The goal of Pride/UFC/K-1 type fighting events are to win by knockouts (KO's or TKO's), submissions, or scoring decision. Fights occur in a controlled environment (ie - the ring) with one-on-one adversaries. Training is specifically focused on acheiving these goals. I am going to make an assumption that fighters go into every match with the personal goal to knockout their opponent, or force a submission because it is a more definitive victory. With all of this in mind, the fighting they do is extremely effective for the goals they are striving to achieve, and I have a lot of respect for their skills.
However, TKO, KO, and submissions are not the only possible goals, or outcomes to a fight. Also more variables exist in the proverbial "real world", such as, terrain, space, multiple combatants, etc. So are these types of events really the only gauge of "effectiveness" for all styles of Martial Arts? If it's not "ring worthy", is it automatically worthless?
2007-02-21
17:34:55
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Curious George, C.Ac
5
in
Sports
➔ Martial Arts
Clarification:
I'm not saying, nor implying, the professional fighters can't hold their own out in the "real world". Ortiz, the Gracies, Lidell, and all the others are probably some of the best prepared people for any type of fight.
When I'm asking about the ability of the ring fight to measure effectiveness, I'm not thinking about illegal strikes (ie- groin shots, eye gouges, etc.).
What I am getting at is there are more possible outcomes for a "real" world fight. TKO, KO, and submission aren't the only possible end scenerios. Believe me, if 3 guys jump me, I'm not looking to "beat their a$$e$". My one goal is going to get to a safe place... like a police station. With that in mind, is a Martial Style absolutely worthless if it doesn't work in the ring?
2007-02-22
05:36:08 ·
update #1