Would Bruce still be on the cutting edge

[Joemoplata]

If you were to take Bruce Lee at the height of his capabilities and thrown him into a cage with a current MMA fighter of his size..let's say someone like Urijah Faber, he would get smashed. I know this upsets a lot of people here because he is viewed with such reverence but he just didn't have the necessary skills at that time to cope with what fighting has become today.

He was NOT doing MMA. He was much more focused on fighting other martial artists with what was considered martial arts at that time. MMA is a sport, one in which you have a lot of areas of possible engagement inclucing western wrestling which wasn't much of his training.

MMA is a lot more than just BJJ and Muay Thai. In fact, there are a lot of extremely good MMA fighters out there who only know the western arts:

Boxing and wrestling

And extensive knowledge of those two arts alone can take you far in the world of MMA.

BJJ did not introduce the guard to the world, but it did introduce an grappling art who didn't consider a PIN the ultimate win. THAT'S it's real strength. It was one of the first grappling arts that focused it's ground work on getting into a position where striking and/or submission came the easiest. The submissions themselves were definitely nothing new. Like Judo, it was the training regiment itself that allowed it to be new and effective.

One other point to be made about the sport of MMA and it's progression:

People who were dominant MMA fighters at the beginning of this sport were quickly made irrelevant with newer, better fighters. Even the man himself who got us all interested in this, Royce Gracie, didn't stand a chance against the more modern fighter in Matt Hughes...and then Matt Hughes didn't stand a chance against the even MORE modern fighter in St Pierre. This sport evolves at blinding rates and newer, better, faster, stronger athletes are coming into it every day. Not one person from the old days at their best, not Chuck Norris not Bruce Lee not Superfoot Wallace, NO ONE would stand a chance in the cage of today.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

If you were to take Bruce Lee at the height of his capabilities and thrown him into a cage with a current MMA fighter of his size..let's say someone like Urijah Faber, he would get smashed. I know this upsets a lot of people here because he is viewed with such reverence but he just didn't have the necessary skills at that time to cope with what fighting has become today.

Strong opinion- but what has changed about fighting so much so that would result in fighters not being able to challange a modern fighter. Does this means that those great Pankration warriors; Diagoras of Rhodes, Theagenes of Tasos, Polydeukes, Lygdamus etc were but nothing compared to those champions who followed in Rome; who in turn were but nothing in comparison to those champions of the Prize-Ring.

So what could have possibly happened to warrant the opinion that Bruce Lee would not have been as good a fighter as a more modern fighter - surely, fighting (and any method based upon fighting) is essentially eternal?

I agree with Ten Tigers and Flashlock.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by Magister

Strong opinion- but what has changed about fighting so much so that would result in fighters not being able to challange a modern fighter. Does this means that those great Pankration warriors; Diagoras of Rhodes, Theagenes of Tasos, Polydeukes, Lygdamus etc were but nothing compared to those champions who followed in Rome; who in turn were but nothing in comparison to those champions of the Prize-Ring.

So what could have possibly happened to warrant the opinion that Bruce Lee would not have been as good a fighter as a more modern fighter - surely, fighting (and any method based upon fighting) is essentially eternal?

I agree with Ten Tigers and Flashlock.

The proof is in the results.

The history of fights in modern MMA prove that it HAS progressed over time and that skill levels, training regiments and availability of training partners HAS created better fighters.

While fundamentally your logic is sound, you must take in the evidence in order to form a proper conclusion and your knowledge of MMA history isn't what it needs to be in order to make that conclusion.

[flashlock]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

The proof is in the results.

The history of fights in modern MMA prove that it HAS progressed over time and that skill levels, training regiments and availability of training partners HAS created better fighters.

While fundamentally your logic is sound, you must take in the evidence in order to form a proper conclusion and your knowledge of MMA history isn't what it needs to be in order to make that conclusion.

There's a few problems in your agruments:

1. The old UFC is greatly different than the current one in terms of rules. Royce Gracie beat men who, on average, outweighed him by 40 lbs. And he fought more than once in a night. Also, now you can't hit in the groin, no head butts, no elbows to the spine, no kicking a down opponent, mandatory gloves, and the stand up rule. So, you could turn it around and see modern champions failing in the old UFC. Apples and Oranges.

2. Hughes VS Gracie is not a great demonstration of how much MMA has evolved. It just showed how old and lazy Royce had become. I just saw a younger guy applying the same technology from UFC 1on an over-the-hill guy who showed it to him in the first place.

3. Bruce Lee's striking game was better in terms of sophistication, power, speed, and timing than anything you see in the UFC/ MMA today. He was also a collegiate boxing champion--so it definately wasn't fancy kung fu crap. He knew his stuff and proved it beyond movies, in challenge matches and demonstrations.

Look at Silva. Like that, but faster. Lee in the ring would be so fast and accurate, I think his striking would be on the level of a future UFC champ somewhere in the year 2020. HE was ahead of THEM.

[john55]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

If you were to take Bruce Lee at the height of his capabilities and thrown him into a cage with a current MMA fighter of his size..let's say someone like Urijah Faber, he would get smashed. I know this upsets a lot of people here because he is viewed with such reverence but he just didn't have the necessary skills at that time to cope with what fighting has become today.

I agree. Its kinda like how old baseball players, like babe ruth would probably not stand a chance of being a pro player today. Also how and why old records keep getting broken.

Athletes keep getting better, competition greater. It happens in all sports.

Originally Posted by flashlock

There's a few problems in your agruments:

1. The old UFC is greatly different than the current one in terms of rules. Royce Gracie beat men who, on average, outweighed him by 40 lbs. And he fought more than once in a night. Also, now you can't hit in the groin, no head butts, no elbows to the spine, no kicking a down opponent, mandatory gloves, and the stand up rule. So, you could turn it around and see modern champions failing in the old UFC. Apples and Oranges.

I also agree here. I think things would change a lot if these old ufc 1-4 rules were implemented. I dont mind the ones that would endanger the opponents lives like elbows to the spine...but I think the no time limit would be great as well as the no stand up rule.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by flashlock

There's a few problems in your agruments:

1. The old UFC is greatly different than the current one in terms of rules. Royce Gracie beat men who, on average, outweighed him by 40 lbs. And he fought more than once in a night. Also, now you can't hit in the groin, no head butts, no elbows to the spine, no kicking a down opponent, mandatory gloves, and the stand up rule. So, you could turn it around and see modern champions failing in the old UFC. Apples and Oranges.

I would agree with you had Royce lost because of the new rule set but he did not. Same could be said for most of Dan Severns losses, and Mark Coleman, and Mark Kerr...on and on and on.

Originally Posted by flashlock

2. Hughes VS Gracie is not a great demonstration of how much MMA has evolved. It just showed how old and lazy Royce had become. I just saw a younger guy applying the same technology from UFC 1on an over-the-hill guy who showed it to him in the first place.

So what you're saying is that at 40 years old Royce was washed up and done after having had a total of 19 fights while Matt Hughes at 34 with 43 fights was fresh and ready to go? That argument is ridiculous frankly and doesn't show you have very good knowledge. Royce was probably in some of the best shape he's ever been in for that fight.

Originally Posted by flashlock

3. Bruce Lee's striking game was better in terms of sophistication, power, speed, and timing than anything you see in the UFC/ MMA today. He was also a collegiate boxing champion--so it definately wasn't fancy kung fu crap. He knew his stuff and proved it beyond movies, in challenge matches and demonstrations.

Look at Silva. Like that, but faster. Lee in the ring would be so fast and accurate, I think his striking would be on the level of a future UFC champ somewhere in the year 2020. HE was ahead of THEM.

MMA striking is not the same as boxing or even the same as Muay Thai. You actually have EXTREMELY talented strikers in MMA today who have to learn to adjust their striking to account for clinching and takedowns.

Have you ever done MMA flashlock? Have you ever even just trained MMA with experienced fighters or taken an MMA class with an experienced instructor?

A good instructor will tell you DAY ONE that striking in MMA is NOT THE SAME and go through the differences.

[Joemoplata]

Originally Posted by john55

I also agree here. I think things would change a lot if these old ufc 1-4 rules were implemented. I dont mind the ones that would endanger the opponents lives like elbows to the spine...but I think the no time limit would be great as well as the no stand up rule.

I disagree, the only person who ultimately capitalized on the lack of rules was Keith Hackney vs Joe Son and he would have won that fight either way.

A superior fighter will win despite the lack of "kill" moves that everyone thinks make such a huge differnece. If anyone can gimme a fight in which the lack of rules allowed them to win that could not have allowed them to win in todays rules please post the fight.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

The history of fights in modern MMA prove that it HAS progressed over time and that skill levels, training regiments and availability of training partners HAS created better fighters.

While fundamentally your logic is sound, you must take in the evidence in order to form a proper conclusion and your knowledge of MMA history isn't what it needs to be in order to make that conclusion.

It does not prove that better fighters have not existed - it merely proves that competitors have progressed to meet the demands of the competition. Whilst your opinion is strong, i fear that its logic might be based upon a very blinkered (and albeit very focussed) aspect of martial arts and fighting.

Please enlighten me as to why this should not be the case, and how - with mixed martial arts and UFC being a modern combat sport - you may justify that good fighters have never existed in the history of humanity prior to the existence of the UFC and such-like.

[flashlock]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

So what you're saying is that at 40 years old Royce was washed up and done after having had a total of 19 fights while Matt Hughes at 34 with 43 fights was fresh and ready to go? That argument is ridiculous frankly and doesn't show you have very good knowledge. Royce was probably in some of the best shape he's ever been in for that fight.

Excuse me, but I've trained with Royce, and my instructor is friends with all the Gracies, including Royce. I won't go into it on line here, but Royce's training is very "relaxed" compared to contemporary fighters.

He told our class how he trains, and it is surprsingly not intense.

So, sorry, but my knowledge is direct.

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

MMA striking is not the same as boxing or even the same as Muay Thai. You actually have EXTREMELY talented strikers in MMA today who have to learn to adjust their striking to account for clinching and takedowns.

Have you ever done MMA flashlock? Have you ever even just trained MMA with experienced fighters or taken an MMA class with an experienced instructor?

A good instructor will tell you DAY ONE that striking in MMA is NOT THE SAME and go through the differences.

More personal attacks. Look, Joe Rogan himself said that MMA striking was WAY behind boxing, and there was a lot to expand there, so mnyeh!

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

MMA is a lot more than just BJJ and Muay Thai. In fact, there are a lot of extremely good MMA fighters out there who only know the western arts:
Boxing and wrestling
And extensive knowledge of those two arts alone can take you far in the world of MMA.
BJJ did not introduce the guard to the world, but it did introduce an grappling art who didn't consider a PIN the ultimate win. THAT'S it's real strength.

I'd agree with you on these statements but they seem somewhat contradictory. Wrestling does focus on a pin unless we're talikng submission wrestling, which I have been told doesn't end at pinning. Whereas BJJ obviously doesn't give a damn about pins and thus seems massively superior. Yet you say that wrestling is enough? How can wrestling even compare to BJJ?

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

1.So what you're saying is that at 40 years old Royce was washed up and done after having had a total of 19 fights while Matt Hughes at 34 with 43 fights was fresh and ready to go? That argument is ridiculous frankly and doesn't show you have very good knowledge. Royce was probably in some of the best shape he's ever been in for that fight.

1. Six year age difference. And wasn't Royce doing roids by around that time, which shows even he didn't think he was "in shape" enough.

Originally Posted by Magister

It does not prove that better fighters have not existed - it merely proves that competitors have progressed to meet the demands of the competition. Whilst your opinion is strong, i fear that its logic might be based upon a very blinkered (and albeit very focussed) aspect of martial arts and fighting.
Please enlighten me as to why this should not be the case, and how - with mixed martial arts and UFC being a modern combat sport - you may justify that good fighters have never existed in the history of humanity prior to the existence of the UFC and such-like.

I guess the question of how well a UFC fighter would do in a Roman gladiatoral arena should be raised. Personally I think they'd get slaughtered. Not because they are unskilled or unfit fighters but just because the environments and skill set required are so different. And I think this is the whole problem of putting Bruce Lee into the UFC. The environment would retrict the viability of his skill set. Same reason I wouldn't go into UFC, they'd take my beloved knives away.

[john55]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

I disagree, the only person who ultimately capitalized on the lack of rules was Keith Hackney vs Joe Son and he would have won that fight either way.

A superior fighter will win despite the lack of "kill" moves that everyone thinks make such a huge differnece. If anyone can gimme a fight in which the lack of rules allowed them to win that could not have allowed them to win in todays rules please post the fight.

Yea, i agree about the kill moves but I think 'no time limit' would make a difference. Same with the no stalling rule.

Originally Posted by Magister

It does not prove that better fighters have not existed - it merely proves that competitors have progressed to meet the demands of the competition. Whilst your opinion is strong, i fear that its logic might be based upon a very blinkered (and albeit very focussed) aspect of martial arts and fighting.

Please enlighten me as to why this should not be the case, and how - with mixed martial arts and UFC being a modern combat sport - you may justify that good fighters have never existed in the history of humanity prior to the existence of the UFC and such-like.

I think its simply better athletes, more experience, etc. Its the same with all sports.

Originally Posted by flashlock

Excuse me, but I've trained with Royce, and my instructor is friends with all the Gracies, including Royce. I won't go into it on line here, but Royce's training is very "relaxed" compared to contemporary fighters.

He told our class how he trains, and it is surprsingly not intense.

So, sorry, but my knowledge is direct.

Did you train bjj with royce? all bjj purple+ belts I have trained with (which is only a handful by way as I am still new) are all extremely relaxed. Even the MMA training that I see quite a lot at my gym seems really relaxed. I on the other hand can now make it through 30 minutes of rolling but feel like i am dying at the end.

o, and why would that be better? I doubt royce has some secret training that only he knows.

[flashlock]

Originally Posted by john55

Did you train bjj with royce? all bjj purple+ belts I have trained with (which is only a handful by way as I am still new) are all extremely relaxed. Even the MMA training that I see quite a lot at my gym seems really relaxed. I on the other hand can now make it through 30 minutes of rolling but feel like i am dying at the end.

o, and why would that be better? I doubt royce has some secret training that only he knows.

Yeah, Rocye came and gave a 3 hour seminar at our school in Melbourne. I actually got to throw a punch at him for demonstration purposes, and he threw me (hip throw), which was awesome. We also got to ask him questions, so it was quite a day!

My reference to "relaxed" is not how he rolled--of course he was relaxed--but how he trains for a fight. I think it was just 3 or 4 days a week of rolling, and one or two days of lifting, and some striking practice. He specifically told us that he sees all these kids "over training", but it doesn't help them, they get gassed out after one round.

Point is, that Hughes Gracie fight was more about physical age and training ethic than some overwhelming technology difference. Hughes himself in his autobiography didn't say it was old skills vs new skills, he thought simply that American wrestling beats Brazilian JJ! So, not even Hughes sees that fight as some example of old MMA vs new MMA.

[john55]

Originally Posted by flashlock

Yeah, Rocye came and gave a 3 hour seminar at our school in Melbourne. I actually got to throw a punch at him for demonstration purposes, and he threw me (hip throw), which was awesome. We also got to ask him questions, so it was quite a day!

My reference to "relaxed" is not how he rolled--of course he was relaxed--but how he trains for a fight. I think it was just 3 or 4 days a week of rolling, and one or two days of lifting, and some striking practice. He specifically told us that he sees all these kids "over training", but it doesn't help them, they get gassed out after one round.

Thats awesome. I would love to go to a royce seminar. We had de la riva at my place in august and he is coming again in january tentatively. he is our affliate and where we get out belts from.

As far as training for a fight, im not sure whats common. The guys at my gym have 2-3 practices a day, 5 days a week plus conditioning. Im sure royce trains lighter though becuase of his age as compared to a 20 year old. I train bjj 3-4 days a week, lift 1-2 times and am dead, its overtraining for me. I also have a good diet, can sleep in etc...basically train like a full time fighter if I wanted and this schedule kills me. I have cut my lifting down to 1 time and its helped a lot.

[WC_Lun]

I think argueing whether Bruce Lee would have been better or worse than modern day MMA fighters is a moot point and there are a couple of reasons why. First, Bruce Lee was always pushing forward. Its my opinion in many cases he was reinventing the wheel, but he was never standing still in his training. Unfortunately, no one can ever really know where he would be today if he had lived. Maybe he would have given up martial arts for acting or perhaps the other way around. No one knows. Second is that Bruce Lee did not train for a sport. As vicious and full contact as MMA is, it is still a sport and takes a certain training aproach to be successful at it. That training aproach is not the exact same as training for street application.

As for MMA having superior strikers, for the most part it doesn't. Watching MMA matches you constantly see where the striking skills are lacking. Everything from open guards, dropping the back hand when striking, opening the center, not using foot work to compliment strikes, relying on upper body strength for punching power, not keeping the correct space for the technique being used, not using space and demension defensively, etc. Yes, I realize that defending against take downs must change a strikers game somewhat. However, much of the striking I see by modern MMA competitors leaves something to be desired. Some of this I attribute to differing training methods. The open guard is an example of this. Many times MMA guys will train striking with the heavier boxing gloves to avoid injury and strengthen the body. They get used to the bigger gloves and the greater defensive area they offer. When the lighter gloves are worn the competitors still naturally move to the guard they have trained in with the bigger gloves, leaving a huge space in which thier defense is weak. Hmmm...they are fighting how the train?

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for MMA fighters and think many of them are very talented on top of training very hard. However, I do think that there is still a great deal of room for MMA to grow when it comes to striking. Eventually we'll see that growth.

[Them's Fighting Words]

Originally Posted by Joemoplata

If anyone can gimme a fight in which the lack of rules allowed them to win that could not have allowed them to win in todays rules please post the fight.

UFC 81: Brock Lesner vs Frank Mir. Mir would've been pounded into unconsciousness if that had been a no rules fight.

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

As for MMA having superior strikers, for the most part it doesn't. Watching MMA matches you constantly see where the striking skills are lacking. Everything from open guards, dropping the back hand when striking, opening the center, not using foot work to compliment strikes, relying on upper body strength for punching power, not keeping the correct space for the technique being used, not using space and demension defensively, etc. Yes, I realize that defending against take downs must change a strikers game somewhat. However, much of the striking I see by modern MMA competitors leaves something to be desired. Some of this I attribute to differing training methods. The open guard is an example of this. Many times MMA guys will train striking with the heavier boxing gloves to avoid injury and strengthen the body. They get used to the bigger gloves and the greater defensive area they offer. When the lighter gloves are worn the competitors still naturally move to the guard they have trained in with the bigger gloves, leaving a huge space in which thier defense is weak. Hmmm...they are fighting how the train?

Yup, totally agree. As for the part in bold, I believe it has to do with their Kinetic Energy Chain development. If you have ever trained to strike while lying on your back, you realise how much more important upper body strength is. You can get some rotational strength but the feet and leg power-base obviously just isn't there. In Silat, I trained a bit in isolating my Kinetic Chain, and I found all those hours bench pressing were a lot more useful than I had at first thought.