UFC in the beginning

[disgruntled]

has anyone seen the early UFC?? i am watching 1-4 right now and i wanted to bounce some thoughts off people. personally i really hate how the whole thing is just propaganda for BJJ.... but what bugs me more is that it is not really style vs. style... many times you could not even guess what style some one is doing just by watching them.... which is OK, after all MA should be adaptive... but people always use these early matches as evidence for one styles supriority, which is unfair.

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by disgruntled

has anyone seen the early UFC?? i am watching 1-4 right now and i wanted to bounce some thoughts off people. personally i really hate how the whole thing is just propaganda for BJJ.... but what bugs me more is that it is not really style vs. style... many times you could not even guess what style some one is doing just by watching them.... which is OK, after all MA should be adaptive... but people always use these early matches as evidence for one styles supriority, which is unfair.

Are you watching the early matches after the new Owners, and Management. or are you watching the episodes that were originally banned in North America?

[sirdarksol]

I've not seen this, but my take on UFC is not very kind. The claims of "this proves that BJJ is the superior martial art" are pretty pathetic. They ignore the fact that the nature of the challenge will determine the winner.
As some examples:
In a sumo match, the BJJ guys (and nearly anyone else) are at a disadvantage over the sumo wrestlers, who have studied only the specific skills to knock an opponent down or out of the ring.
In a bar fight against multiple opponents, most clinch fighters are at a disadvantage, due to the fact that if you grapple with one person, his friends are going to be kicking you in the back.
In a situation where you're in a limited space, and especially if your targets are limited as well, striking arts suffer a great disadvantage.

Aside from all of this, I despise the idea of hurting others for entertainment. Because everyone involved is willing, you will not find me writing letters to my Congresspeople, calling for an end to this kind of thing, but you also will not find me supporting it.

[disgruntled]

Originally Posted by DOCBROWN1705

Are you watching the early matches after the new Owners, and Management. or are you watching the episodes that were originally banned in North America?

i did not know that some were banned.... i know that the Gracies are the owners of the UFCs that i am watching.... can you give me more info on the difference between the two.


Sirdarksol, you are right about the unfairness of judging MA by their ring application. it is one thing to use a style vs. style formatt to figure out the best ring MA under those rules, but they keep trying to go further and apply it to real life which is not logical. in fact, it is clear that all but one announcer (the american football player) do not know anything, and i would suspect are strongly encouraged to say favourable things about BBJ or similar MAs.

[DOCBROWN1705]

Sorry Dis, I need to correct myself a little... the Banned Fights were run By NHB back in the 70's and 80's. ( I went and took a look at some of my tapes.)... those fights lead into the Art Davis/Gracies UFC you are watching.

I have to say.... I can not stand the way that UFC, and Most MMA competitions are run these days, however if I had to watch, I would prefer the original Gracie days....

[disgruntled]

banned fights? hmmm... this sounds like something i want to see.... why were they banned? were they style vs style? how do i get a hold of a copy? can you download them somewhere on the net?

i kinda think that the UFC fights now days are more entertaining. MMA is the best type of MA for that format so it is a better fight when both guys know it. in the early days you have TKD guys trying to grapple because they figure the boxer they are fighting won't know what to do. so then you don't get to see a TKD vs. Boxing match for example, you see two guys trying to grapple when they don't know what they are doing. the early days would have been much more interesting if grappling was not set up to be the only MA that worked. you will notice that all the fights are carefully selected so that the likely hood that Royce Gracie will face a style that is hard to grapple with (like sumo for example) is not high.

[DOCBROWN1705]

I think that is one of my dislikes about the UFC..... "Mixed Martial Arts".... see thats where I get lost. I watch the fights these days and they look no different than the street fights I see outside my club. Where is the ART. Im not trying to say that these guys don't have skill, or style... they do, and some of them are great fighters. However, the expression "Jack of all trades; master of none." comes to mind.

Maybe its just me, but I still believe that a man/woman who has become a master of there art, has little to fear from someone that has never truly mastered anything. I do believe that cross training is very important, and can benefit every fighter. I just think that the majority of those that get into MMA may never see a true mastery of martial arts.

I think that is why I liked the old UFC, and things like the K5 tournaments. The fighters are all experts in there style, not good in many styles. It comes back to the UFC original tag line, and the very famous quote... "Can a wrestler, defeat a Boxer".

[disgruntled]

i have given this a lot of though and i got to take issue with the phrase jack of all trades master on none.....

i think it comes down the the MAist and there intent.... i could have trained in hapkido all my life and get higher degrees and become a master, but that would not make me the best MAist that i could be. it did not push me to develop characteristics i need as a full rounded MAist.... and i do not think that makes me any less of a MAist. because in the end i want to be the best MAist i can be, not hapkidoist and for me, that means learning more than one source..... i think that phrase applies to people that keep trying different things and not sticking with anything, but that is another issue all together.

further i would argue that MMA is its own style and thus the jack of all trades thing does not apply.

and i sorta agree about the art thing you mentioned... but i think it is highly contingent on the MAist..... but the training methods do lack in way of "do".

[SteveO]

I know its long time no hear but I have had a few problems to deal with so sorry for not posting for a while.. I kind of agree but dont at the same time , i mean the early UFC fights I thought were the best because the fighters had particular styles and dominant styles , that they were from eg bjj or karate , kungfu etc , and the only reason the groundfighters won is because its a lot easier to get some one on the ground than to knock them out , and yes you would see the boxer trying to take someone to the ground because he has lost the bottle standing up and he has seen the ground fighters win on the ground so he will try and copy.
Dont forget although we all train to fight or defend ,MA and MMA is still different , they train a small bunch of techniques within a limited time to such a high degree that they know if they can get it on at the right time they win .
MA is about training everything over a long time so we have thousand techniques to choose from so we dont have to wait for the right time we can choose to win or to walk away without throwing a punch. We also train harmony and to stay calm , MMA trains to be aggressive u could say they have the mentallity to kill whilst in the ring , but MA trains us to judge every situation and to focus the mind , calmness is control of ourselves .
So i would say that apart from the fact that they both use some of the same techniques , you cant compare them , you should think of it like the army they would be the front line soldiers ( cannon fodder ) and we would be the generals who organise the attack as in where , when and how it happens ... we plan to win they just hit and hope..

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by disgruntled

i have given this a lot of though and i got to take issue with the phrase jack of all trades master on none.....

i think it comes down the the MAist and there intent.... i could have trained in hapkido all my life and get higher degrees and become a master, but that would not make me the best MAist that i could be. it did not push me to develop characteristics i need as a full rounded MAist.... and i do not think that makes me any less of a MAist. because in the end i want to be the best MAist i can be, not hapkidoist and for me, that means learning more than one source..... i think that phrase applies to people that keep trying different things and not sticking with anything, but that is another issue all together.

further i would argue that MMA is its own style and thus the jack of all trades thing does not apply.

and i sorta agree about the art thing you mentioned... but i think it is highly contingent on the MAist..... but the training methods do lack in way of "do".

Like I said, I don't think it applies to all MMA practitioners, however the trend I see especially in this younger generation of fighter does seem to lead towards the Jack of all trades theory. I think that every fighter should be well rounded, and learn as many skills as they can, however I do think that a fighter should have a main focus, and an incredibly strong base to grow all those skills on. If you can master one thing, and become good at many, than you will be far better off than someone who has only become very good at the many.

I don't mean to put down the sport, and I do see some great fighters coming out of it, however I do feel that it lacks direction. The way it is portrayed also concerns me, and what I see coming out of the Dojo, and on the street because of that portrayal worries me.

"Skill and power without direction, is like a missile without a target"