New Fight Question

[SuperSuperRambo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you're being a nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fair. I think you're probably right about that. So let me ask another question for those who are followers of MMA:

Do you think a MMA competition is the best way to determine who would win a real fight, as in: no rules, to the death.

I can say with ultimate confidence that Taekwon-Do competition doesn't do anything close to approximating that. I have fought a world champion, and while I wouldn't even remotely stand a chance in a scored match with him, I could easily land a fight stopping punch because he doesn't even practice defending against this sort of thing. They don't score punches.

And if you do think it's the best way to determine who would win a real fight, how accurate do you think it is? Like, what's the variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

I think it's the best way that we have to determine who would win in a real fight to the death. Of course the optimal setting would literally be a no-holds-barred death match, but this isn't feasible for obvious reasons. I think it's a better determinant than a limited sparring session, or training supposedly more realistic techniques half-force against a complacent opponent.

You tae kwon do example is a good one, and other good examples would be boxing matches, or judo competitions, or any limited martial arts competition.

Now as for how accurate it really is, I don't know how I could quantify the realism, let alone give you something like a variance. One would have to consider variables like who the opponent is, the strengths and weaknesses of the MMA/UFC fighter, and so on. I would say that all variables such as size, strength (physical attributes) held equal, the MMA fighter would win almost all the time against a different type of opponent. But it would really depend on the opponent's abilities.