training or temperament necessary to kill in antagonistic combat.” There’s nothing that precludes an athlete from also being a trained killer. For a humorous example of this I’d cite:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1113161629657734070&q=bas+rutten&total=601&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The other problem is a little subtler & may be hard to fully appreciate if you haven’t actually practiced any martial art or engaged in a real fight. You say that some arts are for killing & that they instill a killer intent in their practitioners. How do they do that?

In sporting arts, fighters learn to deal with the pressure of facing a resisting opponent intent on dominating them (potentially doing them serious harm). They not only learn techniques, which function under pressure, but they learn how to regulate & direct themselves under pressure. This is what develops their combative mindset & allows them to function when the chips are down.

An art may or may not teach immediately lethal techniques (I say immediately because chokes & a sufficiency of blows are pretty reliable ways of killing people, eventually) but for that art to function it must be safely trainable against resisting opponents. If it cannot be trained “alive” students of the art will never develop the ability to maintain composure under stress or apply their techniques against resistance.

No matter how lethal an art, if it’s truly functional, its core principles will be rooted in sportive training methods. So, while it is possible for modern prizefighters to be capable killers, it is certain (IMHO) that the historic masters were accomplished athletes.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

Amen! Probably the most difficult people to take down are athletes and the best killer in the ancient time are probably very athletic. It's easy to see that someone who has the physical strength and agility can probably wheel the weapons much better and probably win hand to hand combats. That Scottish claymore sword is difficult to use because of it's size and weight...you will have to be a well trained athlete to weel that weapon properly. The same is true with anyother martial art. So the question is does that make men better fighters than women when it comes to using swords, shields and axes and wearing heavy armors. I know some women who are stronger than your typical men, so perhaps if she is well trained....

[Stewart Sackett]

Attributes make a difference. In a fight between equally skilled opponents the one with superior attributes will usually prevail. However, it is possible for superior skill to overcome a physically superior opponent.

Women, on average are smaller & weaker then men. That puts women at an automatic disadvantage, but not one that I believe to be insurmountable. Furthermore, although women tend to be weaker then men, I don’t believe that historical arms & armour were so heavy that an athletic woman of average size could not use them efficiently.