Would this be the ultimate solution?

Question

I have an idea for ending once and for all the which is best myth. It would be a martial arts competition that would incorperate everything. For instance there would be a one on one fight in the ring, under UFC rules. There would be a fight on eneven obsticle filled terrain one on one, anything goes. There would be a fight in that same area two on one, anything goes. There would be fights where the person was defending against various weapons, IE knife, bat, etc. All of the fights would have to end by submission, or until a fighter was unable to continue. No rounds. Continue until one can't. Multiple opponents would be provided by the various styles, and would be drawn out of a pool.

Each style could have preliminary's where any fighter from that style could enter, and theoreticly the best fighter would emerge to reperesent his style.

Do you think this would finally shut up the people who believe that there is one best ultimate style out there?

Answer 1

I guess so.... People just want a street effective fighting style.

MMA Fighters would win.

Answer 2

I don't believe it would.

The only real way that it may solve the problem is if you would have the absolute best purists from each art fight each other, with the knowledge that they would not hold back against an opponent with any technique that they know, which to be honest is highly unlikely to occur.

Also, you have to consider that each martial art has its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is never going to be a "best" martial art, since there is no martial art that is perfect.

Answer 3

you do know that weapon styles would have a distinctive advantage in this- even if we limit it to hand held weapons my vote would be on the guy with the spear.

seriously though- there is a really good article that you can draw a lot from even though it is comparing different types of swordsmanship and written by john clements.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.h...

I think the view that is of most important is that unless you have two "clones" you can't really tell which is better- also that still doesn't account for simple variables like luck and just having a d**n off day, or one having just found out I posted a video of his daughter on youtube getting gang banged by the entire starting line up of the new york giants after the super bowl.

I think that what you would be trying to prove however, is pretty much accepted by all the people that count- that is people who have had any sort of even very basic training and exposure to another style would be able to point out-

that not one style covers it all, some focus on and ideally teach you to do some things better, and other styles, other things.

while it would be extremely interesting to watch- especially if you have a bunch of trained knife guys or escrima practitioners going against unarmed combatants (its shark week, I'm in the mood for predator- prey style confrontations- at least I didn't say that the unarmed fighters should have to wear sea lion suits).

I think your idea would definately sell and make money, but I don't think it would prove anything to anyone and fanboys who don't know or just like to be followers will just invent more excuses-

but h**l that just leaves you room for a sequel competition to make more money.

Answer 4

Ummmm............   Krav Maga?    

Oh wait, we should add one event to this.  We should also add an event wear each practitioner from each style has to do 12 push ups with a 120lb. person standing on their shoulder blades.  Then do 30 diamond style pushups, all the way up and down, ........   :o)

I think Judomofo is right, the best athlete with the most experience would win.  It's a nice concept.  

James

Answer 5

I doubt there is any possible solution to this issue. Not only this but any subject. People will always find a way to explain why they were not treated fairly. If you have a subject, especially one as complex and ego driven as the martial arts, there will never be agreement by the masses.  There will always be the ignorant who are immature enough to believe that one martial art is superior to all others.  Reminds me of kids saying, "My daddy can beat your daddy".  Or arguing about something else,  "Did to,  did not,  did to, did not,  to, to, to,  not, not , not....".

In an intelligent world, people would have the reasoning ability to understand that it is not the martial arts, but the individual that will determine the outcome of a fight.

Answer 6

I'm game,  where do I sign up?

I doubt that it would shut up everyone.  Too many people are stuck in their own world of what is right and what is best.   Too many that are too arrogant or blind to see their own limitations.  

I am confident that I could protect myself against most situations.  I know though that I am not the best out there,  that there are guys that know their stuff better than I know mine and would be able to beat me.   I have a long path ahead of me to continue to learn and get better.  

My biggest problem with MMA is that it seems to teach arrogance and disrespect.  IMO, GSP is one of the best, and I have a great respect for him because he shows respect to his opponents.  He seems to respect himself and those around him, and that makes him respectable.  He and I are in the same "weight class"  and there is no way that I would want to fight him.   Regardless as to who's style is better,  he knows his better, has more experience using it, and has better conditioning.  Therefore, he would probably be the victor even with no rules.

Answer 7

All that being said, the superior athlete would win.Most likely the most decorated pro fighter.

Meaning the one with the most competetive fighting, as they are the ones with the most experience.

For example.. fighting on an uneven surface (doesn't matter as much as you think, the person who could control a fight would use that to his advantage.. again the one with the most fighting experience wins at this.... despite the ninja balance training, or doing forms or light sparring on varied terrain... that does nothing against a solid professional fighter, who would have the athleticism, and balance to handle that, being that they are the superior athlete. Using anything goes? Again, a professional fighter, they already have the accuracy, and have to prevent themselves from hitting foul areas... allowing them to hit and do fouls just opens their gameplan up more... I would take a nut shot from ANY instructor, instead of taking a nut shot from Cro Cop, or a knee in the balls from Anderson Silva...

Person defending against various weapons... would be more up for grabs... because despite dojo training, people have very, very, few actual real applicable knowledge in defending from weapons. That being said, I would expect someone who was quicker, able to keep a way from the weapon, close distance and attack, then defeat in a quick manner would inflict more damage upon the attacker, again going to the superior athlete.

Multiple opponents: Bad for anyone period... no matter how people think they train for multiple opponents, real multiple opponents are very different. That being said, I think a Professional fighter (who takes hits for a living) could suffer more damage and inflict more damage in a shorter amount of time. Ultimately anyone would lose depending on how many multiple opponents there were... (for example, I think Anderson Silva could outrun average high level Kung Fuist, being that he has better conditioning, which is ultimately the best way to deal with a multiple attacker scenario).

All that being said... it wouldn't shut people up. All you proved was that there was one superior fighter... not a superior style. But one good all around combat athlete. There would still be people who say that old masters could have beaten him, or that their style was represented, or that the person representing their style did a bad job..etc.etc.

There is no way there would be ever be an end to this argument, because there is no ultimate style, and also because you are talking about ego.

Lets say for example a former Russian Commando using Sambo won this competetion, he just also happened to be an Olympic Pentathlete, and some amazing physical specimen. Would you then consider your style inferior to Sambo because he won, and therefore proved that Combat Sambo was the ultimate art.

Would you think it was his style that won, or the fact that he was an all around Olympic caliber athlete. Would you drop what you are doing and find a Sambo place to train? Or when someone asks what the best style is, would you yourself say "Combat Sambo is clearly the best style... my style is ok, our competetor placed 6th in a couple of events, but we suck compared to Combat Sambo...

I highly doubt it. People spend a great deal of emotional investment into their art, and even those willing to admit another art, or fighter would be superior, would have a hard time saying their art is worthless, or that because of one competetion, under any rule set, that any style is the best.

Too much ego, and variables will always be involved.

When the simple reality, it is whatever style you enjoy, and that trains realisitically are actually the best... because when it is all said and done, you do it because you enjoy it, and that should be all the reason you need.

Answer 8

There is no ultimate answer. its all about match ups and skill levels. look at the LHW division of the ufc.   rampage beat chuck who beat wanderlei who beat jardine who beat forest who beat rampage. so you cant say who is the best without looking at a comprehensive history, and consider styles and how they match up against other styles. a slugger like chuck would beat a wrestler like coture almost every time, but a great wrestler like hughes can beat a bjj expert like gracie. at the same time, a bjj expert like penn beat a great wretler like sherk.  the best bet is not to find the best style, because styles all have weaknesses. look at the lesnar mir fight, lesnar would have killed mir if he hadnt been called for hitting mir in the back of the head. but his brute strength and size with lack of experience against bjj  hurt him when he got caught in a  submission. so i think that to be the best, you must train in many disciplines, be well rounded, strong, agile, and skilled, and you must train against different styles. the best of the best are the anderson silva's, the bj penn's, the fedor's. those who have a great striking game, a great ground game, good defense and agility and stamina. all aroud you have to be great or your opponent will find your weakness and you will be beaten.

Answer 9

No, people would still argue about what the best style is, no matter who won. The people that start these disputes are, frankly, too stupid to think logically. Their arguments are driven by a mix of arrogance and ignorance of any art apart from their own (unless they're a couch ninja, in which case, they'll usually say that the martial art used in Naruto, or something like that, is unbeatable).

It would be the best martial artist that would win, not the style. So really it wouldn't be a true representation of the "best art". All it would do is further prove that there's no best art, only good martial artists. But even then, that wouldn't stop idiots arguing about the best art.

Answer 10

This is a good one.  I think your idea has merit, but I do not believe there is a ultimate solution.  People like to bicker and argue about things, period.  If we had an Ultimate Winner, someone would wonder if he/she could beat Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, or Batman.  Whatever!

Answer 11

I really respect what  you're trying to do.  But take a look at this board after any MMA bout and people are still arguing about it AFTER a winner was declared (he got lucky, the ref was terrible, the judges were paid off, etc.)

We all know that people who profess that one style is superior to another, or even that MMA is a style, do not have a clue as to what they are talking about.  

Besides, how many TMA people would really go for that since most teach that getting into a fight is failure in and of itself?

Answer 12

No there would still be squabbling about which is the best art. You see Katana the arguments on here are not often fueled by science, logic wisdom or experience. The arguments and questions of which is best proceed most often from ego. Sometimes as the sage said if you argue with a jackass long enough it becomes hard to distinguish who is the jackass. This argument will go on for as long as some put their ego above reason. For as long as they come to a discussion with their cup full and no room for any more.

Answer 13

It's the artist that makes any style great, not the art.  Think of Tito Ortiz - he's beaten some of the best p4p grapplers and strikers - and I don't think he has a belt ranking in any traditional martial art.  (Not saying he's great, just that anybody who works hard has a chance of winning.)

Plus, any sane person wouldn't enter the contest due to risk of death or permanent injury.  So you'd end up with a bunch of insane tough guys representing each art and hoping for some glory.  

No matter who won, everyone else would say it was unfair for some reason or the other.  Or they would say "BJJ is still the best, but our guy had a bad day".  Whatever.

Bottom line - you'll never ever shut people up about what MA style is the best or what flavor of ice cream is the best.  They all have their virtue and appeal to different people, and there are good and bad practicioners of every art (and good and bad makers of almost every flavor of ice cream too).

Besides Krav Maga would win. No, wait....Combat Hapkido....No, no American Combat System.  Bwahahahahaha!