Sharks and Tigers - The great UFC myth

In its own environment, each is a deadly fighter...

A good friend recently pointed out to me how very badly karateka perform in UFC, and he also pointed out that the one true karateka ever to win UFC, Lyoto Machida, had recently suffered a decisive defeat. I myself have often compared karate’s effectiveness against that of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighters who do UFC and cage fighting, and have concluded that karate is no match for MMA in the UFC ring or the cage. For years, it was a disappointing and harsh truth that I simply had to live with. I don’t practice the ultimate martial art. There are arts out there that can leave karateka lying bloodied on the mat.

But the other day, I had a revelation that has put things into perspective for me. Karate and MMA are not the same, and it’s not fair to compare them like for like. In fact, it’s like the old debate in which you ask which would win a fight; a tiger or a great white shark. Each creature is deadly in its native environment, but less so outside that arena.

MMA is a science, and in many ways, it’s the most progressive fighting sport on the planet; but that’s all it is – a sport. There are rules, and it’s only one on one, in a relatively safe, controlled, predictable environment. The ground is flat, there’s a referee, no weapons allowed, and no danger of spectators becoming involved. Furthermore, there are many, many rules to govern what techniques are and are not allowed. The fights are sometimes brutal, requiring supreme levels of fitness and conditioning, but ultimately, they are controlled. That’s not to take anything whatsoever away from MMA and cage fighters – those who rise to the top are courageous and superb at what they do, and what they do is a sport.

Of course, modern karate often has a strong sporting element, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. It keeps it interesting, aids fitness, and helps to develop an understanding of movement, distancing and the interaction between two bodies in combat. However, there is also a non-sporting dimension to karate. When we practice kata or self-defence, we are not training to win points, or gain submission; we are training to subdue, injure, or kill hostile opponents.

Karate does not come primarily from a sporting tradition – it derives from a need to survive against violent opponents intent on causing injury. The environment that precipitated a need for karate did not have rules, referees, or restrictions on how far a fighter could go to defend his life. Whether used on the battlefield against trained soldiers; in the hands of law enforcement to subdue violent criminals, or practiced by ordinary civilians as a form of self-defence, karate and it predecessors had to be functional and adaptable. Sometimes it had to be useful against trained fighters who may even have been armed, and sometimes it was used against ordinary people who were both untrained, and probably not in the best of condition.

This gave rise to a diverse plethora of techniques with differing objectives, none of which are compatible with the objectives of the UFC fighters.

Let’s just consider them:

If you lost your weapon on the battlefield, you couldn't just go home!		A battlefield art – It is said that many techniques that were eventually incorporated into karate were learned on the battlefield. It is only relatively recently that gunpowder and ballistic weapons have changed the nature of battlefield combat, but for most of the past 3000 years, soldiers of Europe, Asia and the Middle East have broadly speaking fought in the same way – hand to hand using swords, spears, and shields; on horses; or at range using bows or other projectile weapons. Obviously no soldier would give up his weapon by choice, so unarmed combat is designed for what happens when you are disarmed, or you lose or break your weapon. If your opponent is armoured, even lightly, then punches and kicks to armoured areas would be ineffective. This would lead I suspect, to a fighting art that focussed on joint attacks, throws, and vital point strikes. Whether armoured or not, an elbow or knee or neck still needs to bend, and if it’s capable or articulation, it can be snapped. Likewise, even armour has holes in it –  space for eyes to look out, gaps around the neck so that the head can move, etc. These can again be attacked with precision strikes. Last but not least, the weight of armour can be a positive disadvantage when used in conjunction with an opponent’s momentum to throw them to the ground judo style. And once an opponent is taken to the ground – then what – do you lay on top of them in an effort to get a submission? Of course not, you dispatch them as quickly and efficiently as possible with the most effective technique you know!
Law enforcement needed the skills to subdue criminals.		Law enforcement – There was a long period when weapons were not permitted for the Okinawan natives – not even the local police. But even when that was not the case, like today’s modern police, some unarmed combat skills come in useful. I doubt if it was much more acceptable then, than it is now for armed police to cripple or kill hostile and even violent lawbreakers. Therefore, martial arts needed to serve the dual function of self-protection, and subduing criminals. In that situation, snapping limbs, breaking necks, or gouging eyes would not likely be the desire course of action, so techniques geared towards control and compliance may have been the order of the day. Of course, when dealing with multiple criminals, a policeman could not afford the humane luxury of putting one person into an arm lock, because his associates would present a continuing danger. In that situation, the policeman had his more damaging striking techniques to fall back on.
Some Japanese peasants may have learned how to defend themselves		Self-defence – For an ordinary citizen, as with today, they may encounter situations ranging from mild aggression, such as a pub brawl, right through to life-threatening situations in the form of muggings or targeted attacks. Thus, they would need a graduated range of responses that could deal with different situations. It seems unlikely that the ordinary person would want to stand there trading blows with an attacker boxing style, and risking getting hit, so decisive fight-ending techniques would have been advantageous. Again, the risk of facing multiple attackers would mean that a person would not want to spend too much time grappling, and no time at all on the floor if he could possibly help it.

But let’s suppose in any of those three combat situations, that things take turn for the worst, and the defender ends up on the floor possibly fighting for his life. Will that person care about rules of combat, or is he likely to do whatever it takes to survive? Of course, the latter is true – he will gouge eyes, squeeze testicles, bite, pinch, spit, snap fingers, scratch, punch in the neck or throat, attack joints, and more besides. None of which are allowed in UFC or the cage.

Lyoto Machida may have lost his crown, but he managed to climb to the top of the UFC arms race by adapting his karate.

But to give UFC its well-earned due, it’s a product of the modern age, and the evolution of fighting within that environment has happened at breakneck speed, and you can certainly learn lessons on distancing, striking and movement by studying how the best UFC fighters behave.

From the 8^th century, there was something of an arms race between Samurai weapon-smiths and armourers. As a sword maker would develop harder, less brittle steel that held its edge better, then the armourers would develop stronger armour, that was lighter, and hardened enough to resist such weapons. And back and forth it went, each craftsman increasing the effectiveness of his products.

But if you looked at the art of war, it is likely that combat changes, brought about by improved enemy training or tactics were relatively slow. It wasn’t as if they went to war every week, and they didn’t have the benefits of video playback to analyse what the enemy was doing.

Even in the early days of UFC, Royce Gracie with his amazing Brazilian jiu jitsu reigned for longer than he probably would today, simply because fight analysis and science was not so evolved as today. Nowadays, if a UFC fighter comes up with an innovative way of fighting, as Machida did when he used karate tactics, he’ll be lucky if he can spend a year at the top, before his style has been analysed, disassembled, and the top fighters have trained new tactics specifically to counter his strengths and weaknesses. Having said that, MMA fighters train to defeat the tactics of other MMA fighters, not some bloke down the pub, or an armed criminal, or a battlefield soldier.

But in old Japan and Okinawa, no-one had that luxury. Everyone had to be a generalist. It’s possible that you might fight trained opponents, but in those situations, weight of numbers or better weapons was the preferred solution, as it is for law enforcement and the military today. By and large, Karate, and the fighting arts that spawned it, had to be effective and adaptable. They had to be able to cope with the unknown capabilities of opponents, but the combat techniques were not designed to win a judge’s approval; they were designed for survival. They were sensible, and they would not unnecessarily endanger the defender.

So next time you look, with justified awe, at MMA fighters, and maybe you even compare them against your own karate, just remember; sharks and tigers. In their own arena, MMA fighters are impressive trained sports athletes. In our arena, we are no less competent at what we do.