Do you think a well trained and well drilled traditional striking martial artist can defeat a UFC fighter?

Question

After watching many UFC bouts, as impressive as they are,... I get the impression that those guys are more about crude power and endurance rather than technique. Perhaps a person with a pure focus on a traditional martial arts like Kenpo/shotokan Karate, TKD, muay thai, could destroy a UFC fighter. In a real street fight their technique would be superior and their strikes would be more accurate and more likely to inflict brutal damage.

Any one out there trained in the traditional martial arts know what I'm talking about???

Answer 1

The statement about "crude power and endurance" iis an inaccurate generalization. It depends on the fighter. And there are many MMA fighters who've trained in Kempo (Chuck Liddell), Shotokan (Lyoto Machida), TKD (Stephan Bonnar, Anderson Silva, David Loiseau) and Muay Thai (Wanderlei Silva, Forrest Griffin, Spencer Fisher), not to mention boxing (Quinton Jackson, Marcus Davis, Nate Diaz).



There strikes would be no more accurate and their technique would be no more supperior, all things being equal. The reason is that in a real fight, adrenaline starts going and you start to realize that you, too, could get punched in the face. Someone trained in the "traditional" arts you mentioned would have to go through similar training to the MMA fighters I listed above to even stand a chance, because that's how you get used to the stress of a real fight. You train like an MMA fighter.



So final answer, could they defeat an MMA fighter? Sure. But because, all other things being equal, a well-trained "traditional" martial artist would be on par with an MMA fighter, at least at striking. All fights start on the feet, so they'd stand a chance. Let's call it 50/50 'til it hit the ground.



Edit: You're wrong about most UFC fights ending up on the ground. It depends on the fighters involved, but I think the majority stay standing. All of Liddell's fights in the past five years have stayed on the feet until someone got knocked out. Jackson-Griffin was almost entirely on the feet. Most of Spencer Fisher's and Jens Pulver's matches stay on the feet. Machida stays on the feet unless his opponent has no ground game. Both Anderson and Wanderlei Silva keep most of their fights upright. Rich Franklin prefers to stand and punch. I could go on but the point is that MMA is about taking the fight where you're strongest or where your opponent is weakest. For someone with the power and accuracy of Liddell, that means the fight stays on the feet. For Couture, who has better wrestling than most of the MMA world, that means the fight goes to the ground. So no, they don't take it to the ground because they CAN'T stand up, they take it there because a) they're a superior ground fighter or b) they're losing the stand up. Just how much MMA have you seen?



Edit 2: No, having really great kicking is not the answer. Kicking leaves you vulnerable and off-balance. And there are already very good kickers in MMA. Have you seen Thiago Alves, Mirko Crocop, Cung Le, Anderson Silva, Bas Rutten, Guy Mezger, Gregard Mousasi, Wanderlei Silva, Keith Jardine, Yves Edwards, Georges St-Pierre, "Shogun" Rua, Jean Silva, or David Loiseau? Rich Franklin and Forrest Griffin have won recent fights due to their kicking skills. And even Kazushi Sakuraba, known mostly for his grappling abilities, could throw one hard kick. Crocop's patented Left Head Kick was the most dangerous one-shot weapon this side of a .44 Magnum. The fact that you don't know this makes me, again, question how well you actually understand MMA. But let's look at some strikers who've crossed over:



Semmy Schilt: his background is actually in Karate. He started fighting in MMA in Pancrase and for the first three years of his career he regularly lost to smaller fighters. As his grappling got better, he started to win more. The only guys who have beaten him since then are among the best in the MMA world. His striking is good enough to have earned him six K-1 titles with wins against Michael McDonald, Remy Bonjasky, Jerome Le Banner and Ernesto Hoost.



Mirko Crocop: he actually had much more success in MMA than he did as a kickboxer. His kicks are definitely part of this, but so is his ability to sprawl and defend himself from his back. Still didn't keep him from getting knocked out by a wrestler...



Mark Hunt: he's run hot and cold in K-1, but was their 2001 Grand Priz champion, having beaten Jerome Le Banner, Stefan Leko and Francisco Filho to win it. In MMA he's 50/50, with questionable wins and surprising losses.



Jerome Le Banner: one of the best kickboxers in modern history, he's past his prime now but still sports an incredible 74-16-1 record in K-1. His MMA record is 3-1-1, but the only guys he's beaten were nobodies.



Cung Le: he's an incredible striker, but I'm not sure how much you'd count him since he's got a solid wrestling background as well. He's undefeated at San Shou, although in fairness he's the only guy in the US who really practices it. He's 6-0 in MMA, but the only win worth noting is one on an over-the-hill Frank Shamrock, who hasn't been relavent to MMA since 1999 or so. He's pretty crowd-pleasing, but he hasn't faced any real competition yet. And, as I mentioned before, he's a very good wrestler, which helps him keep his feet.



Speaking of Cung Le, let's address this "Jack of All Trades" myth. Le has very technical kicks and takedowns. He learned those in two different disciplines. Georges St-Pierre has Olympic-quallity wrestling, world-class boxing, and has beaten good fighters with submissions, again things that he learned in different disciplines. Other fighters, like Fedor Emelianenko, BJ Penn, Miguel Torres, Jens Pulver, Rogerio Nogueira, Andrei Arlovski, Gregard Mousasi, John Jones, Stephan Bonnar, Marcus Davis, Kid Yamamoto, Genki Sudo, Josh Koscheck, Wanderlei Silva, and Dan Henderson have developed excellent skills in two or more areas. The best MMA fighters have professional-level boxing and kickboxing, Olympic-level wrestling or judo, and world-champion level grappling and BJJ. I think you need to watch more MMA to understand what you're talking about.



Sigh... Edit 3: I get that you're not attacking MMA, but you still don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you're suggesting that jumping kicks don't leave you vulnerable just reenforces that. I've been throwing kicks practially all my life. I've had some good teachers, including an Olympic alternate in TKD. When it comes to the use of kicks in general, and their use in the totality of the fight, I know what I'm talking about. In fact, according to your theory that you need 8 years of study for proficiency, then I am much more quallified to talk about karate than I am MMA. I didn't come from some three-year school. Took me about twice that time. So listen up:



Side kicks- I use them in MMA sparring. They work. However, as with all kicks, they leave you vulnerable because you are compromising your base. These in particular are hard to work into combinations because your opponent is at the very limit of your range.



Back kicks- if you're talking about spinning back kicks, I use them when the opponent has moved out of range due to a roundhouse kick. The range for them is quite wide. Anyone who throws them by simply turning their back on their opponent is foolish. You should never expose your back.



Hooking kicks- these have very little utility. They are only good for head kicks and as such compromise your base more than other kicks. They also, by nature, do not have the same power as other kicks. So to summarize, these are low-powered, high-risk kicks. Using them in a setting where one can be taken down is foolhardy at best.



Crecent kicks- are you serious? These are huge, swinging kicks that position your hips perfectly for you to be taken down. Probably the most useless kick in the history of kicks.



Double kicks- trying these in an environment where you can be taken down is about as smart as installing a screen door on a submarine. You're going to get taken down.



You see the roundhouse kick the most because it is the most utilitarian kick in use. It's appropriate for striking head to toe, can easily fit itself in with punching combinations, is quicker than most other kicks, and because it comes from the outside of a target it puts itself in a position that's easier to defend if (when) it gets caught.



Now tell me, if kicks were so deadly, how come no traditional martial arts, and I mean the ones genuinely over 100 years old, advocated using their use above the waist? Check out the Bubishi and tell me how many kicks you see. How come we don't see death after death in Muay Thai, full-contact karate, Taekwondo, and kickboxing competitions? You are severely overestimating the power of kicks. Yes, they stand a better chance of finishing a fight, but they are no where near as lethal as you imagine. Son, I've been training in martial arts for 23 years, most of it in so-called "traditional" systems. I've probably been throwing kicks longer than you've been alive. I know what I'm talking about.



Edit 4-Over 60% of takedowns are in the clinch. Kicking leaves you one one leg. Multiple kicks leave you vulnerable longer. If you trained full-contact you'd know this. You have no evidence that kicks are "lethal". How many deaths are in Taekwondo, karate, Savate, Muay Thai, kickboxing, and San Shou competitons? You're just guessing without any proof.

Answer 2

I want to add something to callsign's answer. Every MMA fighter knows that technique triumphs over brute and strength. They also know there is a big difference between pretty technique and technique while getting hit in the face. Also keep in mind that there are Olympic caliber athletes in MMA. That is a whole lot of speed and technique mixed with the brute force and endurance



All that being said nothing guarantees a victory.



Edit: As long as we are keeping this respectful I will keep going.



I want to rubuttle our point about the kicks. No the kicks are not the greatest. However Have you seen Cro Cop, Antoni Hardonk, Thiago Alves or Cung le. These guys have masterful kicks. It does not always do that great for them.



Now your point about Jack of all trades master of none. My first point is lets say me and you have a fight. I am a master striker and you are a jack of all trades. You are good but not great in any any aspect. Do you think you would be able to find the gapping holes in my game before I found the smaller ones in yours. The more a person knows the better because you can exploit bigger holes than the smaller ones a lot quicker. i also want to point out this hole jack of all trades arguement is getting old. The top of the food chain fighters are not jack of all trades they are masters of MMA. I am also sick of the whole TMA vs MMA thing. They are different They are what they are. I don't know it seems like your mind is already made up, lets just respect the differences and agree to disagree



One problem with your last statement. I have been in Martial arts practitcally my whole life. I love them and pay close attention to them

Answer 3

I think we have well trained, well disciplined traditional martial artists in the UFC. Most notably, Welterweight Champion George St. Pierre (Kyokushin Karate), Middleweight Champion Anderson Silva (Muay Thai) and Light Heavyweight #1 Contender Lyota Machida (Shotokan Karate). You also have Strikeforce Middleweight Champion Cung Le (Taekwondo and Kung Fu) in this mix.



Yes, all of those guys are multi disciplinary at this point, but they are still traditional martial artists.



I agree with you that the striking is very bad among many UFC fighters, particularly on the kicks. They definitely need to spend more time on the technical striking than on the grappling.



I can say that grappling takes much more endurance than striking. Also, the MMA guys are much tougher than your average thug, making them much more difficult to injure or stop.



As for who would win a real streetfight? Hard to say. I've trained traditional martial arts for 22 years. I've trained MMA for a few months.



I would not like my chances against any of the top tier guys in the world, but I would like my chances against anyone I've seen here locally at MMA live fights or the two MMA gyms I've trained at.



James

Answer 4

I thought that question was answered at the first UFC's. Although Vale Tudo or NHB fights have been conducted for many, many years, at least in the US, the UFC proved that the majority of "classic" MA's, like Karate, TKD, and such, fail to completely prepare a student for all forms of fighting. Most fights, whether organized by skilled opponents or a disorganized street type, end up on the ground, therefore the best ground fighter will likely win. The Gracies proved this to be the case against the best classic styled fighters in the world.



Of course, as the UFC grew, so did the fighters and their skillset. Now, with all fighters having been trained in all forms of combat, their is no "one" best skill. While most fighters have a "base" approach, whether it be judo (Parisyan, Sokoudjou), wrestling (Couture, Ortiz), Sambo (Arlovski, Emelianenko), or even Karate (Liddell, Machida) they all have trained in other disciplines. Almost every fighter today has incorporated Jiu-jitsu (thanks to Gracie) and muy thai. Most have trained in boxing and wrestling as well. And once you train in another discipline, whether you want to admit to it or not, you are a Mixed Martial Artists.



In re: to your follow-up. Norris, who has a black belt in BJJ under Carlos Machida, has said every martial art should incorporate some of the techniques from other martial arts. If a sport or discipline doesn't "evolve" then it is stagnate. Lee, who trained in everything from Chinese Kung Fu to Japanese Judo and Jujutsu and western boxing, used many different techniques from many different styles to develop Jeet Kune Do. After all, he summed up fighting in four basic areas:



Kicking

Punching

Trapping

Grappling



Lee, without a doubt, was the modern eras' father of mixed martial arts.



edit: clowns reinforces the point about some current MMA fighters: they are extremely proficient in one area of martial arts outside of an MMA cage or ring.



Machida is a proficient and accomplished points karate competitor. Emelianenko is one of the best combat sambo fighters in the world. Many are wrestling Olympians. Penn was one of the best BJJ fighters in the world.

Answer 5

Careful, so many times in today's world I hear people say "in a real street fight" and what I think they mean is "in the persistent kung fu fantasy world in my head."



As a guy who's done karate, BJJ, MMA and kickboxing, and who's also been in a few street brawls in and outside of law enforcement, let me authoritatively say that although cage fighting is not street fighting, MMA fighters are a LOT more dangerous than any traditional martial artist I've ever met. Why? Versatility and practice applying their techniques in full contact situations. Their combat reflexes are just ten times better than their traditional counterparts.



Another point: sport fighting could be loosely defined as "anything with rules where you're not trying to kill the other guy." Unless you're in the armed services, you probably haven't tried to kill a whole lot of people, especially not with your bare hands. Thus, your "effective" techniques are just theory. Whereas an MMA fighters skills are practiced fact.



A science is only as good as its evidence and its experimentation. I've said it before and I'll say it again (cause I like the analogy) MMA is to traditional arts what chemistry is to alchemy. All the mysticism stripped away, leaving only what really works.



And, that "brute power and endurance" you refer to is what wins fights even more than technique. If you don't agree, you've just never fought in anyway. As Patton said "fatigue makes cowards of us all."



But without further ado, here is the answer to your question:



Yes. I think it is possible. Plenty of MMA matches end with a single strike or a barrage of strikes. Lyoto Machida is proving the effectiveness of karate "one punch one kill" style striking in the hands of an expert.



BUT, I would favor MMA. Though it is possible your karate or TMA striker could land a fight ending shot, it is also possible for the MMA guy to. And if that shot didn't land and the match closed to a clinch or ground situation, good night TMA fighter. Wresting a jujitsu or MMA expert when you don't know what you're doing is like taking on a shark when you don't know how to swim.

Answer 6

I give respect to the UFC fighters who humbly claim that they are not the best athletes. UFC is the stepping stone of applications or applying one's skill against another. Technique is the very foundation of martial arts, so I agree that technique will overcome brute power.



Your question is very general. There's over a billion people in the world. Potential UFC fighters out there that could do a chi-blast to your guts and spill them out (lol). That we don't know.



But what we do know that someone is always going to be better than the other person. So yes, a traditionalist can defeat a UFC fighter and a UFC fighter can defeat a traditionalist.



The cycle goes on. There is no ultimate power except mastering the self.



*edit*



I get a thumbsdown for not picking a side? Fail.

Answer 7

Of course it's possible to beat a UFC fighter outside the ring, outside the ring the dirty moves are possible like a groin kick, eye gouge, or a ranger hold (where you grab the trachea and twist effectively giving the opponent only a few minutes before he suffocates). You can also kick him while he's down which isn't allowed in the UFC (so even though he's on his knees and in prime range of your knee you aren't allowed to throw the strike).



On the other hand, there are quite a few UFC guys that are more the boxer/brawler/stay up on your feet type that may very well be able to take a few hits before offering a KO back to their opponent. And of course some of the ground and pound guys may have no qualms about dirty moves outside the ring so it could go either way.



Moral of the story: be careful who you pick a fight with because there is never a 100% chance of victory.

Answer 8

It's just like comparing different styles, it really doesn't depend on the style, just the fighter, but with that said, I think Bruce Lee could probably have taken on many of the UFC champs and given them a good whooping, and here's why.

When it comes down to it, UFC and Traditional martial arts are two different games, and you have to give credit to both for their dedication and training, but in the end I think a Bruce Lee or a Chuck Norris, despite their film acting, would come out on top because the reason they are so famous is because of their martial successes, Chuck Norris was famous because he was so good in competitions that Hollywood started to notice, and Bruce Lee's conceptualization of the fighting arts is famous (you'll know what I mean if you've ever read the tao of Jeet Kune Do) even in UFC, look at what Anderson Silva does with his kicks, and how successful he is for it, now imagine a fighter who has trained for years to master technically perfect kicks, like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, and besides the kicks even their punching game would be sufficient to keep any UFC Brawler at bay. I think Traditional martial artists (provided they have the right level of training) could defeat a UFC champ because each is tough, each has had lots of fighting experience, but technicalities of UFC fighting are different from the physiological efficiency of traditional martial arts strikes. Liddell might be able to brawl his way to a victory with a good defense, but with a Martial Artists knowledge of pressure points, grabs and throws prohibited by the UFC because of their damage to the fighters they are hindered by their own mastery.

Answer 9

i think that a ufc fighter would absolutely dominate someone who is equally or more trained in one MA. where as the MA would most likely have superior striking in most instances, a mma fighter would have the advantage due to broad training they do, having the ability to stand and fight and the ability to take the fight to the ground where they can implement submissions or ground and pound. and there are a large number of fighters who have come from traditional MA and had dedicated years to that style prior to making the transition.

Answer 10

In the ring ?NO. Outside the ring ?MAYBE. BILL WOLF who teaches special forces groups of volunteers from other branches of the armed forces lamented that the people he has been seeing lately have to all be retrained because they are all doing that "mma stuff".Of course he is talking about a different degree of fighting and training none of us fortunately will ever see or have to endure.

He is also the 1st to admit that in the ring the mma guy would likely win his main complaint being they were developing a "rule bound" way of thinking for a situation in which there are absolutely no rules.

He makes them see the openings and opportunitys they pass up by trying to use a sport on the killing feild.

Answer 11

Wow that mustve took you a long time to type. Well basically your asking if someone whos diciplined in one praticular art could defeat some1 who trains a little of all major martial arts. Id have to say the fighter with more tools in his toolbelt has an advantage.

Answer 12

the only difference between the lines you drew are some martial artist compete and fight and some don't. we all know who wins, traditional MA don't fight ufc anymore because they always get the asses kicked



WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, who dedicates what to what compared to a guy like george st pierre. who is training better and harder than him. some secret ninja? why do you think a secret ninja is better than someone who does it on tv with better trainers better knowledge better food, better facilities. youve created a dilusion, one that bruce lee tried to dispel

Answer 13

Son you need to understand MMA/UFC is a sport with rules. Its the exact same thing as boxing kick boxing and wrestling all combined wrestlers kickboxers and boxers are dependent on muscular strenghth and stamina to win fights there not allowed to execute deadly techniques and they dont know how to execute deadly techniques because they were not trained for life/death situations they were trained to play the ufc mma SPORT. a TMA is trained to fight without limitations and to break bones gauge eyes strike throats and do whatever is necessary to survive a life or death combat situation that is why there are TMA's. mixing martial arts does not water down the original purpose of life death combat fighting however attempting to make martial arts into a sport does because it eliminates the true purpose of the martial art which is survival with no rules survival and ability to defend yourself and to kill an enemy that is its purpose to kill or seriously damage your enemy to prevent yourself from being killed. in essense a tma fighter even if mixing their tma with other tma who still trains to kill will always beat the mma ufc person who trains to play a sport and the tma who trains to kill but not to compete in a sport will always loose to the mma ufc person who trains to play the sport they are two completely different worlds with different purposes. you have to understand UFC MMA IS A SPORT NOT A MARTIAL ART!!

Answer 14

Heck yeah! I'm a black belted kung fu master who learned it from the great Bruce Lee himself, the master who once get a chick pregnant by a single karate chop!



I can beat all the UFC champion. You asking how? Because I KNOW THEIR WEAK SPOT, that's how



If you thinking about pee-pee, then you're perverted mister cause i mean the EYEBALLS!









Oh, you don't think it's the pee-pee....









..................................

















Well me neither!



*run away blushing*

Answer 15

Depends on the training and attitude of the fighter.



But I doubt few people if any could have beat Mas Oyama or Gene Lebell in their prime.



Just my humble opinion.....Best wishes :)***

Answer 16

i think the martial arts win. but learning all that **** takes a lot of time and practice

Answer 17

in a realstreet fight i have no doubt as to who would win and it wouldn't be the ufc fighter.however you never know,the ufc fighter might also be a trained traditional martial artist,and then theres the lucky punch and etc.etc.etc

Answer 18

It would depend on the fighters.

Answer 19

I think they can.





In a fight , sometimes all you need is heart and the desire to win