MMA fighters, Tito, Fedor, Vanderlei, Lidell Vs grand masters of Kung fu, Lima lama, Aikido Chaolin monks etc. you would you chose, do practice martial arts? what stille and why do you prefer youre stille, I practice mma I belive i'ts more realistic tan traditional martial arts. Hello to all of you from Tijuana Mexico adios.
2006-10-31 07:54:43 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Martial Arts
I ment modern vs traditional
2006-10-31 08:35:22 · update #1
Which style rarely determines who is going to win. Sometimes there's a paper/rock/sissors aspect... a grappling art that is easliy overcome by a certain combination of sweeps and punchs, the art that has the sweeps and punches is easily overcome by high kicks, the high kicking art is easily overcome by grappling. Mixed Martial Arts are okay, but you end up with jacks of all trades that are masters of none. A good multiple martial arts champion vs. a Grand Master of one art will find out he's got a hand full.
I study Shaolin Kung Fu, I like it because it's a good exercize. I'm a non-violent kind of person, but I do enjoy a good round of semi-contact sparing. I like rules in sparing that require control, because in a real fight, one person can get a lucky punch or trip, but if you were to count the likelyhood of who would win over multiple bouts, control would be a very heavy factor.
2006-10-31 08:07:45 · answer #1 · answered by Sifu Shaun 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the only thing about MMA is studying two disciplines at the same time to benefit the individual to be a more well rounded fighter in both the standing game and the ground game aspects of a fight.
And it's just as realistic in it's techniques as any other discipline, because they've been tested in actual fights just as the traditional disciplines have.
the only difference in any two fighters is not the discipline(s) they study, but what strategy they use to win the fight or match.
I've studied traditional disciplines for the most of my time that I've studied Martial Arts; but I can just as easily incorporate another discipline such as Muay Thai or Jujitsu into my fighting arsenal because I already have the basis down, and I wouldn't change a thing if I could go back and do it all over again.
MMA CAME from Traditional Martial Arts or some form of Traditional Martial Arts, they've just been modified or evolved to fit the times. MMA is not a discipline all it's own.
2006-10-31 10:55:28 · answer #2 · answered by quiksilver8676 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An MMA fighter would own any traditional martial artist. A karate guy would not know what to do if taken to the ground, a kung fu master would have the same problem. the only pure fighters who would stand a chance would probably be Judo masters, Jui Jitsu Masters, Greco Roman Wrestler's, or Samboa fighters. All the others are just for mental and physical health.
2006-10-31 09:38:18 · answer #3 · answered by GEovAL 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It all depends on how they trained and WHAT the mixed martial artist trained in.
Some traditional martial arts encompass ground fighting (or at least enough to get off your *** or not get put in it) and an MMA guy might take or have inferior ground skills. Same analysis goes for striking.
So which arts did the MMAist study and what art/arts did the tma guy study? Even then you have a number of other physical factors to deal with.
2006-10-31 09:55:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A true traditional martial would probably win. in MMA, as in any sport, there are rules, so MMA fighters practice fighting within those rules, for exaqmple no strikes to the neck, no attacks to eyes or groin. Traditional martial artists train for all of these.
2006-10-31 08:42:37 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The traditional martial arts are always the best form of martial arts existent because it's practices has not been altered yet in any way based on what you are seeing as modern martial arts. Aikido is traditional martial arts which focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of opponent or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement. This is a good martial arts that I am trying to learn to defend myself, but not to hurt others. Goodluck!
2006-10-31 08:07:49 · answer #6 · answered by ~Charmed Flor~ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What do you think MMA is? There is nothing really modern about it. MMA is a mixture of traditional martial arts. How can that be more realistic than the original martial arts themselves when it is born out of them? It is those arts.
2006-10-31 08:24:27 · answer #7 · answered by Jerry L 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Any art reflects its needs and audience.
the past has good things, but the modern reflects the blend of the past and present.
I say traditional have their place, but modern hybrid styles combine the best of that past and more modern understandings together. traditional are complex, while modern simplistic. boiled down to what works.
not teaching knee kicks (kicking the knee caps) is a flaw of traditional. they teach tradition for the sake of tradition, at the expense of not learning some obviously great moves.
but modern seems to make people think it is the greatest ever, and no sense of loyalty and respect is imparted.
each have good and bad, but I prefer learning effective and simplistic fighting (modern) over fancy and energy consuming fighting (trad)
2006-10-31 15:16:20 · answer #8 · answered by SAINT G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well the traditional martial arts wouldn't fight, but if they were backed in i would pick them over an MMA guy... they have rules. Defending your life with martial arts, the only rule is to win...
*here come the morons..*
*THERE THEY ARE!!!!*
2006-10-31 08:27:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure who would win, but anyone who says that a top ranked MMA fighter doesn't know how to poke someone in the eyes, strike a throat or kick somone in the balls is a MORON.
2006-10-31 08:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋