"Why MMA Fails"

“Why MMA Fails” is an article I came across in a 2004 issue of Black Belt magazine. It was written by a Sensei of Shorin-Ryu Karate and he lays down his thoughts on MMA, and why he believes it’s become so popular and why it’s still around.

I’ve quoted part of the article here. I chopped and summed up its main points:

“As a traditional martial artist (or ‘pureist’), I must confess: I despise MMA. For a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it’s become little more than a spectator sport that continues to exist solely for bookies in Vegas. These reasons (which I am coming to) all stem from one thing: that sport—which is all it is—sullies the whole concept of martial arts. There really is no honor or wisdom in taking an age old codified, proven philosophy designed for self-preservation in battle, and turning it into a logo and slogan for marketing and fattening pockets. …

[…]

Believe it or not, what we today call ‘mixed martial arts’ actually has humble and respectable enough beginnings. When MMA was created in the early 90’s, it was done so with the intention of being an experiment to see which martial art is the best and most reliable in a ‘real’ situation. However, this line of thinking is flawed from the start. For one thing, in a real fight, there is no referee, you’re not shirtless and barefooted in a pair of swimming trunks, fighting someone your exact weight, and you’re often outnumbered (Does it really make sense to ‘go to the ground’ if he has buddies?). For another, there are far too many unforeseeable variables in a real fight; e.g. slipping on gravel, or one person grabbing a makeshift weapon.

[…]

Another issue I have is with the name of the sport itself: ‘mixed’ martial arts. After the two fighters square off, they all adopt the same generic plantigrade stance. I’ve never seen any one recognizable stance that would distinguish a specific martial art (though I blame that on the coaches, most of whom I doubt are certified Senseis, Sifus or instructors of anything). Furthermore, watch an MMA fight from any league, and after a few perfunctory punches and kicks (that usually miss their target anyway), it always turns into a big wrestling match. This is something else that MMA has come to perpetuate: the UFC seems to imply that wrestling or ground fighting is somehow ‘superior’ to striking-based arts (remember what I mentioned earlier about being outnumbered?). This is probably the main reason that MMA is a failed experiment: there is no one martial art that is superior to another. As a Sensei for nearly two decades, that is a point I make very clear to all my students. Any follower of a given discipline can defeat—or be defeated—by any practitioner of any other style. Take for instance the most popular and widely used styles in MMA: boxing, wrestling and Muay Thai. These three are often touted by cage-fighters as being the apex of all martial arts. The most obvious objection to this school of thought is that all of these fighting styles are sports, and sports have rules. Karate, Kung Fu, Krav Maga; these are not sports; they’re designed to seriously hurt people. This is why they’re not seen in MMA. The crooked index fingers that you see in Praying Mantis Kung Fu are intended for eyeballs, and obviously eye-gouging is illegal in MMA, hence Praying Mantis’ absence from the sport. It is also worth pointing out that the ‘jiu-jitsu’ you see in the UFC isn’t even real jiu-jitsu, but a commercialized, watered down, ‘safe’ version of it. Breaking fingers, manipulating the vertebrae and causing permanent damage to knees and elbows have always been mainstays of jiu-jitsu. True jiu-jitsu also has much more stand-up fighting than depicted in MMA, because it was intended for neutralizing enemies under chaotic conditions, not for viewer-friendly entertainment. …

[…]

…so it is chiefly for these reasons that I feel MMA is a disgrace to the martial arts world. The question 'Which martial art is the best?' may be fun to speculate about, but it’s ultimately a futile endeavor to try and find out. Unfortunately, as long as the fighters get endorsement deals, fans pay for the pay-per-views and betters are exchanging money, I doubt Dana White or any of the other bigwigs of MMA will care. This, of course, only proves my point. “

---

I agree with just about everything he says, because it all seems so spot-on. What did you think of the article/his opinions? Does he have a point, or is he way off?

Discuss.

He said it well and I agree mostly. Especially in regards to it ending up as wrestling on the ground.

My main reason for not liking it is that it's dull as shit though. I couldn't give a shit about it disgracing the marital arts world.

Hahaha, I love you Spoony.

I agree with him as well, the lone fact that there are rules and regulations disqualifies MMA from being considered actual fighting, or at the least a gauge for which MA is superior to another.

I agree with Spoony though, too. I don't give a shit if it disgraces martial arts; MMA is just boring. I'd rather watch pure boxing frankly since there isn't 9 minutes spent crawling around on the ground.

However, Women's MMA is fun as **** to watch.

On TV/Sports = Money and real MA = no money.

MMA is meant for TV and real MA are not.

Apple and oranges.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Hahaha, I love you Spoony.

I agree with him as well, the lone fact that there are rules and regulations disqualifies MMA from being considered actual fighting, or at the least a gauge for which MA is superior to another.

I agree with Spoony though, too. I don't give a shit if it disgraces martial arts; MMA is just boring. I'd rather watch pure boxing frankly since there isn't 9 minutes spent crawling around on the ground.

However, Women's MMA is fun as **** to watch.

Black haired girl got some niiice legs... hmm

That's the only thing that matters, bro.

And, yes. Gina Carrano's ****in hot.

Ah yes, this BS again. To be honest, I thought most of this rediculous sentiment faded in recent years.

The article brings about the same tired arguments from butthurt "traditional" martial artists who can't accept the fact that the styles and training methods they've wasted 20+ years on are ineffective. I won't even touch on how ignorant people are of the ground game.

The only valid point he has is that "Mixed" should be dropped from Mixed Martial Arts. People crosstrained long before that title came about.

Article makes valid points, but ultimately fails.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's the only thing that matters, bro.

And, yes. Gina Carrano's ****in hot.

I'd hit it.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Ah yes, this BS again. To be honest, I thought most of this rediculous sentiment faded in recent years.

The article brings about the same tired arguments from butthurt "traditional" martial artists who can't accept the fact that the styles and training methods they've wasted 20+ years on are ineffective. I won't even touch on how ignorant people are of the ground game.

The only valid point he has is that "Mixed" should be dropped from Mixed Martial Arts. People crosstrained long before that title came about.

How are they inneffective? A martial art specifically designed to maim and hurt is obviously more effective in a real fight, than a martial art that's a combat sport with built-in rules (ie: boxing and wrestling). Many cagefighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, they receive cursory training in Muay Thai and Jiujitsu (watered-down versions, as he pointed out), and then call themselves martial artists? Gimmie a break. An Okinawan Sensei or Shaolin Monk would destroy those arrogant kids, who are only doing it for the money, anyways.

As for the "ground game"; what if you're outnumbered? See, "ground and pound" only works in one-on-one fights, and preferably with a ref present. Ground fighting is ideal in a combat sport, not in a choatic bar brawl.

MMA works in real life street fights. Watching it? Boring.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How are they inneffective? A martial art specifically designed to maim and hurt is obviously more effective in a real fight, that a martial art that's a combat sport with built-in rules (ie: boxing and wrestling). Many cagefighters come from college wrestling backgrounds, they receive cursory training in Muay Thai and Jiujitsu (watered-down versions, as he pointed out), and then call themselves martial artists? Gimmie a break. An Okinawan Sensei or Shaolin Monk would destroy those arrogant kids, who are only doing it for the money, anyways.

As for the "ground game"; what if you're outnumbered? See, "ground and pound" only works in one-on-one fights, and preferably with a ref present. Ground fighting is ideal in a combat sport, not in a choatic bar brawl.

Any fighter is at a disadvantage against multiple opponents. That said, you have to be able to beat a single opponent before you can ever hope to take out multiple opponents. I'd bank on your average fighter outperforming the "lets do kata on the air all day" TMAist. You're also forgetting that high level grapplers can incapacitate your average bar room brawler quite quickly without going to the ground. The only reason you see two professional fighters "rolling around on the floor" is because both of them are skilled. Obviously, two similarly skilled fighters can neutralize each other.

Also, mixed martial artists have varying backgrounds and aren't given "cursory" courses in Muay Thai and Jujitsu. You don't get to be Anderson Silva with minimal muay thai training.

Lyoto Machida could probably solo like....6-7 shaolin monks before succumbing to fatigue. No joke.

They are arrogant? You're being harsh. All sports have their share of jerks, but I've noticed most fighters are actually pretty nice guys. Most pro fighters don't get paid that much. Not everyone is George St Pierre.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
MMA works in real life street fights. Watching it? Boring.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Techniques that work in the ring still work out of the ring. "Traditional" martial artists hide behind that "we're too deadly for the ring." Most don't actually train to fight in any environment and have only become masters of doing flashy kicks in the air or demonstrations against willing opponents. This is the same logic that builds myths like Bruce Lee.

Why do you think so many moves are fouls in MMA? Heabutts, kicking the groing, biting, manipulating fingers, kicking the heads of downed opponents? Because these things work, and in real fights with no refs, there are no rules. Fighters need to be healthy and able to perform in the next pay per view, in order for bookies and promoters to do their job.

Yes, they train for real situations. That's the whole point of martial arts. It would be a waste of time to do it "just because".

Originally posted by StyleTime

Any fighter is at a disadvantage against multiple opponents. That said, you have to be able to beat a single opponent before you can ever hope to take out multiple opponents. I'd bank on your average fighter outperforming the "lets do kata on the air all day" TMAist. You're also forgetting that high level grapplers can incapacitate your average bar room brawler quite quickly [b]without going to the ground. The only reason you see two professional fighters "rolling around on the floor" is because both of them are skilled. Obviously, two similarly skilled fighters can neutralize each other.
[/B]

Certian martial arts were specifically designed for multiple opponents, like Monkey Kung Fu and the Indain martial art Mukti Yudha. Wrestling (or any "ground game"😉 is incompatible with many opponents. Same with boxing and Muay Thai.

The other reason they roll around the ground, is because they have no idea what they're doing. That's why they often look like schoolboys rolling around a school yard after one dissed the other's momma.

(As you just said right there: you'd "bank" on an average fighter. See, betting is the only fuel that MMA continues to run on)

Originally posted by StyleTime

Also, mixed martial artists have varying backgrounds and aren't given "cursory" courses in Muay Thai and Jujitsu. You don't get to be Anderson Silva with minimal muay thai training.

Lyoto Machida could probably solo like....6-7 shaolin monks before succumbing to fatigue. No joke.

Silva actually knows Muay Thai, though. Which is why he excels in his specific arena: one-on-one sport fighting with a ref to break it up.

Machida has a black belt in Shotokan, so I respect that; he's the real deal. But 6-7? I think you're exaggerating. The opponents he fights for a living aren't trying to remove his eyes from their sockets or crush his trachea.

Originally posted by StyleTime

They are arrogant? You're being harsh. All sports have their share of jerks, but I've noticed most fighters are actually pretty nice guys. Most pro fighters don't get paid that much. Not everyone is George St Pierre.

They're also not doing it for free. They're trying to make it to the level of St. Pierre.

I had my doubts when I first read it but I kinda agree with the article.

MMA fights do bar a lot of things that would easily end a fight, maim a fighter, etc... Yes the training for martial arts in sports friendly competitions are a bit watered down. Not like they are going to teach you any of the competitive illegal moves that could end a real fight quickly.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Lyoto Machida could probably solo like....6-7 shaolin monks before succumbing to fatigue. No joke.

I hope you don't mean at once cause then I'm quite sure it was a joke haermm

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you think so many moves are fouls in MMA? Heabutts, kicking the groing, biting, manipulating fingers, kicking the heads of downed opponents? Because these things work, and in real fights with no refs, there are no rules. Fighters need to be healthy and able to perform in the next pay per view, in order for bookies and promoters to do their job.

Judo is one of the few styles that actually suffers in the ring. It was intended for clothed opponents, yet people still effectively employ in the ring. Why is that? Judo is effective. It will work in or out of the ring. Just like the rest.

Lastly, all of the options you listed are available to sport fighter as well in a street fight; if the fighter is already capable of breaking your legs or knocking you out, he only have more of an advantage when more techniques are allowed.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yes, they train for real situations. That's the whole point of martial arts. It would be a waste of time to do it "just because".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Certian martial arts were specifically designed for multiple opponents, like Monkey Kung Fu and the Indain martial art Mukti Yudha. Wrestling (or any "ground game"😉 is incompatible with many opponents. Same with boxing and Muay Thai.

The other reason they roll around the ground, is because they have no idea what they're doing. That's why they often look like schoolboys rolling around a school yard after one dissed the other's momma.

(As you just said right there: you'd "bank" on an average fighter. See, betting is the only fuel that MMA continues to run on)

Now comes the belittling of grappling. Most people uneducated in the art of grappling will see only two guys rolling around. This does change the fact that they are executing positioning, sweeps, submission attempts, and general strategy.

I'm not sure what your point is here. They make money pursuing their passion(fighting). That has nothing to do with there abilities.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

Silva actually knows Muay Thai, though. Which is why he excels in his specific arena: one-on-one sport fighting with a ref to break it up.

Machida has a black belt in Shotokan, so I respect that; he's the real deal. But 6-7? I think you're exaggerating. The opponents he fights for a living aren't trying to remove his eyes from their sockets or crush his trachea.

They're also not doing it for free. They're trying to make it to the level of St. Pierre.

Machida is also is a very high level sumo wrestler and an accomplished grappler with a black belt in jujitsu. I was trying to show you that MMA is far more diverse than you give credit. Many fighters have black belts in karate, tae kwon do, even kung fu styles. I'm actually surprise you don't give karate the same flak you give the rest of the styles. Since day one, karate has actually been fairly prominent in combat sports. Why do you accuse karate-ka of the same stuff you accuse the others?

And yeah, he would. Machida's only loss in his entire career is to Shogun. Shogun and Machida are two of the best fighters on the planet currently. Together they could probably run through a medium sized group of monks; I certainly don't see a single monk, or any other unverifiable fighter for that matter, doing jack shit to either one of them.

What's wrong with wanting to be paid for what you do?

Originally posted by SpadeKing
MMA fights do bar a lot of things that would easily end a fight, maim a fighter, etc... Yes the training for martial arts in sports friendly competitions are a bit watered down. Not like they are going to teach you any of the competitive illegal moves that could end a real fight quickly.

I hope you don't mean at once cause then I'm quite sure it was a joke haermm

At once? He's fast, has proven KO power, is a good deal larger than most monks, and vastly more skilled than any shaolin monk. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he took out 6-7 at once actually.

First of all, before I address the main points of the article, it should be noted that this was back in 2004, and MMA as a sport has come a long way since then.

Now on we go...

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
“As a traditional martial artist (or ‘pureist’), I must confess: I despise MMA. For a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it’s become little more than a spectator sport that continues to exist solely for bookies in Vegas. These reasons (which I am coming to) all stem from one thing: that sport—which is all it is—sullies the whole concept of martial arts. There really is no honor or wisdom in taking an age old codified, proven philosophy designed for self-preservation in battle, and turning it into a logo and slogan for marketing and fattening pockets. …

This is probably the only point of his that I find to be valid. MMA has promoters pulling the strings and fighters fight for a paycheck. That's the truth of the matter. However, it's not as if MMA is trying to disguise it's intentions as some sort of "noble" sport. It is what it is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Believe it or not, what we today call ‘mixed martial arts’ actually has humble and respectable enough beginnings. When MMA was created in the early 90’s, it was done so with the intention of being an experiment to see which martial art is the best and most reliable in a ‘real’ situation. However, this line of thinking is flawed from the start. For one thing, in a real fight, there is no referee, you’re not shirtless and barefooted in a pair of swimming trunks, fighting someone your exact weight, and you’re often outnumbered (Does it really make sense to ‘go to the ground’ if he has buddies?). For another, there are far too many unforeseeable variables in a real fight; e.g. slipping on gravel, or one person grabbing a makeshift weapon.

The inaccuracies in this section are pretty hilarious.

First of all, when the UFC first started out, there weren't even half the rules there are now. For example, Keith Hackney defeated Joe Son due to repeated groin shots. Fighters didn't even use gloves (except for Art Jimmerson who used a single boxing glove against Royce Gracie... lulz). In the second Shamrock/Gracie fight, Ken was continuously headbutting Royce while in his guard.

Second of all, in the beginning, there were no weight classes. Fighters just fought. A much smaller Keith Hackney defeated Emmanuel Yarborough (who weighed over 500 pounds IIRC) pretty easily. Royce Gracie was 175 pounds, and he was beating giants like Ken Shamrock, Dan Severn, and Kimo Leopoldo. Sure there are weight classes now, but if he's going to use the early days of MMA as a point of reference, the least he can do is be consistent with his statements.

Lmao @ the hilariously pathetic scenarios he has to come up with in order to discredit MMA. Somebody could also pull out a gun and shoot you if we're talking hypothetically, in which case, no style can save you. Regardless, there are MANY examples of MMA fighters trashing guys in street fights. The most recent example, of course, is Roger Huerta knocking out a guy because he hit a woman.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Another issue I have is with the name of the sport itself: ‘mixed’ martial arts. After the two fighters square off, they all adopt the same generic plantigrade stance. I’ve never seen any one recognizable stance that would distinguish a specific martial art (though I blame that on the coaches, most of whom I doubt are certified Senseis, Sifus or instructors of anything). Furthermore, watch an MMA fight from any league, and after a few perfunctory punches and kicks (that usually miss their target anyway), it always turns into a big wrestling match. This is something else that MMA has come to perpetuate: the UFC seems to imply that wrestling or ground fighting is somehow ‘superior’ to striking-based arts (remember what I mentioned earlier about being outnumbered?). This is probably the main reason that MMA is a failed experiment: there is no one martial art that is superior to another. As a Sensei for nearly two decades, that is a point I make very clear to all my students. Any follower of a given discipline can defeat—or be defeated—by any practitioner of any other style. Take for instance the most popular and widely used styles in MMA: boxing, wrestling and Muay Thai. These three are often touted by cage-fighters as being the apex of all martial arts. The most obvious objection to this school of thought is that all of these fighting styles are sports, and sports have rules. Karate, Kung Fu, Krav Maga; these are not sports; they’re designed to seriously hurt people. This is why they’re not seen in MMA. The crooked index fingers that you see in Praying Mantis Kung Fu are intended for eyeballs, and obviously eye-gouging is illegal in MMA, hence Praying Mantis’ absence from the sport. It is also worth pointing out that the ‘jiu-jitsu’ you see in the UFC isn’t even real jiu-jitsu, but a commercialized, watered down, ‘safe’ version of it. Breaking fingers, manipulating the vertebrae and causing permanent damage to knees and elbows have always been mainstays of jiu-jitsu. True jiu-jitsu also has much more stand-up fighting than depicted in MMA, because it was intended for neutralizing enemies under chaotic conditions, not for viewer-friendly entertainment. …

The ignorance in this section is laughable.

A fighter's stance is as idiosyncratic as his finger prints. Everyone is different.

MMA isn't a proponent of a single aspect of fighting. It's called MIXED martial arts for a reason. A striker needs to learn the ground game, and on the flip side, a grappler needs to learn striking. It's the nature of the beast. It has absolutely nothing to do with which singular form is the best anymore. That kind of thinking is completely outdated and obsolete.

It's funny how he says that Karate and Kung Fu aren't sports, but leaves out full-contact Karate tournaments and Sanshou fights (which both, ironically enough, have RULES). Also, both Karate (Chuck Liddell, Lyoto Machida, Georges St. Pierre, Guy Mezger, etc) and Kung Fu (Cung Le, Ross Pointon, etc) are used in MMA. As far as Krav Maga goes, it's simply a militarized form of combat used to disable an opponent as quickly as possible, however it utilizes some basic aspects of other styles that are used in MMA (Muay Thai, Karate, etc).

As far as his point about it being "nothing more than a sport," it's this kind of arrogance that I find appalling. It's usually the "traditionalists" that share this common flaw. They're so convinced that a "proven" philosophy is the only form necessary to learn. Because they're so ingrained with the idea of their "traditions," they shut themselves out from learning others. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with evolution. Evolution of man, evolution of society, evolution of fighting, etc. MMA, if nothing else, has shown us what evolved fighters look like, because they're not focusing on the teachings of one art. There's a certain amount of humility that one has to learn in order to train in all different aspects of h2h combat. Yes, a practitioner of a single art can defeat another practitioner of a different art, but his chances become increasingly diminished if he faces somebody who's fluent in multiple styles. I don't see how that can really be argued.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu isn't a watered-down style. The Gracie's would be the first to tell you that they wouldn't go for submissions in a street fight. I'm a BJJ practitioner, and my sensei (who's a black belt under the Gracie's) teaches us defensive and offensive maneuvers in real life scenarios. BJJ at its core is a rather violent art that has its roots in Judo. The BJJ you see in the octagon is a product of the rules, however, it's not as if BJJ was created for the sole purpose of cage fighting. That's complete bullshit.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
…so it is chiefly for these reasons that I feel MMA is a disgrace to the martial arts world. The question 'Which martial art is the best?' may be fun to speculate about, but it’s ultimately a futile endeavor to try and find out. Unfortunately, as long as the fighters get endorsement deals, fans pay for the pay-per-views and betters are exchanging money, I doubt Dana White or any of the other bigwigs of MMA will care. This, of course, only proves my point. “

Like I said before, it's not about which style is better anymore, but rather, which FIGHTER is better.

The concept of "which style is better" died years ago.

---------------

I hope in the last 6 years, this guy has realized the error of his ways, and now truly appreciates MMA for what it is. Though, from the severity of his words, I doubt it, which is really unfortunate.

Awwwwwwww snap! batdude123 with the muthatruckin' breakdown!

I taught you well. excellent

Originally posted by StyleTime

You see, no they don't. They sit around and play "theory fighter." Proper training requires resisting opponents. If these techniques were so dangerous and practice in any real simulated environment, TMA schools would go out of business because students would be maimed or killed every day.

How do you know this? Have you been to every dojo in the nation?

Now if you're talking about McDojo's, I agree. They're just in it for the money, with their stupid "guarunteed black belt" programs. But any respactable dojo (like the one I go to) has live sparring and practices what to do if someone pulls a knife on you, take-down resistance, etc.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Many fighters have black belts in karate, tae kwon do, even kung fu styles.

Kung Fu has no belt-ranking system. That's mostly a Japanese/Korean martial art thing.

----

If you're just a hardcore fan of cage-fighting, who doesn't like the discipline and long undertaking required to learn a martial art, just say so.

Originally posted by batdude123
Yes, a practitioner of a single art can defeat another practitioner of a different art, but his chances become increasingly diminished if he faces somebody who's fluent in multiple styles. I don't see how that can really be argued.

But how many styles can a person learn, and still be "fluent" in all of them? Its like those people who try to learn 8 or 9 languages; there's no way they're equally as proficient in all of them.

Originally posted by StyleTime
No, they don't. Most of the banned techniques don't end fights. They simply cause fighters unneccesary harm. Small joint damage takes a while to heal. You guys keep talking about ending a fight quickly, while avoiding the fact that KOs end fights quite quickly. You're being unreasonable here.

At once? He's fast, has proven KO power, is a good deal larger than most monks, and vastly more skilled than any shaolin monk. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he took out 6-7 at once actually.

You're telling me if I broke your fingers you could still be a very effective fighter? Who cares about the healing time? I didn't mention anything about it, it still ends a fight quickly. If I kneed or kicked a down opponent a few times they wouldn't get up no time soon, or stomped them while they are down. That "unnecessary harm" does in fact end fights quickly and painfully which is why they're banned from the sport fighting world. You're making it sound like knocking someone out is really simple, even in the mma or any other martial art fights there are some people who just won't get KO'd easily, but no matter how tough they are if you gouge at their eye or punch them in the throat they are going down.

Sorry but that is not ever going to happen even if thy threw those monks in a cage with Lyoto with mma rules 😆

Originally posted by StyleTime
.

I can understand that. The sport is not for everyone. I just don't get why so many feel the need to lash out at the fighters.

IMO, if two guys are fighting, one is a badass boxer, while the other is just really good at MMA, the boxer wins. Skill level is key.

I know, that's my Captain Obvious moment of the day.