I think you said it all right there, Chris, and is perfectly on topic by alluding to the various types of strength. I'd like to digress slightly by adding that "Health for LIfe" has a book out on aerobic conditioning that cites a study done where two groups of formerly sedentary people were tested for aerobic capacity, then put on a conditioning program for two months, one group with a stationary bike and the other with I believe a stairclimber. At the end of the two months, they were retested and shown to have improved considerably, but when each group was re-tested with the machine that the other group used, they were found to be almost as bad as when they started. I was in the best shape of my life when I rotated running, swimming and a mountainclimber. I figure someone who practices punching for two hours a day is going to be a much better puncher than someone who spends an hour punching, and the other hour doing weights, but general strength building, while not very specialized, may have broader applications.

"skill to beat a stronger enemy with proper angling and efficient body"- that's why it's called an "Art" you ninnies.

And ofcourse a group of sedentary couch potatoes who are put on ANY kind of excersice program will improve- are you impressed by that??? And the fact that those couch potatoes were only improved at the single excersice they've tried is a strong argument for cross training in various martial "arts" rather than limiting ones self to one. (Were'nt you ladies, at one time, staunchly opposed to cross training?)

I'm all for someone with a strong foundation in an art to expand by taking in good points from other arts. I guess I'm basically against the inexperienced ones who think slapping together a bunch of different techniques into an untried, contradictory mess will make up for their lack of proficiency in a given discipline.

That can't be right, internalenthusiast usually doesn't express staunch views.

huh? i don't get it, chris. what's the continuity here? sorry, but i think i'm missing something.

or...aha... are you just using my "moniker" to aid you in making a "joshing remark" to mr. sohl, and "ribbing me" in the process. humph.

if so, well don't forget, mr. seaby, that the better part of valor is discretion. my meek postings may hide the heart of an opinionated tiger!

best to you...

Naah, you two have got to be the staunch ladies Bob #2 is referring to.....

I plead guilty.

oh, ok i get it. i don't think i've ever said cross training was bad--tho' as mr. sohl points out, one doesn't want a "contradictory mess."

the whole attributes/specific skills question is an interesting one.

Chris,
You make some excellent points about present day MMA fighters being resticted by more rules than previously, and the absence of any element of surprise.

However, in regards to your statement,

"If there were no limits/rules on techniques and strike zones, and no weight classes (forcing smaller lighter fighters to take on larger heavier ones) you would probably see more variety in forms, styles and techniques and more emphasis on strength that is skills based and adaptable to different/variety situations (environments) and opponents."

This was already done, you are essentially describing the first few UFC's. There were no weight classes. There were very few rules. The result was there was more of a variety of forms and styles (as opposed to today's fighters that cross train is the same few core arts) and fighters with strengths that were based on the specific skills of their individual arts.

The results of these events was a total domination by grapplers. And the only significantly smaller fighter to win several events was Royce Gracie.

The events proved that there is LESS adaptability to different situations and opponents by fighters trainied in specific, single styles, and that focusing only on one phase of fighting provided virtually no carryover into other phases.

The laboratory of the early UFC's demonstrated that cross training is the superior method of producing all around fighters with realistic ability. The other truth that was made evident was that size and physicality are extremely important.

I totally, whole-heartedly believe, that the basics, just practice of the movements, is the place to start for someone learning a martial art. And we are always learning a martial art. As soon as you begin to believe that you have mastered any worthy system of martial arts, you will cease to improve and will most likely diminish in skill rapidly. This is especially true of people with a athletic background, who can already perform the movements correctly, and are not severely limited by flexibility, endurance, speed or strength. But what about two groups of people, the ones that don't have any athletic base, and the ones who feel they can perform a basic motion correctly, and want to make it more than basic? Better than it is. It doesn't make any sense to ignore all the other systems of training out there. It's more than just bigger or stronger. Kenneth Sohl's reference to Tim defeating someone 55 or 65 lbs the larger is admirable, but it overlooks an important point. Few posters here would advocate brute strength or size over skill. But it takes more than jsut skill. It takes all the aforementioned motor qualities to apply those skills. It takes power, speed, endurance, and technical efficiency. Just practicing forms will give you tecnical mastery in spades, over time. And even strength at first. But when you talk about judicious use of time, you have to realise that eventually, there comes a point of diminishing returns, where the risk/energy given to traing outweighs the new adaptation or benifits. Overtraining is a very real danger for many martial artists. When doing a form ten more times, only does so much, wheres the real argument against spending that 30 minutes to an hour sprinting, or weight training etc. When these new complimentary forms of training pay much higher dividends, you would have to be a fool not to take advantage of them to supplement your training. No one is advocating the cessation of Hsing I training in favor of body building, I'm just saying if I was stuck betting on two otherwise identical practitioners in full on fighting, i'd have to go with the stronger one. Take two guys who "train" in general 20 hrs a week. They both go to class 10 hrs per week. One spends his other ten hours practicing the conditioning forms or qi gong. One spends five hours with the same, but the other five split between sport-style strength training and stair sprints. After a year, I'm sorry, but the latter is going to be stronger (regardless of weight), faster, with more endurance, and I'd be willing to bet as much skill or so close as to make an unnoticeable difference in full contact sparring. I know that the traditional methods work, and some are very specific. But some are out-dated or down-right misguided or incorrect, the worst being dangerous or damaging to practitioners. There's a lot of instructors out there who don't know jack about Strength and Conditioning, and are teaching people all kinds of messed up ••••, and then there are those who ae honest enough to just admit that they don't know and don't even really address it. I'm sorry, but you'd be so much better off getting your conditioning outside of class. There's only so much forms and pushups and breathing are ever going to bring you.

thank tim! you must of starting typing sometime during my long winded script

But UFC was still a crucible with limits far from reflecting reality in the street.

It was interesting that only trained martial artists entered, as compared for example to the savage beasts you would find in prison who were sent there for something like sending 6 police officers to the hospital with his bare hands.

I have respect for Tim at his level of public fame for realizing something and having the humility to improve and train in a new art, unlike so many MA out there who are lost in their own world.

I would never say size and strength were unimportant, just that it was POSSIBLE to overcome those advantages through skill. Obviously, one's success at such an endeavor would depend on how much skill he possessed in comparison to how much of a strength/size advantage his opponent had. Which brings me to another point: arguments about who would win between 2 people of exact same capabilities devoting the exact same amount of time to different training regimens are pointless because if such a scenario isn't impossible, then surely it is highly unlikely. One last thing: having worked in prisons, I think rumbrae makes an excellent point that many on these posts seem to hide their heads in the sand over.

Tim, we are still essentially talking about a 'safe' environment. By safe i mean the idea is to 'minimize damage', hence the weight classes, limited strike zones etc. Grappling is just about the only 'safe' (not suggesting grappling isn't only or always safe) skills based method for a smaller opponent to deal with a larger one, no doubt why it is favoured by police and security forces. If the idea was to maximize damage then arts like Xin Yi Liu He may be the weapon of choice, where strength and size is just one of many factors to consider.

Does anyone know what all the specific rules were in those early UFCs that Tim mentions? I always wondered why nobody was every killed, crippled or disfigured in those bouts if they were as rule-less as people claimed.

I had always heard that while there were 'no rules' for publicity purposes, remember that everybody was paid to be there. Certain moves or techniques would result in the loss or major reduction of the pay. I don't have a complete list. I noticed too, a number of times where competitors could had done something yet didn't.

Mark,
I have the complete list (of rules for the early UFC's):

1. No biting
2. No eye gouging
3. No fish hooking

Rumbrae,
I agree with your point that fights in the UFC's are not the same as fights in the street. The reality is, however, that MMA fights are as close as you are ever going to get in a realistic, "sport" environment. It is valuable for anyone interested in how humans really fight (at least in the absence of weapons) and which techniques and strategies are really effective, to pay attention to the fights in MMA events. MMA fights have already provided invaluable insights into fighting in general and the martial arts in particular.

For example,
*It has become absolutely clear that someone trained only in stand up striking will not be able to stop a trained grappler from taking him down.

*Stand up strikers proficient at takedown and ground defense have a good chance of winning a fight against a grappler that has no stand up striking skills.

*Most fights will involve some clinch fighting.

*At least basic groundfighting skills are essential.

*Size and strength matter (unless the smaller fighter is exceedingly superior technically).

*If the fight is not over very quickly, conditioning will become a dominant determinant of victory.

*There is no death touch.

You stated also:
"It was interesting that only trained martial artists entered(?), as compared for example to the savage beasts you would find in prison who were sent there for something like sending 6 police officers to the hospital with his bare hands."

You mean guys like Tank Abbot?

Kenneth,

You wrote:
"Which brings me to another point: arguments about who would win between 2 people of exact same capabilities devoting the exact same amount of time to different training regimens are pointless because if such a scenario isn't impossible, then surely it is highly unlikely."

I think this is more of a thought experiment aiming to point out the relative value of supplementary conditioning, not a question of who would actually win if clones from different schools fought.

More like martial arts fantasies, how many 'martial artists' actually enter UFC-like tournaments or 'life or death' street fights. Both are extremes, whose relevance (as a model)to your average 'hobbyist' are questionable.

I have only been trying to point out that UFC and CMA (and before that weightlifting) developed in different environments for different purposes and therefore their respective training methodologies and strategies reflect this. Put either one (in its 'pure' form) out of its 'natural' environment and into the other's and it is going to struggle. Each individual is going to have to decide for themselves by way of experience and/or 'thought experiment' which suits him. Given that most martial artists are going to have a variety of interests/goals then it's inevitable that cross-breeding is going to occur.

Tim,

Agree with all your well chosen words and that they only reflect what they support.

I didn't know about Tank, so what % does he represent?

Those 3 rules you mentioned would change the face of the UFC if allowed. Have you ever been to a real underground fightclub?