Why don't classic martial arts masters just beat down MMA figthers if they are so good.?

Question

They could promote their art and make their technique and superior mastery known by taking a dude apart in seconds. All the old masters would have so don't give me this " They are too humble " stuff. If there are these awesome masters out ther why don't they just come into UFC, take the champions out and say, "This is real martial arts" and put these so called inferior martial artists to shame. I hear so much about how useless MMA is but not one figther form classical arts is dominating the UFC or any MMA competition. It should be ono problem to them cause they could figth more than one opponent in the street, why not just take out this one crappy MMA guy and show the world.Do you relaise that Shaolin monks idolise Michael Jordan and Mike Tyson. I think MMA isn't getting enough credit. Though not a complete self dfefense style they are awesome fighters. Anyone got anything to say????

Answer 1

because old classic martial arts master would have told all their students to fight only when it is possibly unavoidable they taught in a way to show that fighting wasn't always the best choice to end any situation.

about them fighting in MMA they probably just wouldn't as MMA has rules while what they teach is usually for the streets and the "streets" dosent have rules?.

hope that helps

Answer 2

Isn't this a little bit like challenging "Ice Road Truckers" to a NASCAR race?  Or commercial fishermen to a Bassmasters contest?

Answer 3

Most classical martial arts (japanese at least, and that's all I can tell) are "-do" styles. It is there were you will find the so called"old masters". No "do" master will ever brag about ripping anyone apart in seconds, but rather how to avoid it. "justu/jitsu" schools (fighting oriented), are typically looked down by the "old masters". They are plain and simply not comparable. Simple example: kendo does not use hits on the legs, which is a very practical way of fighting in the "real" world (kenjutsu does it). And nobody cares about it... If you cannot land a decent hit in the head (men) why care about a flashy technique you are not going to use because your old master has just split your head in two? If you want to do MMA just study MMA. Next time we can stage rugby vs. soccer matches and see who scores better... or not? And in the end, there is no ultimate fight, unless you go barehanded to Somalia, Afghanistan, Kosovo or Colombia. Then tell me if MMA is any better than old style Kung Fu or Aikido.

Answer 4

There are two answers to your question.  One MMA has unified rules.  If the "traditional" martial artists played by MMA rules, he would get beat for sure.  In a life and death situation, there are no rules.  I would take an expert in Kung Fu over any martial artists that was only trained with MMA training.

Then there is what would I want to learn if I only wanted some basic knowlegdge without all of the ritualistic behaviors and learn something quick and effective.  I would go with MMA.  I would bet someone who only trained in MMA a few months or maybe even a few weeks could take most of the street situations with confidence.  Think about it.  You learn to punch, take downs, kicks, knees, elbos, throws, etc....A kick or two, a take down, and a few punches and you walk away from any parking lot confrontation with ease.

It is tough to answer.

Answer 5

i study traditional southern shaolin kung fu and i also compete in amateur mma and semi pro chinese boxing so i am hoping to clear this matter for you with my opinion. what i can i am not very good at puttin into words what i know so please bear with me.

when i fight in mma my training has to focus largely on mma. this is because i am fighting mma rules and i am fighting guys who train often solely in mma. this means that everything else i do will suffer as i am not practising as often. in kung fu we study traditional empty hand and weapon forms, pugilism, grappling, ground fighting, locking and holding, vital point striking, breathing techniques, fight strategy, modern and traditional training methods, body conditioning etc

many of these would not be practised if in training purely for mma like iron palm which there is no need in mma as always wear gloves for but one example. also maybe how many pro mma fighters are skilled with the sword? few i doubt as their time to compete at professional level would not allow for this.

also a "master" would have certain obligations to his students  and may not be able to simply afford to study mma to the professional level which may take years to get to ufc fighting up through various divisions and such. don't forget that teaching martial arts is often not very financially rewarding and many teachers will have jobs as well.

in part the journey that is martial arts teaches you to overcome one's ego and so is often that martial arts students are all very humble. and this includes mma fighters as there are very very few who have not studied the martial arts and do not have a martial art background to a very high level. most are black belts and will probably pursue to teach as they stop competing. some will teach mma. some will teach their style. some will teach both.

ultimately everyones journey will be different. the only way to truly understand this is to travel the path yourself which i can only highly recommend.

it would be too hard and time consuming to name every fighter who in mma has studied boxing, bjj, karate, grappling, sambo, wresting, kickboxing, greco roman, kempo etc etc.

did you know chuck lidell has just got his purple belt in bjj?

to become a master may take many many years and tho a 60 year old master on the street would be very dangerous in a ring set to rules this is best left to the student and the journeyman.

i hope this helps.

jim

Answer 6

I too am tired of hearing how classic martial arts is better than the MMA style of fighting.  I know that the rules of MMA fighting make it tough for classic martial artist to break into the MMA today, but the original UFC events had no time limit, and the only rules were no fish hooks, no hair pulling and no eye gouging. That pretty much left everything else up for grabs.  Why then did the classic martial arts not destroy the newer fighting styles?  It centers on the fact that most classic martial arts are striking based, keeping your opponent from yourself.  Stiking is completely negated when tied up and on the ground.  Bruce Lee himself said that the best style is no style, and pretty much pioneered the first adaptaitons of Mixed Martial Arts.  Taking the best from all forms and joining them  to create a more well rounded fighter is the best way to prepare for any situation.  As for the idea that classic martial artist not believing in using their skills in real combat unless nessisary, why then are there compititions held for most of all classic fighting styles.  They have actual full contact matches to find out who is the best fighter in their sport. If they can fight amongst themselves, why all of a sudden is fighting taboo when asked to fight outside of their style?  I would think that they would want to fight to show that their style is supperior to other styles. Of course it could be that they don't want to expose their style as not being the best. Mark Twain once said that it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe it's better to think of yourself as a bad as$ then step in a cage and learn that you're not!

Answer 7

Consider the following.

1) Just because you can does not mean you should. Many classic martial arts advise you to only fight as a last resort.

2) They would be fighting on MMA's turf, by MMA's rules, where MMA works best. The fact is the reason the classic masters are tough is because they can do some very damaging things to a human body, theses things are often illegal in MMA.

3) Why don't MMA champs go dojo crashing, and roll into town looking for classical masters to combat?

Answer 8

The problem that I and other "traditional " stylists have with MMA is that a lot, if not all of these events showcase a brutalised version of martial arts, it has no moral centre nothing to truly aspire too, its glamorised designed to take the money out of young guys pockets and for what?

You train at a dojo, dojang etc yes it costs you money but every day you leave with something, sure you cant see it or put it in your pocket or on the wall in your room, but it stays with you forever.

Young guys  watching these shows dreaming of fighting without consequences do yourself a favour stop watching others do it and get your lazy butt to a real dojo and do it for yourself the tell us what is best!

Not expecting best answer vote on that outburst !!! :@)

Answer 9

I honestly think that most Martial Arts masters have better things to do. As others have mentioned, it's a different kind of thing.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the whole 'no rules changes everything' arguemetn. Eye gouges + groin shots won't overcome vast disparities in skill and athleticism. It's really about who practices more efficiently, who practices more, and who has more practical techniques. The last thing will vary per situation, but virtually nobody trains as hard or as much as those who fight for a living. Hence, I don't think that a classical martial arts master could defeat a top-tier MMA fighter in pre-arranged one-on-one combat -- regardless of rules.

THAT BEING SAID, there are situations that perhaps a master could overcome that an MMA fighter couldn't. This is again, assuming that the master is a legitimately good martial artist and not some Shihan in Bullshido.

For example, I'll use me and a good friend/training partner of mine. While he's no master and I'm not a pro MMA fighter, he trains in more traditional styles while I train in MMA. When we spar, I can beat him. However, he grew up in one of the worst areas of town and currently works as a bouncer. He's fought against multiple armed opponents (knives) on numerous occassions and won the engagements. He got cut, sure, but he snapped all of their wrists and KTFO'd them. In all honesty, I'm pretty damned sure that I'd be dead were I in his shoes.

He is an exceptional case, for sure, and I honestly doubt that a lot of modern masters have as much 'combat experience' as him. But still, the point is, he trained in techniques made for fighting against armed opponents and multiple adversaries. And apparently, at whatever dojo he went to, they trained it right 'cause he was able to use it.

Anyways, I'd like to address some other stuff that has been said, which I disagree with.

Uneven terrain/potholes and cement doesn't do anything to deter grappling ability. If anything, it increases the likelyhood of things going to the ground, which favors somebody with grappling skills. Furthermore, make no mistake, the better grappler is the one who will be on top. This will happen either because he got the takedown or because he swept his opponent from guard, but it'll happen.

An example of this in MMA was the most laughable organization ever, YAMMA. They put an incline in the arena and getting your opponent near it = auto takedown.

And as for the original UFC's favoring grapplers, that's just completely untrue. Lack of time limit favors NO ONE. Royce Gracie laid on top of people 'cause they failed to stop him from getting the takedown. In real situations, there is no ref to stand somebody back up. It has to be done with a fighter's own will and ability.

A lot of modern MMA rules favor strikers, such as the standup rule and the gloves (so they dont break their own hands).

It's definitely true, though, that most of the people in the UFC were nobodies. But in that regard, that includes Royce. He was considered the weakest of the Gracie brothers, which is why he was sent in to the fray; to prove a point.

Answer 10

Hi there

This is more of a mind set not a skill set or sports vs art. Most people who train for MMA train for just that and nothing more. Traditionalists train for more than just fighting. Its down to choice and how your mind works. But ask your self this question who's actually winning the fight long term? The MMA or the traditionalist? Which of the two has stood the test of time? And out of the practitioners of both arts whose going to be riddled with serious joint and muscle disorders when they get older? Train for the event or train for life. You may have herd the phrase balance used a lot in Martial arts. That's whats required here. And without being rude or risk offending anyone who gives the best answers out of the two on yahoo?

Where do you end it?

Isn't it the dude not the style that's important?

Best wishes

idai

Answer 11

they might be to old like you say "Old Master" and maybe also busy with teaching

Answer 12

First Garry h, the first UFC's were definetly biased aginst strikers. No time limit meant Royce Gracie got to lay on the ground as long as he needed to,  with no fear of a second person coming along and kicking his head in. Second with the exception of one Shoryn-Ryu master, i think his name was van cleef, who was way past his prime, the first couple of UFC's Gracie fought nobodies. How many of his opponents went on to do anything? Tha fct is that the UFC was specificly designed by the Gracies to showcase their style.

As for the question, why do you people insist on compairing apples and oranges? Most traditional martial artists train for entirely different reasons then most UFC fighters. Most traditionl masters, if they are true master are at a minimum of 50 years old. Take any 50 year old who is put into a ring with a highly fit 25 year old who's body has not been injured while training numerous times and he is not going to fair well. Put a sprinter who won at the 1980 olympics against a current college sprinter and guess who will win?

After having done it for 30 years, what a master has trained will be so instinctive that he will have trouble controling it. My guess is that you would see a lot of disqualifications. You are also talking about men who have trained their entire lives since they started training for self defense, and I do not care what MMA fans say, there is a huge difference between a figh in a ring and a self defense situation. Somebody who exclusivly trains for self defense is not necessarily wanting to stay and finish their opponent off. If I can sweep someone and get out of there I will. Self defense is bout survival.

You also have to take into account the threat level. Is a Traditional martial arts master going to want to use the highest level he is capable of, to win a fight in a cage, when his life is not at stake? How fair is it to expect him to fight in a situation he has not trained for. How about we take the fight and move it onto a grassy hill? Or how about  parking lot with potholes and uneven terrain? Wouldn't that be fair?

MMA's is all about teaching someone to fight, and teaching them in the shortest amount of time, while the traditional artist studies his whole life trying to perfect what he knows. no one will deny there is a huge difference in the learning curve, but I am ok with that.

And the most obvious is that generally when a person had trained for 30 years, they have lost the need to prove themselves to anyone, least of all people who have no appriciation that all techniques used in MMA came from a traditional art. MMA has just taken anything but the most basic fighting moves and gotten rid of them, which is why it is so  fast to learn. I think in the long run many people who train MMA are going to lose out on a lot, but I doubt they will ever see that.

Answer 13

You know asking this question is literally meant to irritate people, and you are doing it only for an argument. I don't see what you hope to gain, other than making MMA fans look arrogant (thanks for living up the stereotype).

This is apples to oranges, and not taking into account that there are some guys who are MMA fighters (as in, went to a MMA school and studied MMA, maybe fought an amateur competetion or two) who have probably walked into a Traditional art dojo and gotten beat down... yes believe it or not it does happen.

As much as  I have had traditional guys walk into my gym and get housed (some who claimed high status)... I am sure guys who spent two months in my dojo and leave have gone on to other places asking to "spar" someone and gotten their @ss kicked, while they spouted off about "training in MMA". I am sure in whatever your perspective art, that someone has come in claiming high rank in your art, or some other art, and has gotten trounced, leading you to believe that either they were not that high of rank... or that they trained poorly.. every single school has seen it. There are good and bad representatives of the any art. Broad generalizations are pretty crappy... I'm pretty sure if you threw "Kenneth Allen"( Pro MMA Fighter)  in the streets with Dan Inosanto, or Paul Vunak, Ken (despite have 28 Pro MMA fights)  would be in a world of hurt.

Comparing anyone against a Pro Caliber athlete is bad to begin with, but comparing a TMA "Master" against say a Pro caliber fighter in the realm of fighting isn't fair. You know Tiger Woods has a teacher right? He actually has a Coach who works with him on his swing, and his game. Could that coach hold a candle to Tiger on the golf course? Not a chance.. but he has a lot of knowledge, and enough to make Tiger an even better golf player.

All people who train in MMA are not the same as those on the upper echelon of the sport. I am quite positive in a dojo storming sense, there would be some guy Traditional guys who could hand a beating to some MMA guys. (Provided the Tradtional guys trained properly).

In fact I would put my Judo Coach (6th degree BB in Judo, 2nd Degree in Shotokan) against any of the guys in my MMA gym (even our most experienced who fights in the IFL) and he would destroy them... (I only know this because he already has lol). However under no circumstances could he hold up to the every day training and conditioning that those guys endure, or could handle fighting 2 or 3 times a year and the cycles leading up to it.

Keep in mind the whole mystical, and "we only train to kill" bullsheet aside, there are guys out there who train in tradtional arts the right way, and those guys are pretty d**n effective but could never handle the stresses of the conditioning and the schedule of competing at a high level.

More than anything it is how you train. If you train in an art for 30 years with hard sparring, full contact competetion, and you train it to a high level, I have absolute confidence in a real fight you could hand a lot of the guys who fight a local and regional shows and even some of the smaller national shows their @ss.

However, I am also confident if you go up against a guy who is at the upper echelons of the sport, someone genetically blessed with good athletics and who has been training for 10 years or so in hard contact arts at a highly competetive level, and are at Olympic athlete levels... chances are you are those 30 years aren't going to help you against someone who fights for a living, against some of the best in the world, with some of the best coaches, and are faster, stronger, and more aggressive than you.

So you can't really generalize in my opinion. Regardless of the circumstance or what you practice, ego shouldn't be involved in the equation on either side. Both sides have merit, proper training is what is important.

Honestly, training properly as a hobby is going to give you all you need to handle yourself against a rowdy bar customer, and after all isn't that what matters? You don't need to be Anderson Silva to handle yourself against the average joe.

Most people train to be competent, they do it because they enjoy it, and they feel they get something out of it, and there ain't a d**n thing wrong with it.

Plenty of people lie to themselves or drink the Kool Aid and think that these chop to the throats and eye gouges and the like are "what you do on the streets" is what seperates them between "Real life" and Sport. Well in real life, you shoot, stab, grab a rock, or use any weapon you can find if you are in the position to justify that sort of response. Shame on you for bringing an eye gouge to a gun fight.

The truth is the whole "Sport" vs. "Street" thing is worthless, in reality it is the difference between "Hobbyist" and "Competetor". That being said the Hobbyist can handle himself, can more than do what he needs to do when faced with an inescapable hand to hand situation. Also a very talented hobbyist could handle a low level competetor.

Just one person trains to win at the competetion of an art, while another trains for the enjoyment and art itself.

It's not really fair to compare them, because at one point or another everyone will be hobbyist, as your body can only take you being a competetor for so long. That being said, in a competetor vs. hobbyist match, with experience being equal 9 times out of 10, the competetor is going to win. However in reality all that hobbyist needs is that one time...

However there is much knowledge and enjoyment a hobbyist can gain, that a competetor (whose sole purpose is training to win may not). For example, who knows more about boxing, it's history, the science of the sport. Bert Sugar, or Floyd Maywether Jr? I promise you when it comes to boxing knowledge Sugar would school PBF. However you but gloves on them., put them in the ring... Sugar would get owned of course.

I don't know, it isn't really a comparison. The problem is this relates to combat, and there is always some ego behind it, and a lot of time and emotional investment to it. No one wants to be told that what they have spent 20 years of their life doing, training dilligently in is garbage... because it isn't. It is worthwhile, enjoyable, effective and fun. Does it mean they could take on a professional fighter who is at peak performance, peak athetlicism, strength, and speed, in an unarmed fight? Of course not.

Anyone who is realistic would agree to that. But just like there are plenty of MMA fans, and fakers, and wanna bes who will claim that with 2 months of MMA they could beat guys with 20 years of Traditional Arts. There are upset traditional artist who think with 3 months of "eye gouging, nut kicks, and "not playing by the rules" they could negate any competetor.

Either argument is stupid.

It is what it is. Fighting is what you put into it. The more time you spend doing it, they better you are. The stronger you are, the faster you are, the more agile you are, the more you know, the better you will be. The sad fact is even with all of that, you can still get beat. However there is no shortcuts, no magic technique or set of techniques. No kata, no form, no magic Chi system (except my own), nothing.The only way you get better is by blood, sweat, and more blood, and fighting. The closer you train to the real thing, the better you will be.

Again, no shortcuts. A rear naked choke is only as good as the person applying it, and how many people they have had to apply it on, who were doing everything in their power to not let them. A right cross, no matter how well it is hit on the bag, the mitts, or the makiwara, is only as good as the person who is hitting with it, and how well their timing and accuracy is against people who are hitting him, and defending his punches.

Period. No snake oil, no magic bullet, no invincible technique or shortcut. Practical experience is what counts.

The problem is people want to jump on whatever bandwagon, to find the latest fast food ideology of how they can beat up anyone in the shortest amount of time. If not that, then what techniques will guarantee them victory against anyone, even if it requires 20 years of devotion to learn. Those people aren't the real Martial Artist, or the real fighters. But they are the most vocal crowd for either one.