Don Magee wrote:
My point however is that they have a much more consistant level of skill because of the training methods they use.
We're talking about hypothetical people here in hypothetical situations, so it is somewhat difficult to evaluate.
It really wouldn't matter to me if a practicioner of martial art X wins 30 straight UFC-ish events, or if a person or persons are more "consistent" in the gym because they enjoy full contact and resistance there; I'd still practice aikido instead of martial art X because of its unique philosophy and proven effectiveness for defense in the real world.
Plus it fits me for a variety of other reasons. A short list of factors involved with settling down on a martial art might include
- is it good exercise
- is it effective in real life
- does it use leverage or brute strength
- how expensive is it
- do I live near the school
- is there an ample number of training days per week
- what is the general reputation of style/school/teacher
- does the time of classes fit in with my schedule
- can any of it be practiced at home
- can I also practice weapons
- can any of it be practiced with minimal equipment
- what is the potential of injury
- did I enjoy what I found when I watched or participated in a trial class
- can I do it as I get older
- do I find the culture it comes from interesting
- can I do it in street clothes
- is the philosophy compatible with how I think
and in my research I found aikido to satisfy these more than others for me. For MMA stuff, my research showed it to lead to too many injuries, be too expensive, too few possible training days per week, and I don't care for aggression and competition that I've found it to promote. Others might find it works for them.
I know you're not saying one martial art is better than another, but it sounds like you are replacing "better" with "consistent level of skill", and it sounds like someone trying to convince that no matter the food a fork is better than a spoon.