New Fight Question

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So we "have" to choose how probable it is that they are generally equally skillful, or who is more likely to be skillful. In the absence of any kind of hard information, and in the presence of only some WWF-like posturing, I chose equally likely. (And, remember, we're supposed to be assessing the line for skills about a fight to the death.) I also said that if it can be shown that the UFC man is more likely, then [shrug] no sweat, he gets the nod.

You are putting down my "binary" notions, but you should realize that in this kind of general, abstract quest we can going around in circles for ages.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I didn't actually take a position on which one is better than the other. I just pointed out the problem in your position.

Of course, you could also say that a Golden Retreiver has all the skills a Grizzly Bear does, plus he can fetch slippers, retreive game, roll over on command, and water ski. And we don't have any hard data (I googled for dog vs. bear and http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xh9ckpkaalA was the best I came up with). So we could go in circles for ages, because all you have to do is ignore reality and just say something like "well, the dog will either win or he won't, and since we don't have hard data, we'll just fill in the blanks and say it's a 50-50 proposition!"




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Victor Kramnik...Go...

[/ QUOTE ] During his preparation for the Manila match against Korchnoi, Anatoly Karpov and his team would relax by taking walks or playing pool. Karpov was introduced to the Asian game of Go, by his seconds, as a diversionary game of relaxation, but they had to abandon that practice quickly, because the unfailingly competitive and analytical Karpov was immediately all over his new discovery, deep in examination and brain cell burning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point. Even though he had never played that particular game before, he was skilled enough at something very similar that he would likely crush someone who had played the game quite a bit, but hadn't done it as his primary activity day in and day out.

The skills that a UFC champ is exceedingly proficient in (hand to hand combat not to the death) map very closely to the skills that would be most useful in hand to hand combat to the death. The SEAL who is the best at hand to hand combat to the death has probably killed a handful of people in that manner. Maybe even a few hundred. But it's very unlikely that any of them had *any* significant hand-to-hand combat skills.

Just like I've gone 100-0 in go, but I've only played third graders. Set Karpov in front of the go board totally cold, hand him a single-page set of instructions and let him take me on. Who's the favorite?

[David Sklansky]

Reading these replies, I think I have the key to the answer.

First eliminate the boxer and streetfighter. Then combine the martial arts and UFC guys into one category. The question then becomes whether those guys beat the Navy Seal.

More precisely the question is whether the Seal's knowledge of killing techniques makes up for his disadvantage in athletic ability or other fighting techniques.

First notice that these killing techniques are often going under the assumption that the Seal has surprised his adversary. That's not the case here. Scecond those techniques are going under the assumption that his opponent is overall a lesser fighter. Again not the case here.

Still though the Seal will know stuff about ripping out windpipes or whatever that he other guys will be less adept at. Can that swing things? On average my guess is definitely not.

But the question didn't compare average against average. I compared best against best. Which may change things. The easiest way to get a handle on whether it does is to ask a different question, the answer to which would shed a lot of light on things. I'm not sure whether its worth staring a seperate thread about it.

The question is: What ranked UFC/maritial arts practitioner would turn into the number one fighter to the death with no rules IF he was given the full Navy Seal training? See what I'm saying. Would the twentieth best such guy kill the best if he went to Seal school? Where is the cutoff?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Still though the Seal will know stuff about ripping out windpipes or whatever that he other guys will be less adept at. Can that swing things? On average my guess is definitely not.

But the question didn't compare average against average. I compared best against best. Which may change things. The easiest way to get a handle on whether it does is to ask a different question, the answer to which would shed a lot of light on things. I'm not sure whether its worth staring a seperate thread about it.

The question is: What ranked UFC/maritial arts practitioner would turn into the number one fighter to the death with no rules IF he was given the full Navy Seal training? See what I'm saying. Would the twentieth best such guy kill the best if he went to Seal school? Where is the cutoff?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably a lot closer to #1 than #20. To use the "windpipe ripping-out" technique (or whatever) you have to *get the opportunity* to use it. And the UFC skills will be much more important in creating those opportunities than the SEAL skills.

Let's say I go to assassin school and learn the five point palm exploding heart technique. What are the chances that I, as an overweight couch potato schlub, will actually use that technique successfully against Mike Tyson? Note that the Bride caught Bill by surprise when she used this technique. It wasn't during active combat.

In fact, going to SEAL school may very well turn out to be a disadvantage. Time spent working on marksmanship, knife fighting, demolitions, survival swimming, counter-terrorism tactics, etc etc is time that isn't spent on learnin' more killin' (of the hand-to-hand variety). Of course, some of that training will be beneficial even if it isn't directly applicable to hand-to-hand combat (the long distance swimming will definitely improve anyone's physical condition). The question is what is the opportunity cost.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still though the Seal will know stuff about ripping out windpipes or whatever that he other guys will be less adept at. Can that swing things? On average my guess is definitely not.

But the question didn't compare average against average. I compared best against best. Which may change things. The easiest way to get a handle on whether it does is to ask a different question, the answer to which would shed a lot of light on things. I'm not sure whether its worth staring a seperate thread about it.

The question is: What ranked UFC/maritial arts practitioner would turn into the number one fighter to the death with no rules IF he was given the full Navy Seal training? See what I'm saying. Would the twentieth best such guy kill the best if he went to Seal school? Where is the cutoff?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably a lot closer to #1 than #20. To use the "windpipe ripping-out" technique (or whatever) you have to *get the opportunity* to use it. And the UFC skills will be much more important in creating those opportunities than the SEAL skills.

Let's say I go to assassin school and learn the five point palm exploding heart technique. What are the chances that I, as an overweight couch potato schlub, will actually use that technique successfully against Mike Tyson? Note that the Bride caught Bill by surprise when she used this technique. It wasn't during active combat.

In fact, going to SEAL school may very well turn out to be a disadvantage. Time spent working on marksmanship, knife fighting, demolitions, survival swimming, counter-terrorism tactics, etc etc is time that isn't spent on learnin' more killin' (of the hand-to-hand variety). Of course, some of that training will be beneficial even if it isn't directly applicable to hand-to-hand combat (the long distance swimming will definitely improve anyone's physical condition). The question is what is the opportunity cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys (including Mr. Sklansky) are still focused almost entirely on technique. The fact remains time spent actually *killing* in combat is a valuable skill that cannot be trained for or taught. It does not transfer over. Nor does the experience of having performed while you were being shot at or assaulted by someone trying to kill you. Working well while under life-or-death threat is an acquired skill. The UFC guy (presumably) does not yet have that experience and the SEAL (presumably) does. Not having been in life-or-death combat, the UFC guy may exhibit flaws common to *anyone* who has never been in that situation before. Things such as hesitation, nervousness, lack of instant accurate judgment, too much adrenaline affecting accuracy.

All the training and practice in the world doesn't guarantee that someone will execute optimally the first time they are faced with having to perform it in a life or death situation. In fact the opposite often happens. A split second's hesitation, shock or stun can make all the difference. This is why the Muay Thai guys have an edge (technique aside) over mere boxers and why boxers (technique aside) have an edge over the martial artists who are not used to absorbing severe blows. Granted, technique and training and experience in lesser contests does mean a great deal. But without the actual hands-on experience under the given contest conditions (in this case a no rules deathmatch) it is faulty to presume that the more skilled contestant will be able to execute at his best.

Again, I'm not saying that the SEAL should be the favorite or that it is necessarily a toss-up. I don't know. But I do know that you guys are apparently not even bothering to weight actual life-or-death combat experience at all, and that is a big thing to neglect from consideration. It is a bigger factor than you seem to be guessing, and has the potential to offset much.

If the UFC guy does not perform at his very best then what? Will his advantage in skill/training/lesser fighting experience, stil win if he doesn't perform at his own personal best? Will it still overcome the best SEAL who actually is performing at his own personal best? If golf pros, who practice daily for consistency, can blow it when too much of their own money is on the line, what makes you think a UFC pro couldn't blow it or be subject to making a critical error or freeze-up when his own *life* is on the line *for the very first time*.

[NewTeaBag]

Agreed.

You have explained in a different way what I tried to explain thru example.

Having killed (without mercy, malice or judgement) makes a world of difference in a "fight to the death." I think this calm determination would more than likely be the key advantage for the best trained combat specialist (SEAL/SAS/similar trained).

[shemp]

What weight class on the boxer?

I think the "world's best wrestler" would rank decently in this hierarchy if given a few chokes.

I'm not sure how we'd identify the favorite of a "fight until the death" tournament. Kind of like March Madness, we'd be able to crown a winner-- but it wouldn't tell us who is "best"-- and it would be really hard to have a best of seven.

That reminds me, I've got a sketch proof for a time travel machine, but I've dedicated the afternoon to posting on twoplustwo. I figure this is something I can leave until a few minutes before I die, one place where procastination will serve me well.

I think many of you guys vastly overestimate the amount of close quarters combat training that American Special Forces receive-- that said, a typical mission not that long ago would include teaching hand-to-hand combat to other soldiers/fighters at home or abroad. It is also entirely possible, that whoever is best among them has never killed anyone in hand to hand weaponless combat (so the experience factor is tough to pin down). Anyway, I'd favour the UFC champ, but I think these are all a bit closer (minus the boxer) than many of you.

[shemp]

Gouging out someone eyes or ripping out their jugular requires, the idea to do it, and the will and initiative much more than training (although minimal training and practice of such killing moves is important)-- it's not a huge advantage to have long exposure to such techniques unless it has never occurred to the other party that such is in play. Chokes and arm and wrist bends are probably more valuable than those killing moves and much more than throws...

[Stuey]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is: What ranked UFC/martial arts practitioner would turn into the number one fighter to the death with no rules IF he was given the full Navy Seal training?

[/ QUOTE ]

To answer your question I would think you still need the top ranked UFC fighters. There seems to be a big drop off from the elite to average in that sport imo.

The greatest at anything often does extra homework. I assumed the greatest navy seal had studied MMA extensively. He would do it on his own time cuz he is just a nut for learning to asskick. The other greatest also study seal type things but the greatest seal must have killed people. I would not call him the greatest otherwise.

So standard navy seal training would not help the MMA person near as much as I feel the MMA training helped the seal. Turn it around and this is the way I took the question to be.

The question is: How many average navy seals become the number one fighter to the death with no rules IF he was given the full MMA training?

MMA training is easy to get if you are interested. Learning to kill and having a few killings under your belt is not as easy to get.

That is why I asked if they know who they are fighting before the fight and how long they have to prepare for the fight. I think the seal learns more and uses it better the more time he is given. He knows what will and will not be useful in this type of fight. We do not and either do the other fighters.

All that being said after I have read the replies of others I value my position less. It is hard to argue against the UFC/MMA style after hearing others explain why it is superior. I am close to changing my mind. I know little about seals and more about MMA. Sometimes a lack of knowledge will make me dream up stuff to fill in the blanks the way I want. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I thought killin was hard, it would be for me.

[blackize]

I think the psychological difficulty of killing a man is a nonissue. The UFC guys are used to knocking people out and with just a slight amount more pressure could snap limbs using their submissions. Breaking a man's neck once he is incapacitated should prove an easy task. Let's assume that there are no moral objections to keep things simple.

Assuming extensive MMA training for the Navy SEAL is a bit of a stretch. While it is possible that the SEAL has undertaken the sport in his free time or prior to joining the Navy, he doesn't have the time to dedicate to it to become proficient in it on a world class level.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the psychological difficulty of killing a man is a nonissue. The UFC guys are used to knocking people out and with just a slight amount more pressure could snap limbs using their submissions. Breaking a man's neck once he is incapacitated should prove an easy task. Let's assume that there are no moral objections to keep things simple.

Assuming extensive MMA training for the Navy SEAL is a bit of a stretch. While it is possible that the SEAL has undertaken the sport in his free time or prior to joining the Navy, he doesn't have the time to dedicate to it to become proficient in it on a world class level.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than the issue of killing, is the matter of reacting well when you are under deadly attack and possibly taking serious damage. It's not the same thing as fighting under artificial contest conditions. The more the two contestants "trade damage", the more it may favor the one who has done that before in life-or-death combat situations.

On a lesser scale, the more a boxer and a point-sparring type of martial artist engage in "trading damage", the more it will likely favor the boxer. Simple reason is that the boxer is much more used to absorbing damage and continuing to fight on.