'' MMA is not real fighting"

If you have never stepped into a ring or a cage, can you credibly make this statement? I know when I fought, rules be damned, I was in a brawl. I have NEVER heard a fighter say this. Just dojo rats who never competed.
This is equal to a 15 year old giving child rearing advice after taking a Red Cross Babysitting course.

MMA is very real.

Most people that accuse MMA of not being "real fighting" are referring to people who think what happens in the cage is what happens on the street. The street is a different animal cause there are no rules, multiple opponents may be involved and weapons could come into play.

But it isnt real combat or real fighting.

It has all of the implications and allowances of real martial combat without it's most severe repercussions.

This is why it is a "sport". All of the ingredients minus the worst possibilities.

Why is this hard to understand?

Boxers "fight" too. But boxing isn't real fighting.

"Real" means anything goes, including biting. Mayem Miller found himself mushed into a cushion and was almost sufficated, so hit bit the guy--that's real.

MMA is a sport, it has rules. Real fighting doesn't. Big difference.

It's as close as you can get to "real fighting", which is Vale Tudo.

Sure, it's not real fighting in the sense that it has it's limitations. But if the earlier UFCs were closer to "real fighting," then give me modern MMA.

out of curiosity, how many of you who responded have fought in mma?

I've only fought Muay Thai.

I've never had an MMA fight. That doesnt detract from the fact that I am correct.


Let's look at something that has already been pointed out in the thread in a little more detail:

Now why would people say that it isn't fighting? Personally I think the words chosen here (isn't real fighting) are a bit off as I usually hear statements like "a fight means there are no rules" or "MMA is different than the street." With that said lets look as to why people would say these things.

For the first topic - "there are no rules on the street.":

You can look at this comment in two lights. The one way is in regards to what COULD happen. For example a fight could involve biting as apposed to in MMA, it could involve more than one opponent calling for 360 degree awareness which MMA does not. These would be examples of NOT having rules.

OR, we could be talking about general rules such as those of gravity or basic human instincts and environment. For instance, I know that if I get into a fight on the street that it is most likely going to be on a hard surface and not a mat. This is an example of a rule. I know that if I get cut, the doctor will not stop the fight. This is also a rule. I know that if I jump one in a group the rest will most likely jump in and try and help out their friend; again a rule. With that said the comment is open for debate.

Topic number two - "MMA is different than the street.":

One has to agree with this. In MMA we are looking to win to place another notch in our belt. This is in no way a bad thing as male fighting is part of the human persona. One has to observe the difference however. In this case as mentioned previously MMA is a sport. With that said I break martial arts into two categories:

Sport vs. Survival:

Many people say that in sports there are "rules." I like to look at it in another light and think of sports as having "fouls." In the UFC for instance we cannot do any of the following:

  1. Butting with the head.
  2. Eye gouging of any kind.
  3. Biting.
  4. Hair pulling.
  5. Fish hooking.
  6. Groin attacks of any kind.
  7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
  8. Small joint manipulation.
  9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
  10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
  11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
  12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
  13. Grabbing the clavicle.
  14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
  15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
  16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
  17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
  18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
  19. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
  20. Spitting at an opponent.

These are all fouls. In survival however there are no fouls and anything on this list, including weapons, blind siding people, outnumbering people, etc. are fair game.

Now lets move onto is MMA a "combat sport." The wikipedia define combat as the following:

Combat, or fighting, is purposeful conflict between one or more persons, often involving violence and intended to establish dominance over the opposition. The term "combat" typically refers to armed combat between soldiers during warfare, whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any violent conflict, including boxing and wrestling matches. Combat violence can be unilateral, whereas fighting implies at least a defensive reaction. However, the terms are often used synonymously.

With that said I strongly agree that MMA is fighting, however it is not "combat." For an art to be considered combat it needs to be able to deal with all aspects of combat including "armed" and 360 degree situations. If you can perform MMA while a person is trying to stab or shoot you then yes I consider it a combat art. I would also have to observe 360 degree awareness in MMA for it to be considered combat. Mind you that these are only two enormous differences between the ring/cage and the battle field.

This is not to say however that MMA isn't useful for LEO's and the like. I strongly believe that the attributes attained by training in MMA gives military personnel the ability to perform their duties with a higher sense of fighting moral. I don't however think any soldier would consider running in for a double leg takedown to get mount on a guy when there are five of them instead of just one. Nor can I see a soldier going in for the knockout when he has to worry about with a gun, or worse a knife. Here is how I split up the different "kinds" of physical engagement:

Full Contact - 100% of what you have in you.

Real Contact - keeping the contact as real as possible, limiting the fouls and pads.

Sparring - an egoless game to better yourself and your partner. This usually contains some way of keeping track of "who is winning" and we are not meaning to intentionally hurt our partner, this is usually aided by pads.

Fighting - All out destruction and domination of your opponent.

When we combined these we get the following:

Full Contact Sparring - Giving 100% of what you have while still maintaining safety by wearing pads. (A MMA fighter might train this way before a fight, using only gloves, head gear and shin pads)

Real Contact Sparring - minimizing the pads but still keeping the "game" egoless. This is a very hard combination because it is easy to move over into the realm of fighting.

Full Contact Fighting - All out destruction and domination of your opponent while still having the option to wear pads. (UFC, K1) - the pads being the gloves and ability to wrap your hands.

Real Contact Fighting - no pads and going for all out destruction and domination of your opponent. (Felony Fights, Real Contact Stick Fighting)

Combat - No fouls.

Sorry for such a long post.


Does it really matter if people tell you what you're doing isn't "real?" If I ever did fight MMA, I'm sure I'd rather think of myself as an athlete rather than real fighter.


Date: 12/26/06 09:55 PM
Member Since: 11/30/2003
52 Total Posts
Ignore User
<SCRIPT> if (readCookie('MMATV_USERID') == 182554) { document.writeln('Edit  '); } </SCRIPT>

out of curiosity, how many of you who responded have fought in mma?


Yes, MMA and kickboxing.

Who says an mma fighter can't streetfight? If anything a mma fighter is the ultimate streetfighter. I doubt GSP is stupid enough to fight under mma rules in a streetfight. However, he's smart enough to know, through basic instinct, that his MMA skills has it's place in a streetfight.

Question: if MMA fighters spar, train and fight everyday then how in holy hell can the fighting instincts of a streetfighter legitimately compare to that of an MMA fighter?


MMA is not fighting, its tough but not fighting

ive had over 30 trips inside a cage or ring

My question to you is would the average MMA fighter be able to deal with a street encounter involving weapons? If need be does this training, sparring and fighting every day teach them how to handle a hand gun? Personally I am with you in regards to their training and dealing with what they do from a sport aspect. Look at the whole "self-defense wrist break" and think "who would be really good at breaking wrist grabs?" My answer; wrestlers, grapplers and Jiu-Jitsu practitioners because they train it every day. MMA fighters are great at knocking people out, submitting them, etc. The same holds true to any other area where one specializes in an aspect of fighting. So lets look back on my comment in regards to fouls. There are no fouls on the street so allow us to bring a razor blade into the mix.

I am willing to bet I could put my girlfriend (no martial arts experience) in the cage yielding a razor blade with some of the most talented fighters of today and bet she would cut them before the fight ended. Now it might end within a minute due to ground and pound via the talented fighter but it only takes a second for a cut to happen.

Now imagine this same scenario with a MS13 member who had already killed several people by the time he was 15. I'm willing to be the MS13 member has a good chance at taking the MMA'er.

In regards to "street fighters" like you see in the movies I look at them as brawlers who are looking for fights from a competitive stand point where there are fouls. In this case I do agree that the MMA'er would have the upper hand. Allow there to be no fouls however and you have a different beast on your hands.


P.S. Yes I do fight.

Ok, here my look on it,
if you were in the street, and you think your friend is a pretty tough guy thats been in a few street brawls, would you rather have this guy back you up or would you rather have some one, ... lets say tito ortiz,chuck lidell, quinton jackson, or even cro cop back you up. lets just put the weapons aside, who would you actually rather have next to you in a fight, some biker boy of the streets or a actual fighter. easy answer, i would rather have a fighter, a reall fucking fighter, regardless that they had a weapon or not, as least has there arms and legs as weapons with which they could easily knock down any street punk or lets just say some of the weapons some one would use in a street fight. do you guys get what im coming at

I have always looked at a fight as an weaponless form of combat between two individuals. 2 on 1 is assault. Pulling out a weapon is assault. Using the concrete is assa....
okay, maybe my theory has a hole or two, but you get the point.
Pink Singlet, would you care to elaborate, if you truly have 30+ fights (far more than I) maybe you could educate me.