Jump to content

Mma (Mixed Martial Arts)


Guest MMASingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MMASingh

I am going to be taking up MMA next year and i wanted the opinion of any individuals out there that are involved in MMA. Has the MMA made you a better fighter etc, improved your confidence to engage in a fight etc. Why is MMA better than the other martial arts out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MMA isn't better than ancient martial arts of the khalsa. There are many techniques in ancient martial arts that would be considered illegal in the sports nature of MMA. Plus the ancient arts are probably more mixed than MMA anyway, as in the arts the khalsa trained in were actually a mixture of martial arts of different regions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MMA isn't better than ancient martial arts of the khalsa. There are many techniques in ancient martial arts that would be considered illegal in the sports nature of MMA. Plus the ancient arts are probably more mixed than MMA anyway, as in the arts the khalsa trained in were actually a mixture of martial arts of different regions!

I am going to be taking up MMA next year and i wanted the opinion of any individuals out there that are involved in MMA. Has the MMA made you a better fighter etc, improved your confidence to engage in a fight etc. Why is MMA better than the other martial arts out there?

The so called ancient martial arts of the khalsa (probably you are referring to the fake martial arts of shastar vidya which is really just phillipino martial arts passed off as something exotic, ancient and unheard of by the conman Niddar Singh).

Ancient Khalsa martial arts, if there ever was such a thing, were most likely very basic weapon based skillsets probably not so dissimilar to the movements seen in modern day gatka... and for unarmed combat, wrestling/kushti would have been the main style, with some variation in technique.

The most important skills were soldier like skills at arms eg, marksmanship, horsemanship, tent pegging (being good with a lance/spear), and some basic fencing with a talwar.

I find it wierd that people think that Sikhs had time to sit there and practice martial arts all day long like some sort of geeks or even professional ring fighters today.

In answer to the question of the original poster. MMA is good if you want to compete in MMA, not so good for the street. MMA consists of three skill sets Stand up striking, vertical grappling (wrestling) and ground fighting (brazilian jujitsu). As you can see two thirds of mma is grappling, eg ground fighting and wrestling. Frankly, in a street fight, wrestling and groundfighting is the worst tactic to employ because of the threat of weapons, multiple opponents and also tying up with someone who may be bigger and stronger than you (there are weight cateogories in mma, but not in street fighting!). Added to this is the fact that most Singhs have long beards and hair and dastaars which fall off pretty easily and are a death trap in close quarters fighting where they can be easily grabbed and manipulated.

There is no doubt that training in mma will give you more confidence, fitness, toughness and some good techniques for street fighting, however, if your sole purpose is self defence on the street, than you are better off learning krav maga, combatives - look up lee morrison, urban combatives, FAST defence, or maybe some kind of striking martial art, so that you can knock people out quickly before they start grabbing your dastaar and kesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so called ancient martial arts of the khalsa (probably you are referring to the fake martial arts of shastar vidya which is really just phillipino martial arts passed off as something exotic, ancient and unheard of by the conman Niddar Singh).

Ancient Khalsa martial arts, if there ever was such a thing, were most likely very basic weapon based skillsets probably not so dissimilar to the movements seen in modern day gatka... and for unarmed combat, wrestling/kushti would have been the main style, with some variation in technique.

The most important skills were soldier like skills at arms eg, marksmanship, horsemanship, tent pegging (being good with a lance/spear), and some basic fencing with a talwar.

I find it wierd that people think that Sikhs had time to sit there and practice martial arts all day long like some sort of geeks or even professional ring fighters today.

In answer to the question of the original poster. MMA is good if you want to compete in MMA, not so good for the street. MMA consists of three skill sets Stand up striking, vertical grappling (wrestling) and ground fighting (brazilian jujitsu). As you can see two thirds of mma is grappling, eg ground fighting and wrestling. Frankly, in a street fight, wrestling and groundfighting is the worst tactic to employ because of the threat of weapons, multiple opponents and also tying up with someone who may be bigger and stronger than you (there are weight cateogories in mma, but not in street fighting!). Added to this is the fact that most Singhs have long beards and hair and dastaars which fall off pretty easily and are a death trap in close quarters fighting where they can be easily grabbed and manipulated.

There is no doubt that training in mma will give you more confidence, fitness, toughness and some good techniques for street fighting, however, if your sole purpose is self defence on the street, than you are better off learning krav maga, combatives - look up lee morrison, urban combatives, FAST defence, or maybe some kind of striking martial art, so that you can knock people out quickly before they start grabbing your dastaar and kesh.

I am the original poster, i posted it at work and forgot my password LOL, anyway u are right i already weight train so my fitness level is very high...i need something that can be used in the streets...i was gona take up MMA but i keep having doubts as i want somehting that can be applied IN the streets....Krav Maga was something im definately interested in...i think i will learn krav maga first and aim to achieve black belt in that....NO PAIN NO GAIN!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How did I know someone would come and post ripping the hell out of Niddar? *sigh* :dry2:

I've found that too many people jump into MMA because its the one which gets the most attention in media. You should remember that most MMA fighters have done other martial arts, and are very experienced. If you have no other fighting experience I wouldn't do MMA if I were you, not yet at least. Why go into MIXED MARTIAL ARTS when you have no knowledge of any individual ones?

I'm a black belt in taekwondo and also do Muay Thai- I'd recommend both very highly. Muay Thai is probably more practical in terms of street fighting so you might be attracted to that one more, but both are great martial arts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so called ancient martial arts of the khalsa (probably you are referring to the fake martial arts of shastar vidya which is really just phillipino martial arts passed off as something exotic, ancient and unheard of by the conman Niddar Singh).

Ancient Khalsa martial arts, if there ever was such a thing, were most likely very basic weapon based skillsets probably not so dissimilar to the movements seen in modern day gatka... and for unarmed combat, wrestling/kushti would have been the main style, with some variation in technique.

very basic, I don't think so. the very basic technqiues came from the british army, from an art of the persians or turks (one of the 2) called kuthka.

The most important skills were soldier like skills at arms eg, marksmanship, horsemanship, tent pegging (being good with a lance/spear), and some basic fencing with a talwar.

fencing in war? are you kidding me?

I find it wierd that people think that Sikhs had time to sit there and practice martial arts all day long like some sort of geeks or even professional ring fighters today.

oh they did, that is why the Singhs live in DALS, and veteran skilled nihangs were called Akalis.

In answer to the question of the original poster. MMA is good if you want to compete in MMA, not so good for the street. MMA consists of three skill sets Stand up striking, vertical grappling (wrestling) and ground fighting (brazilian jujitsu). As you can see two thirds of mma is grappling, eg ground fighting and wrestling. Frankly, in a street fight, wrestling and groundfighting is the worst tactic to employ because of the threat of weapons, multiple opponents and also tying up with someone who may be bigger and stronger than you (there are weight cateogories in mma, but not in street fighting!). Added to this is the fact that most Singhs have long beards and hair and dastaars which fall off pretty easily and are a death trap in close quarters fighting where they can be easily grabbed and manipulated.

in the ancient arts even the distaar and beard are weapons. distaar with a sharp point to stab the enemy. And beard pulling can be manipulated to pull yourself into the enemy, ie use their energy against them. The ancient arts include dumalla as protection. To wear the right thickness of dumalla. What does MMA or gatka or even phillopino arts have to do with dumalla and beard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very basic, I don't think so. the very basic technqiues came from the british army, from an art of the persians or turks (one of the 2) called kuthka.

fencing in war? are you kidding me?

oh they did, that is why the Singhs live in DALS, and veteran skilled nihangs were called Akalis.

in the ancient arts even the distaar and beard are weapons. distaar with a sharp point to stab the enemy. And beard pulling can be manipulated to pull yourself into the enemy, ie use their energy against them. The ancient arts include dumalla as protection. To wear the right thickness of dumalla. What does MMA or gatka or even phillopino arts have to do with dumalla and beard?

Keep following your fantasy about Nihang/Akalis being some kind of super hero fighters. They were a disorganised wild hoard. Brave and full of guts and desire to die fighting. An effective fighting force? Maybe against other wild hoards such as Afghans. Maybe some of them were good one to one and could handle themselves in a duel. Against a disciplined force like the British army? They got smashed, both at a distance a disciplined force emptied volley after volley of musket fire into them and also in hand to hand combat where the 'very basic' skills of the British soldiers' bayonet thrusts, team tactics and superior organisation smashed straight through them.

If you dont believe me, read the history books. Wake up from your fantasy and dream.

Niddar Singh's martial arts are philipino in origin and with silly Indian names added on to make them sound authentic.

Regarding fencing, fencing was the primary martial art used by the British and European armies during the 18th and 19th centuries when it came to sword play. Fencing also influenced the development of boxing, stick, bayonet and knife fighting. It was turned into a competition sport with rules because like many proponents of 'hardcore dangerous battle field arts' such as so-called 'Shastar vidya', these martial arts were too dangerous to train competitively and hence, pretty much pointless, as there is very little scope to practice the techinques against a resisting opponent. Hence, modern sport fencing was born.

Also the emphasis on fast evasive footwork and the use of the point/thrust as the main weapon made it one of the most efficient martial arts for learning how to fight with a sword, compared to the swinging cutting attacks common in Indian and other Asian martial arts, the use of the thrust and point is more efficient as a movment and more likely to result in immediate incapacitation or dead.

It is not a melee (thick of combat as on the battle field) martial art. For the melee, very simple and basic movements are all that are required, backed up with solid team strategy, organisation and lots of aggression.

However, for duelling, fencing was second to none. Many of your Nihang idols were cut down in battle by British soldiers in hand to hand combat who had learnt nothing more than the extremely funny joke that is fencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh hey, well in sikh panth the Singhs are seen as superheroes, I think most sangat on this forum shall agree.

I don't think the 2 anglo sikh wars paint the whole picture. Please point me to some history books.

The point and thrust technique leaves a lot of body open for attack, including the arms, that is where the ancient techniques take advantage. And also the swinging cutting techniques also follow patterns that can be seen in an opponent. I'm afraid neither the forward thrust nor the swinging techniques are compatible with the ancient arts.

The western arts are more to do with power, and less to do with technique, whilst the ancient arts are more technique followed by power. If shastar vidiya was ineffective then why would the british require to ban these arts, and replace them with fencing style arts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh hey, well in sikh panth the Singhs are seen as superheroes, I think most sangat on this forum shall agree.

I don't think the 2 anglo sikh wars paint the whole picture. Please point me to some history books.

The point and thrust technique leaves a lot of body open for attack, including the arms, that is where the ancient techniques take advantage. And also the swinging cutting techniques also follow patterns that can be seen in an opponent. I'm afraid neither the forward thrust nor the swinging techniques are compatible with the ancient arts.

The western arts are more to do with power, and less to do with technique, whilst the ancient arts are more technique followed by power. If shastar vidiya was ineffective then why would the british require to ban these arts, and replace them with fencing style arts?

Regarding superheroes, sure we should look up to them and recognise their achievements but I personally dont like to go as far as idolising them and saying that they are something that they were not. I'm sure that they themselves, if they are watching from up above wouldnt want to be idolised either.

The debate regarding western v eastern martial arts is a long raging debate. Empirically, exponents of both have been successful in warfare.

The term Shastar vidya simply means learning how to use weapons. Whether there was a martial art called by this name that actually existed is extremely doubtful. There is no reference or evidence of its existence. Therefore the idea that it was banned by the British and replaced by fencing just appears to be another manipulative myth created by Niddar Singh. Unless you can provide evidence or reference for its existence, then it would be safe to assume that you only hold your belief in this because of what Niddar Singh has said from his mouth.

On the flipside, I can give you lots of evidence of the existence of European fencing in the 19th Century, along with military manuals dating from the Middle Ages which show the techniques of European hand to hand combat, which were successfully used in duelling and on the battlefield. The Europeans did after all take over 80% of the known world, so they probably knew what they were talking about when it came to fighting. Here are a couple of manuals for you to have a look at:

http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/ColdSteel.pdf

http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/OldSwordPlay.pdf

Niddar Singh has deliberately tried to make a distinction between Shastar vidya and gatka. However, the rest of the world, including Nihang Dals, use the words interchangably and do not see the two as two separate things. There is no record of it whatsoever, and it has not been preserved anywhere else. Curiously though, Niddar's martial arts look rather suspiciously like the Escrima and Kali techinques that he used to learn in Wolverhampton before he grew his hair and appeared on the scene as the only existing Gurdev of a secret and ancient martial art that noone has heard of..... hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding superheroes, sure we should look up to them and recognise their achievements but I personally dont like to go as far as idolising them and saying that they are something that they were not. I'm sure that they themselves, if they are watching from up above wouldnt want to be idolised either.

The debate regarding western v eastern martial arts is a long raging debate. Empirically, exponents of both have been successful in warfare.

The term Shastar vidya simply means learning how to use weapons. Whether there was a martial art called by this name that actually existed is extremely doubtful. There is no reference or evidence of its existence. Therefore the idea that it was banned by the British and replaced by fencing just appears to be another manipulative myth created by Niddar Singh. Unless you can provide evidence or reference for its existence, then it would be safe to assume that you only hold your belief in this because of what Niddar Singh has said from his mouth.

On the flipside, I can give you lots of evidence of the existence of European fencing in the 19th Century, along with military manuals dating from the Middle Ages which show the techniques of European hand to hand combat, which were successfully used in duelling and on the battlefield. The Europeans did after all take over 80% of the known world, so they probably knew what they were talking about when it came to fighting. Here are a couple of manuals for you to have a look at:

http://www.thehaca.c...f/ColdSteel.pdf

http://www.thehaca.c...ldSwordPlay.pdf

Niddar Singh has deliberately tried to make a distinction between Shastar vidya and gatka. However, the rest of the world, including Nihang Dals, use the words interchangably and do not see the two as two separate things. There is no record of it whatsoever, and it has not been preserved anywhere else. Curiously though, Niddar's martial arts look rather suspiciously like the Escrima and Kali techinques that he used to learn in Wolverhampton before he grew his hair and appeared on the scene as the only existing Gurdev of a secret and ancient martial art that noone has heard of..... hmmm

I find it very interesting that everyone on this forum seems to be a martial arts expert,

“”Niddar Singh has deliberately tried to make a distinction between Shastar vidya and gatka. However, the rest of the world, including Nihang Dals, use the words interchangably and do not see the two as two separate things. There is no record of it whatsoever, and it has not been preserved anywhere else. Curiously though, Niddar's martial arts look rather suspiciously like the Escrima and Kali techinques that he used to learn in Wolverhampton before he grew his hair and appeared on the scene as the only existing Gurdev of a secret and ancient martial art that noone has heard of..... hmmm””

I have been a student of Kali (stick fighting ) for 5 years and there is no relation to Kali and SV. The foot work is completely different, when studying KALI, we work on the emphasis of a triangle 3 point foot work (the placing of your feet), there is no evidence of this within SV, they seem to have a advanced level of foot work and emphasis are based on more than 3 points. Having read other martial arts forums, many martial arts experts respect Niddar Singh and his art. Identifying the art as not mixed with any other martial art but a unique art. Why is it only on Sikh forums I read that Niddar has mixed it with other arts, when many making the statement have no knowledge of any martial arts or have very limited knowledge.

Many are quick to make this statement but will not explain how they have come to this conclusion. So pedrorizzo, can you please explain how you concluded the above statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use