How do people judge a martial art effectiveness by how well or bad it works in MMA? Thats the most stupid **** Ive ever seen.

You surely can judge how effective a fighting style/martial art is IN MMA by seeing how well it performs in MMA. But you can't judge its overall effectiveness that way.


For example, Karate, has a bunch of lethal strikes (or "permanent damaging" strikes) that are extremely effective but can't be used in a sport context. In fact, depending on your dojo they won't even teach it to you... but it is Karate.


I could even say (and this is personal opinion... so subjective) that a martial art like Karate in more effective than BJJ in a street fight situation (where there is absoutely no rules). A simple direct powerfull strike to the throat (punch or even kick) means a high chance of death. Same with a kick to the back of the neck/head... but you can't use those in MMA. Or a "back" kick to the front of your knees... gonna end the fight really quick.

or boxing

True


If you organize an MMA fight and the fighters are a random Black Belt BJJ vs a random guy with a gun. The guy with a gun would lose, because in MMA he can't pull the trigger. It doesn't mean BJJ is more effective than a gun.

Thats what happens with a lot of the martial arts (that were literally created to kill or to quickly neutralize the enemy). When you put them in a sport context, you are not seeing the real martial art. You are seeing a "polite"/legal version of it. Adapted to the context.