# What is really the difference between TMA and MMA? False Dichotomy...



## drewtoby (Jul 30, 2014)

I can't help but notice all of the TMA Vs. MMA threads popping up that revert to the "my style rocks/yours sucks" mentality. Very few good points are ever made on them (although there is the occasional insight that makes the non-ego-maniacs think, which is why I have read through a few). 

_Well, I'll take a risk and hope that I can spark an insightful thread that does not revert to ego-maniacs and internet tough guys..._

What I see is most people don't have a good grasp on the difference between MMA and TMA. It is a blurred line at best, if not a non-existent line forced upon the martial art community as a whole through advertising and kept in place through style bashing/etc. There is support for both arguments (and much for in between), and a lot comes down to whether MMA is to be considered a style or a sport. Regardless of what you believe in regards to the differences, you cannot simply have MMA without TMA. What would there be to mix?

The arguments that then stem from this grey/false separation center around superiority. The aliveness and realism/effectivness of MMA is compared to other arts. I find the goal of proving superiority to be open to much interpretation. Superior in what sense? The two most common argues are: In fighting? In self defense? Fighting is loosely defined, and I don't want to argue about the rules/etc of sanctioned fighting tournaments. I will focus on the latter.

It all depends on how one is to train. And lets remember, there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Katas can be used to teach and aid in technique memorization, sparring, bag work, slow partner work, fighting under rules, etc. are all training methods with their own strengths and weaknesses. Here I find a lot of people arguing about how aliveness is the end all/be all. It is not. HERE is a article worth reading about said topic. In summary it asserts that one relies on pure technique in a self defense scenario, and that technique can be developed in a variety of ways, alive or not. After all, self defense situations are hardly prolonged fights to the death, but rather get out alive scenarios. There are some good points in this article.

The way I see it is the more time spent in each kind of training leads to better preparation, as all have their strengths and weaknesses. Still, no one can be perfectly prepared for the evils of true violence. Some days people are able to rise to the occasion, other days they are unable to move from fear/analysis paralysis. The best advice I have gotten was on another forum by an officer stating "people generally expect too much out of their training."

In summary, I find the whole MMA Vs. TMA debate to be pointless (especially when attempting to separate the two into neat little categories), just as style superiority arguments backed by aliveness. Knowledge can be obtained through any instructional method, when taught correctly. Sure, some arts can be learned and applied faster than others, but this does not make them superior.

This is my short take on this whole internet battle of MMA vs. TMA. I do not want to write a book on this topic. I am sure that I missed some items of importance and need to explain a few concepts more. Please chime in with your opinions!


----------



## skribs (Jul 30, 2014)

The way I see it, there are many aspects to martial arts.  Some arts only cover one or two aspects, some cover them all.  Most arts can have a narrow or wide focus, depending on the instructor, school, and student.  Things you can get out of martial arts are:
Fitness (cardio, strength, flexibility, core)
Competition (sports or just friendly sparring)
Expression (the art side, techniques, forms, demonstration, etc)
Self Defense (brutal strikes to sensitive areas, escape techniques)
Confidence (through expression, self defense, or competition)

Take an art like Kenpo or Krav Maga, and you're looking at mostly self defense.
Tai Chi, probably fitness.
Kickboxing can be competitive or you can do cardio kickboxing which will focus on fitness.
Taekwondo can focus on competition (olympic schools), expression ("belt factory" "dance studios" that focus on forms), or it can be very well rounded.
MMA generally focuses on competition, although the high-end competitors also focus on fitness.
I would argue that wrestling is purely competitive, while there is more of a self defense focus to other grappling arts like Judo or BJJ (although wrestling skills aren't bad to have in a fight).

The problem is, people generally look at what they want out of martial arts and rate other arts based on that.  MMA would be a better choice for someone who wants to compete.  While there are other competitive arts, MMA is the big ticket right now.  TMA is better if you're looking at other aspects of the art.

With that said, all 5 of the principles above work together.  No matter what your focus is, they all can help each other out.  For example, in order to be competitive, you need confidence, conditioning, and technique.  In order to defend yourself, it helps to have conditioning and confidence; and competition (even if it's just sparring) will get you full contact practice against a live opponent.

This is the biggest advantage of MMA, IMHO.  A purely competitive art will give you the most time against a live opponent.  On the other hand, a lot of the moves that would be super effective in self defense (groin shots, eye gouges, etc) are banned in MMA, so not only do the fighters not get practice with those strikes, but they have to condition themselves to NOT use those strikes in order to follow the rules.

As with everything, there are pros and cons.  A good teacher and a good student will trump the specific choice of art any day of the week.


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 30, 2014)

skribs said:


> The way I see it, there are many aspects to martial arts.  Some arts only cover one or two aspects, some cover them all.  Most arts can have a narrow or wide focus, depending on the instructor, school, and student.  Things you can get out of martial arts are:
> Fitness (cardio, strength, flexibility, core)
> Competition (sports or just friendly sparring)
> Expression (the art side, techniques, forms, demonstration, etc)
> ...



Good, valid points. I like the 5 principals you brought up, and agree with the teacher trumping style.

However, just how "alive" does someone have to be? Resisting techniques (as is done in partner work), or all out sparring? 

A good counterargument to aliveness comes with throwing and joint locks. An "alive" opponent will have momentum, meaning that throws will be easier (when done off momentum) than off a static opponent. Also, a tense partner will be easier to lock than a relaxed partner. As for going into the lock or throw, partners can offer various resistance levels and the throw/lock can be done at different speeds until it is second nature. I have mainly been taught Hapkido this way, and see how it can easily carry over into an "alive" situation. I'm amazed how much more work we have to do when someone is relaxed and somewhat static, whether fast or slow. It really drills technique, and small things dictate whether you fail or succeed.

As for the "dirty moves," it varies on fighter to fighter. Some will be well versed in them too, while others may simply forget them altogether. It depends on the practitioner. I don't want to regress into "we can do dirty moves too" and "you trained to do groin shots and eye gouges anyone can do."


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> I can't help but notice all of the TMA Vs. MMA threads popping up that revert to the "my style rocks/yours sucks" mentality. Very few good points are ever made on them (although there is the occasional insight that makes the non-ego-maniacs think, which is why I have read through a few).
> 
> _Well, I'll take a risk and hope that I can spark an insightful thread that does not revert to ego-maniacs and internet tough guys..._
> 
> What I see is most people don't have a good grasp on the difference between MMA and TMA. It is a blurred line at best, if not a non-existent line forced upon the martial art community as a whole through advertising and kept in place through style bashing/etc. There is support for both arguments (and much for in between), and a lot comes down to whether MMA is to be considered a style or a sport. Regardless of what you believe in regards to the differences, you cannot simply have MMA without TMA. What would there be to mix?


This is a well tramped track. I disagree that good points are few in the other threads. I think there has been a lot of  good debate. There has also been a lot of chest thumping.

It is obvious as to what constitutes MMA but not so obvious as to what is TMA. Before you can really discuss the differences between the two, perhaps you need to define 'TMA'.
:s67:


----------



## skribs (Jul 30, 2014)

> A good counterargument to aliveness comes with throwing and joint locks.  An "alive" opponent will have momentum, meaning that throws will be  easier (when done off momentum) than off a static opponent. Also, a  tense partner will be easier to lock than a relaxed partner. As for  going into the lock or throw, partners can offer various resistance  levels and the throw/lock can be done at different speeds until it is  second nature. I have mainly been taught Hapkido this way, and see how  it can easily carry over into an "alive" situation. I'm amazed how much  more work we have to do when someone is relaxed and somewhat static,  whether fast or slow. It really drills technique, and small things  dictate whether you fail or succeed.



This is true.  There's a difference between:
An opponent who will go down just because he's supposed to
An opponent who will not fight you, but will make you at least force him down
An opponent who will fight you
A real-life attacker

The problem in class, or against people you know, you often know what's coming, so it's easier to prepare for it.  If your opponent knows what's coming, it can become much easier or much harder to do a technique on him than if it is a complete stranger.


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 30, 2014)

skribs said:


> This is true.  There's a difference between:
> An opponent who will go down just because he's supposed to
> An opponent who will not fight you, but will make you at least force him down
> An opponent who will fight you
> ...



True, a lot just depends, just as it does with "aliveness" and any other method. Is the technique being done right, or is it sloppy day after day? Also, does the artist know what makes the technique work? Is it to be rigid or flow?



K-man said:


> This is a well tramped track. I disagree that good  points are few in the other threads. I think there has been a lot of   good debate. There has also been a lot of chest thumping.
> 
> It is obvious as to what constitutes MMA but not so obvious as to what  is TMA. Before you can really discuss the differences between the two,  perhaps you need to define 'TMA'.
> :s67:



I have not limited myself to this forum, but have to agree there is much more good debate here than on many others. Still, other forums also offer good insight. Others don't. At least I have found a few, including this one.

I have seen MMA vs TMA done to death on here. I want to erode the barrier and find the overlap and similarities.

As for defining TMA, where do you think is a good place to start? Are hybrid arts to be included? What about sport arts and competitions? 

Once we leave the focus on self defense, we are including basically everything from swords to archery. Heck, throwing playing cards might be included by a few like Tony Lee, even if not lethal.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2014)

Mma generally do tma anyway. So it is complicated.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SY4c1C4tHA4

http://www.integratedmma.com/classes/


There is this idea that they get half an idea from a style and incorporate it. And that is not the case. They train and grade in that style. And compete in their competitions.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2014)

Before we go too much further, Can you just answer a few simple questions?  

Is Judo a TMA?  What about Russian Sambo?  Muay Thai?  Kyokushin Karate?    As k-man asked, how are you defining "TMA"?


----------



## K-man (Jul 30, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> I have seen MMA vs TMA done to death on here. I want to erode the barrier and find the overlap and similarities.
> 
> As for defining TMA, where do you think is a good place to start? Are hybrid arts to be included? What about sport arts and competitions?
> 
> Once we leave the focus on self defense, we are including basically everything from swords to archery. Heck, throwing playing cards might be included by a few like Tony Lee, even if not lethal.


I think that with the diversity of martial arts it is almost impossible to define '_traditional_'. I would find it impossible even if the OP was as limited as "what is really the difference between Karate and MMA". There is so much diversity within karate alone, I don't see how you can take at least 500 styles of martial art and compare them to MMA.

Maybe if you took sport based martial arts you might be able to compare or at least contrast them, but to take a martial art such as Ninjutsu and try to compare it to MMA is like comparing elephants and whales. They have some things in common but live in different worlds. 

Could you break MMA into segments perhaps? There could be fitness, overall effectiveness in the ring, effectiveness on the ground and application to Self Defence. You can probably then at least find something in common albeit it small. But seeing that the majority of martial arts would be nothing to do with sport and almost all MMA is related to sport, and that the individual martial arts often have little in common, I think you're like the boy with the wheelbarrow. The job is ahead of you.
:asian:


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 30, 2014)

Steve said:


> Before we go too much further, Can you just answer a few simple questions?
> 
> Is Judo a TMA?  What about Russian Sambo?  Muay Thai?  Kyokushin Karate?    As k-man asked, how are you defining "TMA"?



I don't know. How should we? I was thinking of diving into that in my initial post, but that is a thread in and of itself. Boxing and wrestling have been around much longer, so are they traditional? Should MMA be considered traditional as well due to the similarities in other historical fighting competitions? 

Also, where does the line for martial arts begin? Should Parkour be included? Hows about a "rough and tumble?"

Steve, these are not easy questions and the whole basis for debate lies in the definitions. Thank you and K-man for bringing this up  

If we keep going, should we separate arts by their main theories? This would then make MMA extremely hard to define, as the arts that make MMA all have different theories.

Should we then not work based on commonly shared aspects, but on definition and ambiguity?

If we must, we can call any martial art a TMA. Or for added complexity have TMA be any on the non-mma staple arts like BJJ, MT, etc.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2014)

I think I'd really like to hear your opinions.  It would really help me if you would give me a point of reference to start from.  

In order to make any progress, please share how YOU would define TMA.  By what criteria do you distinguish a TMA from other arts?  Must a style be Japanese?

Please understand that this is, as others have pointed out, a well travelled subject.  I'm willing to walk it with you, but I need to know where you're starting from.


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 30, 2014)

Steve said:


> I think I'd really like to hear your opinions.  It would really help me if you would give me a point of reference to start from.
> 
> In order to make any progress, please share how YOU would define TMA.  By what criteria do you distinguish a TMA from other arts?  Must a style be Japanese?
> 
> Please understand that this is, as others have pointed out, a well travelled subject.  I'm willing to walk it with you, but I need to know where you're starting from.



I think we have arrived at the destination already, to be honest  I did not know that breaking down the barriers and categories would be so painless.

_But, to change course slightly, lets define TMA as arts that focus mainly on aspects outside of the MMA rules (joint locks, gouges, etc.) _


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2014)

So, you're not willing to share how you would define a TMA?


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 30, 2014)

MMA= Boxing, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Judo/Ju Jutsu, + others
Hmmm.... All of those arts seem to have been around for Centuries? Millenia??
Seems MMA is just TMA's mixed. How is it a new art? New methodology of being open and away from "style," oh wait! I could've sworn I heard or read this before somewhere!


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> I think we have arrived at the destination already, to be honest  I did not know that breaking down the barriers and categories would be so painless.
> 
> _But, to change course slightly, lets define TMA as arts that focus mainly on aspects outside of the MMA rules (joint locks, gouges, etc.) _



Looks like you added a little.  Thanks!

Personally, I think the biggest real distinction in arts isn't traditional vs contemporary.  In my opinion, the most meaningful distinction is sport vs non sport.  The styles with a sport element have a fundamentally different philosophy toward training than those which don't.  And both measure proficiency in wildly different ways.


----------



## skribs (Jul 31, 2014)

Well, most arts are derivatives of another.  From what I understand about my art (Taekwondo), it evolved from Tang Soo Do, which was the Korean application of Karate, which was the Japanese application of Kung Fu, which draws inspiration from animals that have had their own "arts" far longer than we've had martial art schools.  Just watch the difference between how dogs play with each other and how cats play with each other, they have different styles (in fact, having watched 2 cats fight, I'd say the BJJ guard position best fits the term "cat stance").

Wrestling and boxing you typically think of as sports, but boxing is about 5K years old as a sport, and wrestling even longer, according to cave paintings.  So are those TMA?

I think "TMA vs. MMA" generally gets translated as "Arts with funny stances" vs. "Arts without funny stances."  At least in laymans terms, that's how I think of it.  (Yes, my art has funny stances).


----------



## qianfeng (Jul 31, 2014)

Kung fu is not developed from watching animals or everyone will be a kung fu master from watching their pet dog....


----------



## qianfeng (Jul 31, 2014)

Joint locks are allowed in mma except for small joint manipulation and standing locks in most styles are kinda hard to use (from my very very limited experience) and some reading
Most "tma" dont focus on eye gouges and joint locks except for maybe eagle claw and aikido


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 31, 2014)

> I don't know. How should we? I was thinking of diving into that in my initial post, but that is a thread in and of itself. Boxing and wrestling have been around much longer, so are they traditional? Should MMA be considered traditional as well due to the similarities in other historical fighting competitions?



Growing up I did not view Boxing as a martial art, just something very feudal. To me traditional is just what it is, a set of ideals passed on by the progenitor of that particular art, whether it be kung-fu, karate or whatever. Then the MMA route. I guess you could make an argument that someone learning MMA would not be traditional, but then does MMA have any tradition. You could argue yes to that as well.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 31, 2014)

Steve said:


> Looks like you added a little.  Thanks!
> 
> Personally, I think the biggest real distinction in arts isn't traditional vs contemporary.  In my opinion, the most meaningful distinction is sport vs non sport.  The styles with a sport element have a fundamentally different philosophy toward training than those which don't.  And both measure proficiency in wildly different ways.



Mma is defined by competition though.

Rather than the competition defined by the art.


----------



## Buka (Jul 31, 2014)

How about if we go with - wear a Gi, we'll call it TMA. Don't wear a gi we'll call it a MMA. 

(I really like the "funny stances line".)


----------



## drop bear (Jul 31, 2014)

Buka said:


> How about if we go with - wear a Gi, we'll call it TMA. Don't wear a gi we'll call it a MMA.
> 
> (I really like the "funny stances line".)



Do walkouts count?


----------



## K-man (Jul 31, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> Joint locks are allowed in mma except for small joint manipulation and standing locks in most styles are kinda hard to use (from my very very limited experience) and some reading
> *Most "tma" dont focus on eye gouges and joint locks* except for maybe eagle claw and aikido


You obviously have never seen Okinawan Goju Ryu.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Jul 31, 2014)

Buka said:


> How about if we go with - wear a Gi, we'll call it TMA. Don't wear a gi we'll call it a MMA.
> 
> (I really like the "funny stances line".)


Don't wear a gi, I call mine Krav Maga or Systema.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 31, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> Joint locks are allowed in mma except for small joint manipulation and standing locks in most styles are kinda hard to use (from my very very limited experience) and some reading
> Most "tma" dont focus on eye gouges and joint locks except for maybe eagle claw and aikido



Pick a CMA, there are joint locks in it to varying degrees. Pick a CMA there is an attack aimed at the eyes in it...... and on both counts.....even in Taijiquan.

But that is neither here nor there, IMO, in another it a long line of beat the dead horse discussions about TMA vs MMA


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 31, 2014)

Somewhere out in the vast wastelands of MT there is a post I made on this I was looking for to link, but I cannot find it.

Suffice to say the difference is One trains hard to not fight unless necessary and when they do fight they hope to never see that opponent again. The other trains hard to fight and expects to see that opponent again.

But there is a caveat

This only applies to TMA schools that actually train, not the ones you see doing the forms dance and beleivi9ng they are invincible.
And the MMA school has to be a real MMA school, not one that calls itself MMA because they think it makes them awesome


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 31, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Somewhere out in the vast wastelands of MT there is a post I made on this I was looking for to link, but I cannot find it.
> 
> Suffice to say the difference is One trains hard to not fight unless necessary and when they do fight they hope to never see that opponent again. The other trains hard to fight and expects to see that opponent again.
> 
> ...



Let us define "actually training" then. That is what a lot boils down to.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 31, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> Let us define "actually training" then. That is what a lot boils down to.



Thought I already did.... just did not get into detail...and that would apply to both TMA and MMA schools by the way

beyond that I don't much care and I leave this argument to others that have not already been through it copious times, over the years, on MT.


----------



## donnaTKD (Jul 31, 2014)

my muay thai training involves cardio sessions, weights sessions, bag sessions, full contact sparring sessions, pads sessions and whole heap of drills, drills and more drills until quite frankly everyone has had enough of doing drills and then we do some more - drills  

oh and i forgot we keep doing all this until we can't physically do anymore


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 31, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> Let us define "actually training" then. That is what a lot boils down to.



Already defined, it is down to the student how much training they do, it is not the art!


----------



## donnaTKD (Jul 31, 2014)

i also think that it depends on the art you study as to how hard you feel you need to work at it --- muay thai fighting needs to be rehearsed every single day for hours and hours on end just to drill everything in and get the timings and speed right for it.

some arts you train at your leisure - muay thai you can't cos you'll just get found out bigtime...........


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 31, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> i also think that it depends on the art you study as to how hard you feel you need to work at it --- muay thai fighting needs to be rehearsed every single day for hours and hours on end just to drill everything in and get the timings and speed right for it.
> 
> some arts you train at your leisure - muay thai you can't cos you'll just get found out bigtime...........



On one hand yes, but that does not have to be confined to the art, but that does also not mean the fight, you would be inhibiting yourself to the norm. Speed is natural for example, you cannot train that, you can only make the strikes count. Speed though, can be light weight, the slower strike can have much impact.


----------



## Steve (Jul 31, 2014)

While "how" you train makes a difference in how quickly you can learn something, what you're learning and how you're testing proficiency are, IMO, the two most important ingredients in developing a skill.

How you train, ie the mechanics of your training, may make your learning more or less efficient.  But the efficacy of your techniques and your methods for testing proficiency will make far more difference.  You can learn solid technique inefficiently, and still develop technique.  But if you're learning the wrong thing to begin with, you'll never make any headway.


----------



## Transk53 (Jul 31, 2014)

Steve said:


> While "how" you train makes a difference in how quickly you can learn something, what you're learning and how you're testing proficiency are, IMO, the two most important ingredients in developing a skill.
> 
> How you train, ie the mechanics of your training, may make your learning more or less efficient.  But the efficacy of your techniques and your methods for testing proficiency will make far more difference.  You can learn solid technique inefficiently, and still develop technique.  But if you're learning the wrong thing to begin with, you'll never make any headway.



I agree Steve, but I am leaning towards street. Technique is a marker of the art, you have it yes, but sometimes, intrinsic becomes the norm!


----------



## drewtoby (Jul 31, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Thought I already did.... just did not get into detail...and that would apply to both TMA and MMA schools by the way
> 
> beyond that I don't much care and I leave this argument to others that have not already been through it copious times, over the years, on MT.



Good point. This thread seems to be closed, as this discussion is truly a circular one.


----------



## Buka (Jul 31, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> On one hand yes, but that does not have to be confined to the art, but that does also not mean the fight, you would be inhibiting yourself to the norm. Speed is natural for example, you cannot train that, you can only make the strikes count. Speed though, can be light weight, the slower strike can have much impact.



Actually, you can train speed. Taught a class on speed last night, a corker of a workout, too. I'm kinda stiff today from it, made my afternoon workout slow and sore today. Fun, though. Everyone should train speed, in stand up fighting, anyway.

Donna - I don't know about that "some arts you train at your leisure" hell, leisure ain't training, not one little bit. But you description of your Muay Thai was spot on. That's the way to train.


----------



## Transk53 (Aug 1, 2014)

Buka said:


> Actually, you can train speed. Taught a class on speed last night, a corker of a workout, too. I'm kinda stiff today from it, made my afternoon workout slow and sore today. Fun, though. Everyone should train speed, in stand up fighting, anyway.
> 
> Donna - I don't know about that "some arts you train at your leisure" hell, leisure ain't training, not one little bit. But you description of your Muay Thai was spot on. That's the way to train.



Okay, but you can only go to the limit of what is natural, you cannot go beyond that. That was what I meant Buka


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 1, 2014)

your training is there to push your limits - the only limiting factor in training is YOU and how hard you want to push yourself.

when i train - i train full on for an hour or more at any one time, there's n oroom for being lazy cos lazy = slow and that'll get you killed.  you train speed through your punches, you build the muscles in your arms and shoulders so they can throw that punch faster with a quicker recoil on it so that any retaliation causes minimum damage.

and speed in any MA is built up over time - i can remember not being able to go the distance and getting properly trashed now i got the speed to protect myself a lot better and my reactions ro events are a lot more focused and dialed in --- i might not know what's coming next but cos of my reactions being better i can react better to the threat.


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 1, 2014)

If I my join in, the was someone wrote about two old mmartis and tmartist.
Basically it said about mma that has certain peak like a parabole upside down, while tma is its opposite, you can still grow even in old age.
Some martial artist that rely too much on physical attributes will only go downward once you reach your peak age, while martial artist that rely on technique's understanding can still perform well even in the old age, like gene lebell and helio gracie (rip) that can still roll with the young.
That is why tma call their trainer master and boxing called their trainer coach.
To me imho tma is when a grand master of the art can still beat the world gold medalist of the art.
Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man (Aug 1, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> If I my join in, the was someone wrote about two old mmartis and tmartist.
> Basically it said about mma that has certain peak like a parabole upside down, while tma is its opposite, you can still grow even in old age.
> Some martial artist that rely too much on physical attributes will only go downward once you reach your peak age, while martial artist that rely on technique's understanding can still perform well even in the old age, like gene lebell and helio gracie (rip) that can still roll with the young.
> That is why tma call their trainer master and boxing called their trainer coach.
> *To me imho tma is when a grand master of the art can still beat the world gold medalist of the art.*


I agree with the sentiment but in most TMAs there is no gold medalist because there is no competition. However, that said, I agree that the older you get, the better you get. You understand that in most situations you can't use physical against physical any more and start to use your head. 
:asian:


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 1, 2014)

K-man said:


> I agree with the sentiment but in most TMAs there is no gold medalist because there is no competition. However, that said, I agree that the older you get, the better you get. You understand that in most situations you can't use physical against physical any more and start to use your head.
> :asian:




I put the gold medalist just as an example of tma over sports ma of the same name...
Or to be more precise, the odds of the younger generation to defeat the older generation is greatly diminished in tma as opposed to mma.
Heck even my current gm was defeated in an instant when tried to test his skill against his late master who back then needed help just to stand up...


----------



## Transk53 (Aug 1, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> your training is there to push your limits - the only limiting factor in training is YOU and how hard you want to push yourself.
> 
> when i train - i train full on for an hour or more at any one time, there's n oroom for being lazy cos lazy = slow and that'll get you killed.  you train speed through your punches, you build the muscles in your arms and shoulders so they can throw that punch faster with a quicker recoil on it so that any retaliation causes minimum damage.
> 
> and speed in any MA is built up over time - i can remember not being able to go the distance and getting properly trashed now i got the speed to protect myself a lot better and my reactions ro events are a lot more focused and dialed in --- i might not know what's coming next but cos of my reactions being better i can react better to the threat.



Yeah I don't disagree with at all. You train your mind as well to get it dialled in. Thing is though, the natural speed is what you train. So flurries would be in there in training. A slower puncher/kicker will try to optomise as well, I have had to emulate that as well, because my leg speed while quick, is economic, because I simply cannot go further due to physical limitations. Because of that I gone up top and trained to my advantage.


----------



## drewtoby (Aug 1, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> I put the gold medalist just as an example of tma over sports ma of the same name...
> Or to be more precise, the odds of the younger generation to defeat the older generation is greatly diminished in tma as opposed to mma.
> Heck even my current gm was defeated in an instant when tried to test his skill against his late master who back then needed help just to stand up...



Joint manipulation, if I may ask?

I believe any ma can be trained hard or leisurely. What you put in is what you get out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 1, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> Some martial artist that rely too much on physical attributes will only go downward once you reach your peak age, while martial artist that rely on technique's understanding can still perform well even in the old age, like gene lebell and helio gracie (rip) that can still roll with the young.


I have to disagree with you on this.

If you depend on your "technique", there is always a limitation. If you depend on your "ability" (Gong, physical attributes), you will always get better and better. For example, if you work on the heavy bag, your punching power can only increase and will never decrease through your old age.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 1, 2014)

I know i practice cma but eye gouges and jointlocks arent the main part of most styles. All cma styles should have ti da shuai na


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 1, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> Joint manipulation, if I may ask?
> 
> I believe any ma can be trained hard or leisurely. What you put in is what you get out.




No, he was thrown and on his back.
And yes what you put is what you get.
But training hard doesn't equal to how much sweat you get out, but imho to how deep you understand the concept of the technique, and that can be increased by doing as many training as you could get under supervision of the master, so you can spot what you do wrong and correct it right away.


----------



## drewtoby (Aug 1, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> No, he was thrown and on his back.
> And yes what you put is what you get.
> But training hard doesn't equal to how much sweat you get out, but imho to how deep you understand the concept of the technique, and that can be increased by doing as many training as you could get under supervision of the master, so you can spot what you do wrong and correct it right away.



The idea of "training hard" is open for much interpretation. Thanks for pointing that out, as I was thinking of training under supervision and doing one's "homework"


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 1, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have to disagree with you on this.
> 
> If you depend on your "technique", there is always a limitation. If you depend on your "ability" (Gong, physical attributes), you will always get better and better. For example, if you work on the heavy bag, your punching power can only increase and will never decrease through your old age.




I cannot argue with that, I guess I'm mistaken in doing sweeping generalisation, thank you for pointing that out.
But there are some aspect that it decreased through old age isn't it and shifted from brute to more finesse in executing a technique? Because it is cost less stamina?
And for example a punch, a light one can still put mark on the body if we do it right on the right spot with some torque put in there, add the body weight in there also.
 so knowing how to finesse something is it a technique also? A concept?


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 1, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> The idea of "training hard" is open for much interpretation. Thanks for pointing that out, as I was thinking of training under supervision and doing one's "homework"




Interesting of how you mention homework. In the system I currently in, it has unique trait that the more divergen the training partners you do 'roll' with, can also increase your understanding of the technique, because everybody is a unique entity they think and act differently on the stimulation we give.
For example executing A technique in A way may work in one person but doing the exact A way to different person may not work, you need to tweak it a bit so it will also work to different person, there you'll understand what is the core concept of the technique and what is thesupplemental side of it that is not set in stone and need to change depends on the person we execute it at.
That is our homework, to try it to as many people as we can get our hand on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 2, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> I cannot argue with that, I guess I'm mistaken in doing sweeping generalisation, thank you for pointing that out.
> But there are some aspect that it decreased through old age isn't it and shifted from brute to more finesse in executing a technique? Because it is cost less stamina?
> And for example a punch, a light one can still put mark on the body if we do it right on the right spot with some torque put in there, add the body weight in there also.
> so knowing how to finesse something is it a technique also? A concept?


IMO, all MA have the following 3 elements:

1. technique (timing, opportunity, angle, balance),
2. ability (strength, structure, alignment, unification),
3. experience (accumulated from sparring/wrestling).

When we get older, our speed, endurance, flexibility, balance that "technique" heavily depends on may be decreased. But our "ability" and "experience" will remain.

May be this is the major difference between TMA and MMA. Most TMA guys will think about how to bring their MA training through old age the day when they started their young age training. I don't know most MMA guys will think that far ahead (I could be wrong on this since "generalization" is not a good idea).


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 2, 2014)

Ok noted, imho the way in utilising those first two depends on the third and how and in what perspective we see the first two is what each ma might differs.
Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 2, 2014)

Reedone816 said:


> Ok noted, imho the way in utilising those first two depends on the third and how and in what perspective we see the first two is what each ma might differs.
> Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk



I agree that when you get older, you will modify your technique so you don't have to depend on your speed, strength, ... that much. For example, if you can bait your opponent to move in toward you, it can save you from moving in toward your opponent.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all MA have the following 3 elements:
> 
> 1. technique (timing, opportunity, angle, balance),
> 2. ability (strength, structure, alignment, unification),
> ...



Experience is the only thing guaranteed not to decrease with age.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 2, 2014)

IMO the experience beats youth thing is generally untrue. It depends on the rules, of course, but I'll put my money on the young athlete and expect to come out ahead.

I think GM'S are often like big brothers. They were able to beat us for so long that we can't wrap our minds around them being old and less able. I'm not trying to disrespect any GM's, but when people get older they don't get physically better....except maybe Barry Bonds.


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> IMO the experience beats youth thing is generally untrue. It depends on the rules, of course, but I'll put my money on the young athlete and expect to come out ahead.
> 
> I think GM'S are often like big brothers. They were able to beat us for so long that we can't wrap our minds around them being old and less able. I'm not trying to disrespect any GM's, but when people get older they don't get physically better....except maybe Barry Bonds.


You see, I would argue that you are looking at this discussion from a sport perspective. There is no way in the world I could compete in tournaments again. The last one I entered was 6 years ago when I was 30 to 40 years older than the other competitors. But in my Karate, Krav or Aikido classes I can still more than hold my own against all ages, and nobody gives me an inch. If I need to use my skills in a self defence scenario I have no doubt as to my ability to defend myself, and to me that is what my training is about. No rules!
:asian:


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 2, 2014)

K-man said:


> You see, I would argue that you are looking at this discussion from a sport perspective. There is no way in the world I could compete in tournaments again. The last one I entered was 6 years ago when I was 30 to 40 years older than the other competitors. But in my Karate, Krav or Aikido classes I can still more than hold my own against all ages, and nobody gives me an inch. If I need to use my skills in a self defence scenario I have no doubt as to my ability to defend myself, and to me that is what my training is about. No rules!
> :asian:


Sport or not, I think the bigger issue is that it's a fantasy. No one is going to truly fight no rules and try to hurt or kill the other guy, especially not an instructor they have a good relationship with.

Now, I'm not saying that people can't be effective when they get old/older, only that I think the experience vs. youth thing is way overblown.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all MA have the following 3 elements:  1. technique (timing, opportunity, angle, balance), 2. ability (strength, structure, alignment, unification), 3. experience (accumulated from sparring/wrestling).  When we get older, our speed, endurance, flexibility, balance that "technique" heavily depends on may be decreased. But our "ability" and "experience" will remain.  May be this is the major difference between TMA and MMA. Most TMA guys will think about how to bring their MA training through old age the day when they started their young age training. I don't know most MMA guys will think that far ahead (I could be wrong on this since "generalization" is not a good idea).


  i know that a lot of of the people in the gym's that i go to aren't looking beyond fighting so i guess that once they decide to hang up their gloves that'll be it --- some will prolly continue the training but at a more relaxed pace just to keep in shape others will just carry on as they always have done cos they don't know any different.  there are other factor like what's going on at home n stuff.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 2, 2014)

as you get older you slow down - your mind doesn't work as well as it used to etc...... you might still be able to pull off all the moves that you did as a kid but experience will have engrained those moves to memory and when you can/can't use those moves.

for me youthfull enthusiasm and bravado will normally beat experience everytime.  the kid that's got all the skills plus a lot of backing from his friends v someone older whose also got the skills but has been there seen it and done it --- you lose the enthusiasm for it after a few years - fighting just becomes "boring" so you're not into it.  

you don't want to scrap but you have to spar but your hearts not totally in it cos you don't want to be fighting.

older = wiser - experience or no experience you know when to get out................


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> as you get older you slow down - your mind doesn't work as well as it used to etc...... you might still be able to pull off all the moves that you did as a kid but experience will have engrained those moves to memory and when you can/can't use those moves.
> 
> for me youthfull enthusiasm and bravado will normally beat experience everytime.  the kid that's got all the skills plus a lot of backing from his friends v someone older whose also got the skills but has been there seen it and done it --- you lose the enthusiasm for it after a few years - fighting just becomes "boring" so you're not into it.
> 
> ...


Once again sport. You are talking of sparring. In Krav for example we have no sparring like you have in TKD. In our karate we get in and grab hold ... no sparring as such. We don't have 2 or 3 minute rounds, we have an explosive burst. We don't get penalised for not attacking. Most times your opponent is attacking you. 

Sport is athlete against athlete in controlled circumstances. Self defence is against an attacker of unknown ability with no rules. That is why the thread of TMA vs MMA is really impossible to discuss rationally. 

Donna, most of your posts since you came to MT are about competing and really hard training to maintain competitiveness. I'm not sure you even realise there is a totally different side to martial arts that is just as real as yours. In my world there are a good number of older martial artists that are extremely capable in any company.
:asian:


----------



## Buka (Aug 2, 2014)

I'm at a training camp all weekend. Lots of instructors all over the place teaching. The youngest one is Rory Miller.  And he must seem old to some of the kids. Most of the others are probably old enough to be his father.

Never fight with old people. They no longer have the endurance or patience to screw around. They'll just kill you. How the hell do you think we got old?


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 2, 2014)

This thing about youth beating age may apply to external arts that depend a lot on strength and physical fitness.
But I can tell you it is totally irrelevant in the internal systems , with the internal methods the practitioners power and skill keeps increasing with age.

This might seem like fantasy to those who have never touched hands with senior members of these systems and I don't really give a stuff whether you believe it or not , but their ability to generate massive amounts of force goes beyond the mere physical or just having the correct biomechanics.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 2, 2014)

K-man said:


> Once again sport. You are talking of sparring. In Krav for example we have no sparring like you have in TKD. In our karate we get in and grab hold ... no sparring as such. We don't have 2 or 3 minute rounds, we have an explosive burst. We don't get penalised for not attacking. Most times your opponent is attacking you.
> 
> Sport is athlete against athlete in controlled circumstances. Self defence is against an attacker of unknown ability with no rules. That is why the thread of TMA vs MMA is really impossible to discuss rationally.
> 
> ...



can understand what you're saying - i've only known competition and competitive environments and nothing else maybe there is another side to MA's that's quieter maybe more laid back etc..... but having no experience of this i can't talk about that side of things.  if i had trained TMA as opposed to MT/MMA then my view would prolly be very different.


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 2, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> maybe there is another side to MA's that's quieter maybe more laid back etc...



Can't tell about other tma, but it is...
During weekly early night till tomorrow noon, we train like
When you tired, you rest,
When you hungry, you eat,
When you sleepy, you sleep, and
When you don't know, you ask...

Usually when some foreigners (once our school was being acknowledged by the aikido founder when the aikido dan grading thesis about our system was the only one passed) 
Or even someone from outside looking at how we train, they're mostly taken aback.
They don't believe that our kind of training is fruitfull until they try to roll with the senior...


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> This thing about youth beating age may apply to external arts that depend a lot on strength and physical fitness.
> But I can tell you it is totally irrelevant in the internal systems , with the internal methods the practitioners power and skill keeps increasing with age.
> 
> This might seem like fantasy to those who have never touched hands with senior members of these systems and I don't really give a stuff whether you believe it or not , but their ability to generate massive amounts of force goes beyond the mere physical or just having the correct biomechanics.


And the look on the face of the big strong young guy as he goes to the floor is priceless.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 2, 2014)

> their ability to generate massive amounts of force goes beyond the mere physical or just having the correct biomechanics


and this is where the divide begins.
i know for a fact of practitioners that are in their 60' and 70' that would, could and have, beaten the snot out of men in their 20's ands 30's in real street confontations. but when you start down the road of magical chi and fu fu dust powers, you lose me.  i fully understand the difference between altheticism and martial skill.  combative skills can continue to improve as we age but there is no getting around the fact that we age and our overall ability deteriorates.  people often talk about great masters who can do all kinds of amazing things and i can tell you i have met a good amount of these "masters" myself and i know others who have gone to china and had the rare oportunity to "cross arms" with many of the great masters there as well...but there is no getting around the fact that it is not magic and all abilty can be attributed to bio machanics and skill.  if you believe otherwise that is ok  but i have seen too many instances where the ones who claimed to have that "something more" failed to be able to show it when asked so you will have to pardon my skepticism.
the op asked the difference between TMA and MMA, i dont think the argument about chi is fitting for this thread so lets just say, in TMA there are those that believe in chi and internal strength and in MMA in general they do not. 
from my point of view the difference is in scope of vision.  you have practiced and worked out for many years and you can beat up the world, lets say you are an unstopable super hero...NOW WHAT?  so you can beat up anyone who stands before you, so what.  you spent 20 , 30 , 40 years of your life for that?  as someone once told me as a young man your still a scared little boy inside who fears the world and has a need to be able to fight and defend themselves against the boogie man. then as we age at some point we are not scared little boys anymore.  there should to be a larger vision on why we train if you plan on continuing as we get older. TMA provides this while MMA does not.   my cousin was a supurb male gymnast. he is in his 30's now and i asked him if he ever practices anymore and he looked at me like i had 3 heads and said "if your not compeating. what would be the point?  why would you put your self through that if you were not compeating?"  the same hold true for MMA.  men like Randy couture, Gracie, ice man and ace franklin have a hard time admiting that its time to retire because in MMA when your done your done. there is not point to it after that.


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2014)

hoshin1600 said:


> and this is where the divide begins.
> i know for a fact of practitioners that are in their 60' and 70' that would, could and have, beaten the snot out of men in their 20's ands 30's in real street confontations. but when you start down the road of magical chi and fu fu dust powers, you lose me.  i fully understand the difference between altheticism and martial skill.  combative skills can continue to improve as we age but there is no getting around the fact that we age and our overall ability deteriorates.  people often talk about great masters who can do all kinds of amazing things and i can tell you i have met a good amount of these "masters" myself and i know others who have gone to china and had the rare oportunity to "cross arms" with many of the great masters there as well...but there is no getting around the fact that it is not magic and all abilty can be attributed to bio machanics and skill.  if you believe otherwise that is ok  but i have seen too many instances where the ones who claimed to have that "something more" failed to be able to show it when asked so you will have to pardon my skepticism.
> the op asked the difference between TMA and MMA, i dont think the argument about chi is fitting for this thread so lets just say, in TMA there are those that believe in chi and internal strength and in MMA in general they do not.


I'm not sure why any discussion of chi/ki has to be 'magical' or dismissed as 'fu fu dust'. It is not magical and it goes way beyond simple biomechanics. It is also not easy to find someone teaching it. As you say, many people who claim to be using ki aren't, but if you do come across a practitioner who does teach it, it will change your training. 
:asian:


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 2, 2014)

like i said K-man that would be a topic on its own, please feel free to start one if you would like to discuss it.


----------



## K-man (Aug 2, 2014)

hoshin1600 said:


> like i said K-man that would be a topic on its own, please feel free to start one if you would like to discuss it.


It's been done to death already. It just boils down to a bun fight where those who haven't experienced Ki bag those who have Actual discussion becomes impossible. The only way I will discuss it these days is via PM with those who are interested in genuine discussion.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 3, 2014)

What is the real difference between Traditional martial arts and MMA as we know it today?  That's simple TIME is the difference.  Traditional arts have been around a long time and that's why they are called traditional.  MMA as we know it today has not even been around 40 years.
other points of difference are:
 One is a sport the other could be called a way of life. 
one has rules the other dose not

If MMA as we now know it  is around in it's present form in another 50 years we may then call ot a traditional art as compared to what ever new concept come along


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 3, 2014)

Muay Thai is a way of life but i think that the sport side of Muay Thai has a shelf life whereby you decide that you've had enough but love the actual training side of things so then you focus on getting your technique etc..... nailed so that if you wanted to you could compete but choose not to.

i think that i'd be right in saying that MMA is a sport the participants have a shelf life and after that they just train, go the gym or whatever just like boxers do.  boxers retire when they've taken too many hits to the head or wherever and just carry on training to stay fit after that.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2014)

hoshin1600 said:


> and this is where the divide begins.
> i know for a fact of practitioners that are in their 60' and 70' that would, could and have, beaten the snot out of men in their 20's ands 30's in real street confontations. but when you start down the road of magical chi and fu fu dust powers, you lose me.  i fully understand the difference between altheticism and martial skill.  combative skills can continue to improve as we age but there is no getting around the fact that we age and our overall ability deteriorates.  people often talk about great masters who can do all kinds of amazing things and i can tell you i have met a good amount of these "masters" myself and i know others who have gone to china and had the rare oportunity to "cross arms" with many of the great masters there as well...but there is no getting around the fact that it is not magic and all abilty can be attributed to bio machanics and skill.  if you believe otherwise that is ok  but i have seen too many instances where the ones who claimed to have that "something more" failed to be able to show it when asked so you will have to pardon my skepticism.
> the op asked the difference between TMA and MMA, i dont think the argument about chi is fitting for this thread so lets just say, in TMA there are those that believe in chi and internal strength and in MMA in general they do not.
> from my point of view the difference is in scope of vision.  you have practiced and worked out for many years and you can beat up the world, lets say you are an unstopable super hero...NOW WHAT?  so you can beat up anyone who stands before you, so what.  you spent 20 , 30 , 40 years of your life for that?  as someone once told me as a young man your still a scared little boy inside who fears the world and has a need to be able to fight and defend themselves against the boogie man. then as we age at some point we are not scared little boys anymore.  there should to be a larger vision on why we train if you plan on continuing as we get older. TMA provides this while MMA does not.   my cousin was a supurb male gymnast. he is in his 30's now and i asked him if he ever practices anymore and he looked at me like i had 3 heads and said "if your not compeating. what would be the point?  why would you put your self through that if you were not compeating?"  the same hold true for MMA.  men like Randy couture, Gracie, ice man and ace franklin have a hard time admiting that its time to retire because in MMA when your done your done. there is not point to it after that.



That is true with most sports. But that drop off is with elite level fighters. You can still  hobby train mma as you get older. 

Even look at competitive chi sau. It is not a competition dominated by old men.

In mma you have to compete on an even playing field with the guy your training with so chi pretty much doesn't work.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> IMO the experience beats youth thing is generally untrue. It depends on the rules, of course, but I'll put my money on the young athlete and expect to come out ahead.
> 
> I think GM'S are often like big brothers. They were able to beat us for so long that we can't wrap our minds around them being old and less able. I'm not trying to disrespect any GM's, but when people get older they don't get physically better....except maybe Barry Bonds.



Sports like mma though you are expected to try to beat them. Even if they are supposed to be the super fighter guy. Loosing because you are less physical does not have the same loss of face as it does in tma.

In sport everybody gets caught out. That is just the reality of the training method.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> That is true with most sports. But that drop off is with elite level fighters. You can still  hobby train mma as you get older.
> 
> Even look at competitive chi sau. It is not a competition dominated by old men.
> 
> In mma you have to compete on an even playing field with the guy your training with so chi pretty much doesn't work.



That might be because the old men know competitive chi sau is ******** and wouldn't lower themselves by taking part.
If they were to go in it however , they would go through them like a hot knife through butter.

Wing Chun is purely based on skill it has nothing to with youth or muscular strength , the head of our lineage passed away a week and a bit ago but even at his advanced age he could throw people around like rag dolls and his power was quite literally frightening.

[video=youtube_share;YWjsr7Yr5tY]http://youtu.be/YWjsr7Yr5tY[/video]


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> That might be because the old men know competitive chi sau is ******** and wouldn't lower themselves by taking part.
> If they were to go in it however , they would go through them like a hot knife through butter.
> 
> Wing Chun is purely based on skill it has nothing to with youth or muscular strength , the head of our lineage passed away a week and a bit ago but even at his advanced age he could throw people around like rag dolls and his power was quite literally frightening.
> ...



Really? He could of dominated he just chose not to?


OK we will go with that then.

Look. Mma is a system that welcomes new ideas. If a hundred year old man was throwing people around using chi then mmaers would be adopting that style.


----------



## K-man (Aug 3, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Look. Mma is a system that welcomes new ideas. If a hundred year old man was throwing people around using chi then mmaers would be adopting that style.


One of my friends trains MMA fighters and promotes fights. We have discussed this concept. You are right on the money when you say it might well be a hundred year old man throwing people around because it takes many years of training to develop that level of understanding. I could predict right now, we won't see it in my lifetime.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2014)

K-man said:


> One of my friends trains MMA fighters and promotes fights. We have discussed this concept. You are right on the money when you say it might well be a hundred year old man throwing people around because it takes many years of training to develop that level of understanding. I could predict right now, we won't see it in my lifetime.
> :asian:



Take ten years to bb in judo and bjj. If there is a result at the end of it it is worth the trouble.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Really? He could of dominated he just chose not to?
> 
> 
> OK we will go with that then.
> ...



No they wouldn't , because they wouldn't have the patience to practice the rather boring things like Siu Nim Tau form and stance exercises like pivoting everyday for the 40 to 50 years it took to reach his level.


----------



## carloscrane (Aug 4, 2014)

MMA: According to my knowledge MMA is a sport. It is used for competitions. It has rules to protect its athletes. The objective is to win. 

TMA: TMA is traditional martial arts. It keeps the traditions of a particular culture. It was created for self defense. There is only one rule and that is to do what is necessary to survive. The objective often is to maim or kill.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 4, 2014)

i agree with your post 

most of the strikes learnt in muay thai are about dispatching your opponent as fast and efficiently as possible.  tma doesn't stop when the guys on the floor it carries on until the very end - often before the guy is on the floor 

mma is just for sport it has a set of rules and a referee to stop things before they wind up being serious.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 4, 2014)

carloscrane said:


> MMA: According to my knowledge MMA is a sport. It is used for competitions. It has rules to protect its athletes. The objective is to win.
> 
> TMA: TMA is traditional martial arts. It keeps the traditions of a particular culture. It was created for self defense. There is only one rule and that is to do what is necessary to survive. The objective often is to maim or kill.



What you say isn't really wrong, but it isn't really right either. Simply because there is a lot of overlap between sport and art. 
And, too, I think it's safe to say that the goal of most TMA isn't to maim or kill. The goal may well be to end the fight, but that *rarely* requires maiming or killing your opponent.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 4, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> That might be because the old men know competitive chi sau is ******** and wouldn't lower themselves by taking part.
> If they were to go in it however , they would go through them like a hot knife through butter.
> 
> Wing Chun is purely based on skill it has nothing to with youth or muscular strength , the head of our lineage passed away a week and a bit ago but even at his advanced age he could throw people around like rag dolls and his power was quite literally frightening.
> ...


Is that you in the clip?


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 4, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Is that you in the clip?



No mate , it is one of my Sihings.


----------



## Steve (Aug 4, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> No they wouldn't , because they wouldn't have the patience to practice the rather boring things like Siu Nim Tau form and stance exercises like pivoting everyday for the 40 to 50 years it took to reach his level.


I don't think this is true.  Few people stay in any art for 40 or 50 years.  But I would say that every single person who does has the patience to practice the rather boring things.  This is true for every single skill a human being can learn.  While talent and aptitude play a role, logging hours in an activity is the difference between having potential and realizing it.  MMA is no different than any other human activity, whether it's another style of martial arts or something entirely different such as learning to play a musical instrument.


----------



## Steve (Aug 4, 2014)

carloscrane said:


> MMA: According to my knowledge MMA is a sport. It is used for competitions. It has rules to protect its athletes. The objective is to win.


Yes.  I agree.  





> TMA: TMA is traditional martial arts. It keeps the traditions of a particular culture. It was created for self defense. There is only one rule and that is to do what is necessary to survive. The objective often is to maim or kill.


Not necessarily.  Is Judo a TMA or a sport?  Both?  

What about a self defense style that isn't Asian, but in all other ways meets the criteria you have above, such as Krav Maga?  Is that a TMA?  

Let's face it.  Some martial arts are about sport.  Some are about self defense.  Some are about fitness.  Some are more about historical and/or cultural preservation.  Most incorporate a little of all of that.  But I would say, sales literature aside, that most people (not all) who train in any martial art are not going to be able to kill or maim anyone with their training.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 4, 2014)

^^^i disagree with the last part of that statement^^^

the idea with muay thai and muay boran is to kill the opposition. the faster that they can be dispatched the better.  both of these are TMA's.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> No they wouldn't , because they wouldn't have the patience to practice the rather boring things like Siu Nim Tau form and stance exercises like pivoting everyday for the 40 to 50 years it took to reach his level.




I assume there is some sort of benefit before hand though.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I assume there is some sort of benefit before hand though.



There is , but it is a cumulative effect that occurs over many years , and it takes a hell of a long time to reach that level of generating effortless power.

Unfortunately some people never reach that level despite years of training , due to not being trained properly under the guidance of somebody that knows what they are doing.

One of those people who could train people to attain "Nim Lik" (Thought Force) , the old man in the video unfortunately passed away just recently.
He was Tsui Seung Tin one of the four "closed door" students of Yip Man.


----------



## Steve (Aug 4, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> ^^^i disagree with the last part of that statement^^^
> 
> the idea with muay thai and muay boran is to kill the opposition. the faster that they can be dispatched the better.  both of these are TMA's.


Regardless of what the "idea" is with Muay Thai or Muay Boran, there are some people who could kill with it.  Most people don't train long enough, smart enough or hard enough to learn it.  

In the same way, most people who pick up a guitar don't stick with it long enough to really play.  You don't go into any martial arts school and just through osmosis become deadly.  That's crap. 

Here's a question for the group.  If it takes 40 or 50 years to master your "style," and even then, only a few of the dedicated students who stick it out for 40 years will really get it... isn't that kind of a bad thing?  I mean, at some point, the handful of people who are excelling are doing so _in spite_ of the style.  If the style is so difficult to learn that only a handful of people in the world could do so, it seems that _the person _who has excelled is so exceptional that he or she could probably, literally make anything work.

At some point, if success is such an exclusive club, the emphasis has shifted as in the images below.  While the artsy toaster probably cooks bread, doesn't it seem like the "art" has led to hopelessly over-complicating what is really a very simple process?  And of the two, which do you think is most likely to fail to toast bread?  

View attachment $funny-cool-toasters-17.jpg

View attachment $sunbeam-toaster-model-t-9-01z.jpg

Acheiving art is a laudable goal, and true mastery of any style of art can take years.  But art tends to become its own goal, often to the detriment of function.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 4, 2014)

i suppose it depends on how committed you are to your chosen MA.  i mean if you're in it heart and soul for the long run then you'll prolly get more out of it than say someone who'sjust collecting belts as fast as the McDojo they're with will let them.

as for me i've been training for just over 20years and i wouldn't call myself the finished article cos there's always new things being brought into Muay Thai - new ways of training, more effective ways of dispatching things and now that i've found a Muay Boran centre that'll add another dimension to my Muay Thai training. 

i think that the longer you train in an art the more effective it becomes regardless of which art it is - also it'll make more sense to the person too, why certain things work and how to enhance what they've already learnt etc...........

as for the toaster -- does that top one really work ????? apart from the fact that i like my toast to pop up when it's done and stay in a warm environment so it can't get cold too quickly


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> Regardless of what the "idea" is with Muay Thai or Muay Boran, there are some people who could kill with it.  Most people don't train long enough, smart enough or hard enough to learn it.
> 
> In the same way, most people who pick up a guitar don't stick with it long enough to really play.  You don't go into any martial arts school and just through osmosis become deadly.  That's crap.
> 
> ...



No one said it takes 40 to 50 years to master the style , what I said was that it took 40 to 50 years for Sigung Tsui to reach the level that he attained , his level was something beyond mastery.

It is all relative and there are degrees along that spectrum from beginner to master , you could have only be training for 1 or 2 years and still defend yourself against an assault , but probably with a lot more muscle and brute strength involved than someone who has been training a lot longer.

Here is a video of a man from the same lineage that's probably been training about 30 years , he has attained some level of "Nim Lik" but not to the same level as Sigung.

But I suspect the video will be just dismissed with the usual calls of "compliance" and just "trying to make the demonstrator look good" etc.

[video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> Here's a question for the group.  If it takes 40 or 50 years to master your "style," and even then, only a few of the dedicated students who stick it out for 40 years will really get it... isn't that kind of a bad thing?  I mean, at some point, the handful of people who are excelling are doing so _in spite_ of the style.  If the style is so difficult to learn that only a handful of people in the world could do so, it seems that _the person _who has excelled is so exceptional that he or she could probably, literally make anything work.


I think that what is meant here is that you can learn the physical aspects of a style very quickly. For example if you started from scratch in say Karate and you were a reasonably gifted athlete you could be competing at the top level of competition in 4-5 years, may be less, depending on the amount of training you undertake. Aikido is a little different. There are actually far less techniques in Aikido than Karate but they are more complex and it takes much longer to reach the stage that you can use those techniques against a resisting opponent. I know a number of highly ranked Aikidoka who can't make their techniques work against resistance and because they don't train atemi it is unlikely their practice will ever be effective. MAs like Krav Maga take minimal time. 

Then you have the mental side. Developing the mental side of a martial art takes many years even when you are trying to train that way. For a start you need someone to teach you and they are thin on the ground. I think it would be almost impossible to develop that aspect of training without guidance. That is where the masters only selected their best and most suitable students to take to that level. If you have never been exposed to this type of training you will not suddenly develop this ability even with forty years of training.

The physical side of your martial art will diminish with age. The mental side can continue to grow. I believe this is what *Mook* is referring to.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Aug 4, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think that what is meant here is that you can learn the physical aspects of a style very quickly. For example if you started from scratch in say Karate and you were a reasonably gifted athlete you could be competing at the top level of competition in 4-5 years, may be less, depending on the amount of training you undertake. Aikido is a little different. There are actually far less techniques in Aikido than Karate but they are more complex and it takes much longer to reach the stage that you can use those techniques against a resisting opponent. I know a number of highly ranked Aikidoka who can't make their techniques work against resistance and because they don't train atemi it is unlikely their practice will ever be effective. MAs like Krav Maga take minimal time.
> 
> Then you have the mental side. Developing the mental side of a martial art takes many years even when you are trying to train that way. For a start you need someone to teach you and they are thin on the ground. I think it would be almost impossible to develop that aspect of training without guidance. That is where the masters only selected their best and most suitable students to take to that level. If you have never been exposed to this type of training you will not suddenly develop this ability even with forty years of training.
> 
> ...


Put as simply as I can, it's specious to believe that mastery of one style is any more or less difficult than another.  My opinion is that there is a tendency to want ot believe that people who train in a style you consider opposed to your own are less patient, less serious, perhaps lazier, and that this belief comes from a place of insecurity, ignorance and a need to believe oneself to be special.   

It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other.   It's vanity and insecurity that drive comments such as by mook jong man suggesting someone who trains in MMA lacks the patience to practice something that is "boring" with enough diligence to suit him.  Vanity, my friends, and insecurity.  That's my take, at least.


----------



## K-man (Aug 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> Put as simply as I can, it's specious to believe that mastery of one style is any more or less difficult than another.  My opinion is that there is a tendency to want ot believe that people who train in a style you consider opposed to your own are less patient, less serious, perhaps lazier, and that this belief comes from a place of insecurity, ignorance and a need to believe oneself to be special.
> 
> It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other.   It's vanity and insecurity that drive comments such as by mook jong man suggesting someone who trains in MMA lacks the patience to practice something that is "boring" with enough diligence to suit him.  Vanity, my friends, and insecurity.  That's my take, at least.


Sorry to disagree. MMA is fantastic and the guys right into it are far more accomplished and far fitter than I will ever be. Reality is that that not many of them will continue with it beyond 40 or 50. Muay Thai is much the same. The physical ability required to maintain that level is way ahead of what you need for anything I train. Mastery is a different matter. It takes many years to master BJJ in my opinion and I don't practise BJJ. From what I know of Krav, you can master the basics in a very short time but it has the provision to keep developing. Most other martial arts are in the same boat. I am not picking a side at all in respect to the physical element of the training. (I don't hold some martial arts in same high regard at all but I would never voice those concerns in an open forum. Obviously none of the systems I have mentioned in this thread are in that category.)

*Mook* was not talking about the physical element. You could train any martial art for 50 years but, without the internal training that *Mook* mentioned, you will not achieve the level of mastery we are discussing. 



mook jong man said:


> There is , but it is a cumulative effect that occurs over many years , and it takes a hell of a long time to reach that level of generating effortless power.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately some people never reach that level despite years of training ,* due to* *not being trained properly under the guidance of somebody that knows what they are doing*.
> ...



I would not agree with *Mook* saying _some_ people never reach that level. I would say _most_ people never reach that level. Hardly anyone reaches that level, certainly among the people I have met.




mook jong man said:


> No one said it takes 40 to 50 years to master the style , what I said was that *it took 40 to 50 years for Sigung Tsui to reach the level* that he attained , *his level was something beyond mastery.*



Unless you are training for that sort of understanding you will never achieve it no matter how long you train. 
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> No one said it takes 40 to 50 years to master the style , what I said was that it took 40 to 50 years for Sigung Tsui to reach the level that he attained , his level was something beyond mastery.
> 
> It is all relative and there are degrees along that spectrum from beginner to master , you could have only be training for 1 or 2 years and still defend yourself against an assault , but probably with a lot more muscle and brute strength involved than someone who has been training a lot longer.
> 
> ...



So you think that training for 1 to 2 years now will make a noticeable difference and yet people don't bother.

Why do you think a person who could benefit from a style of training wouldn't?

There is no reason someone couldn't do that demo on mma guys in a mma school.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 4, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So you think that training for 1 to 2 years now will make a noticeable difference and yet people don't bother.
> 
> Why do you think a person who could benefit from a style of training wouldn't?
> 
> There is no reason someone couldn't do that demo on mma guys in a mma school.


There might be one very good reason....


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> Put as simply as I can, it's specious to believe that mastery of one style is any more or less difficult than another.  My opinion is that there is a tendency to want ot believe that people who train in a style you consider opposed to your own are less patient, less serious, perhaps lazier, and that this belief comes from a place of insecurity, ignorance and a need to believe oneself to be special.
> 
> It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other.   It's vanity and insecurity that drive comments such as by mook jong man suggesting someone who trains in MMA lacks the patience to practice something that is "boring" with enough diligence to suit him.  Vanity, my friends, and insecurity.  That's my take, at least.



What I think people don't get.

Mma is trained differently to a hybrid. Top level athletes will still train the tma styles and grade to a high level. Where you might think that it would be more efficient to wake up in the morning and train mma until sundown does not happen. 

They still train as the styles are meant to be trained. So if they do jujitsu they put the GI on and train it in its entirety. Same with boxing same with wrestling and so on. 

There is no reason they could not do an internal system if they wanted to.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> There might be one very good reason....



That it is demonstrated with either a compliant partner or one with substandard skill.

I have been assured it is not the case. 

Competition must be such a different animal to either training or self defence that the principles no longer work. I believe it must be the floor mats or something blocking the child.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 4, 2014)

To use an analogy of our current national sport Australian Rules Football

I've turned off (I shouldn't say turned off, but I view it differently) it recently because there is too many athletes involved now and not enough sportsmen. They can run, and have stamina and fit as a fiddle, but their sportsman ship is very lacking, can't kick goals consistently, can't handball well, lack the natural sportsman ability. The sportsman may not be able to do 400 push ups or run a marathon, but they kicked goals, can pass the ball and read the game.

Not to say the others don't have their place, they can run the whole field and stay on longer etc. When you get someone that's both they are truly great to watch.


I think this is also the same for martial arts, some people will be athletic and have the strength, power and some will be natural martial artists capable of taking the art and technique itself to the next level. One has a physical limitation the other not, but always exceptions to the rule.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> To use an analogy of our current national sport Australian Rules Football
> 
> I've turned off (I shouldn't say turned off, but I view it differently) it recently because there is too many athletes involved now and not enough sportsmen. They can run, and have stamina and fit as a fiddle, but their sportsman ship is very lacking, can't kick goals consistently, can't handball well, lack the natural sportsman ability. The sportsman may not be able to do 400 push ups or run a marathon, but they kicked goals, can pass the ball and read the game.
> 
> ...


Yes that exists but one does not define the other. So you can't say just because A. Is physical he cannot be technical. So if you were talking about a specific martial artist you could make that call.

But it is doubtful you can do it across the board.

If mma fighters were technical chumps. Then you could probably have cases where older but better martial artists could dominate. But I don't think they tend to be technical chumps. Which is why they have a shelf life. Everybody is competing at a sort of similar technical level.

So when they fail at the physicality they will loose fights. Regardless of their technicality.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> That it is demonstrated with either a compliant partner or one with substandard skill.
> 
> I have been assured it is not the case.
> 
> Competition must be such a different animal to either training or self defence that the principles no longer work. I believe it must be the floor mats or something blocking the child.



Umm , or it could just be that it was an open day organized by that *particular *school , so why the hell would they be having it at an MMA gym?

How do you know the demonstration partner wasn't previously trained in a grappling art? , we get lots of people who have had serious training in other martial arts before they came to Wing Chun.

It must be so sad for you and others like you to have such closed minds and believe that you have seen it all , you haven't.
It is a big world and there are other ways of doing things that we still don't quite yet understand exactly how they work.

No one ever believes this stuff until they have felt it for themselves , and that is quite understandable.
I believe I am just wasting my breath here talking about this subject.
If you want to see how this stuff works , get your **** on a plane to Adelaide , South Australia and ask Instructor Tony Psaila to show you personally.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Umm , or it could just be that it was an open day organized by that *particular *school , so why the hell would they be having it at an MMA gym?
> 
> How do you know the demonstration partner wasn't previously trained in a grappling art? , we get lots of people who have had serious training in other martial arts before they came to Wing Chun.
> 
> ...



Doesn't phase me do what you want.

But if you took it to a mma gym then you would know if it stacks up to a trained grappler who may not give that instructor any leeway. Most seminars you have to be a bit carefull of compliance. 

It is exactly something we do. And sometimes we dominate and sometimes we get owned.  So that we do experience it for ourselves. Just because someone can throw a bunch of his own students around doesn't necessarily mean that the technique works across the board.

And no I am not going to Adelaide any time soon.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> There might be one very good reason....



As I said to the other guy it was an open day for this *particular *school so why would they be doing a demo at an MMA gym.

Do you normally do your Tae Kwon Do demos at Boxing Gyms?

No didn't think so.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> As I said to the other guy it was an open day for this *particular *school so why would they be doing a demo at an MMA gym.
> 
> Do you normally do your Tae Kwon Do demos at Boxing Gyms?
> 
> No didn't think so.


They are under no obligation to prove anything. However, they could easily shut a lot of people up if they could demonstrate their skills in a place like an mma gym.

Taekwondo people generally don't do demonstrations at mma gyms either, but they also don't claim to have mental/mystical skills that allow people who are 100 years old to wipe the floor with younger, stronger people.

I'm sure that many people would love to be proven wrong/right about it. You'd think it would be easy to set up a demo that would do that.

I'm not trying to ramp you up. I'm just wondering why no one seems to have taken this type of skill to the mma context unless it's because they can't.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> As I said to the other guy it was an open day for this *particular *school so why would they be doing a demo at an MMA gym.
> 
> Do you normally do your Tae Kwon Do demos at Boxing Gyms?
> 
> No didn't think so.




We have open mat days. You are welcome to come in with any style you want. We are happy to have you. The only reason we hold seminars at MMA gyms is the facilities are better.

We regularly train with our local karate gym.

You could at any time come in and spar with one of our coaches. If you turn out to be awesome we are happy to learn your system.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> They are under no obligation to prove anything. However, they could easily shut a lot of people up if they could demonstrate their skills in a place like an mma gym.
> 
> Taekwondo people generally don't do demonstrations at mma gyms either, but they also don't claim to have mental/mystical skills that allow people who are 100 years old to wipe the floor with younger, stronger people.
> 
> ...



They are not mystical skills , it is the result of years of training to fully focus the mind.
They are only concerned with furthering their own training , they don't give a stuff whether people believe it or not.

People will always be sceptical about video , would not matter if they did it in a MMA gym or not , it will still not satisfy everybody.
What you are basically implying by using language such as "mystical skills" is that I am some sort of deluded idiot that indulges in some sort of fantasy training.

I can assure you I am a very pragmatic person , grounded in reality , if this type of training was bs I certainly would not have spent so much time trying to cultivate the skills.

As I said before , the only way people become believers of this type of training is to physically be on the receiving end of it.

Maybe you could hop on a plane to Adelaide as well and visit Instructor Tony Psaila , you could meet up with Dropbear  , sample some of the wines at the famous Barossa Valley while your over there.


----------



## K-man (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Here is a video of a man from the same lineage that's probably been training about 30 years , he has attained some level of "Nim Lik" but not to the same level as Sigung.
> 
> But I suspect the video will be just dismissed with the usual calls of "compliance" and just "trying to make the demonstrator look good" etc.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]


Actually tried this at training tonight with non compliant partners. Cool!  :s81:


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Actually tried this at training tonight with non compliant partners. Cool!  :s81:



Probably be a bit more effective if you knew Siu Nim Tau form K-man mate.
But anyway glad it worked out for you.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Don't really get why a solid stance and the ability to manipulate peoples balance and structure is seen as da "Mystical Skillz"

Suppose this one must be "Mystical" as well.

But hold on a second , the big guy in the video is clearly being compliant , he's not being aggressive and pushing hard enough blah blah blah.

TableTop ChiSau - YouTube


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Actually tried this at training tonight with non compliant partners. Cool!  :s81:



First thing I noticed was the angle of the shoulders. Notice that the arms of the volunteer are quite high, with his elbows above the shoulders of the (bigger) man applying the hold, and his chin is being forced down onto his cherst. These are signs of a good, strong, correct application of that hold. 
Now look at the instructor. His elbows are much lower, nearly parallel to the floor, and his chin is NOT being forced down, indicating that the hold is being applied with much less pressure.

I'm not saying that controlling your body and that of your opponent is a bad thing. It is a good thing. Holding muscles tense is a bad thing. But this demonstration is inherently flawed simply because it is obvious that the hold is NOT being applied as aggressively when it's applied to the instructor.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Don't really get why a solid stance and the ability to manipulate peoples balance and structure is seen as da "Mystical Skillz"
> 
> Suppose this one must be "Mystical" as well.
> 
> ...


Looks to me like the "aggressor" is standing flatfooted and not really attempting to push the guy off the stage. The other guy is up on the balls of his feet and leaning pretty heavily on the bigger guy.

I watched the video without sound (sleeping baby) but I don't get it. What if the other guy actually attacks or just decides to take both of them over the edge instead of just pressing their arms together? Or is this just a wing chun vs. wing chun thing?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Don't really get why a solid stance and the ability to manipulate peoples balance and structure is seen as da "Mystical Skillz"
> 
> Suppose this one must be "Mystical" as well.
> 
> ...



If the "attacker" used proper body mechanics, the "defender" would go right off the stage. One good thrust kick...


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> First thing I noticed was the angle of the shoulders. Notice that the arms of the volunteer are quite high, with his elbows above the shoulders of the (bigger) man applying the hold, and his chin is being forced down onto his cherst. These are signs of a good, strong, correct application of that hold.
> Now look at the instructor. His elbows are much lower, nearly parallel to the floor, and his chin is NOT being forced down, indicating that the hold is being applied with much less pressure.
> 
> I'm not saying that controlling your body and that of your opponent is a bad thing. It is a good thing. Holding muscles tense is a bad thing. But this demonstration is inherently flawed simply because it is obvious that the hold is NOT being applied as aggressively when it's applied to the instructor.



Very observant Dirty Dog .
What you have noticed is the application of structure in the first instance , the volunteer from the audience has no structure so his head is already bent forward by the pressure.

But the senior instructor on the other hand has already set up his structure (straight spine) and does not allow his head to be bent forward.

It can be extremely difficult to pull the head down or bend the spine of a senior Wing Chun person , the force just goes straight down through the stance and into the floor.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> It must be so sad for you and others like you to have such closed minds and believe that you have seen it all , you haven't.
> It is a big world and there are other ways of doing things that we still don't quite yet understand exactly how they work.


I don't see anyone here with a closed mind but you, so far.  You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.  I haven't seen anything in this thread besides curiosity and what looks like healthy skepticism.  You said, "No one ever believes this stuff until they have felt it for themselves , and that is quite understandable."   

Whether you mean to be or not, you're saying some pretty derogatory things about people who train in MMA, lazy, close minded, impatient...  and the list keeps growing.  

The techniques in boxing, muay thai, BJJ, wrestling or any other martial art style are all grounded in bio mechanics and physics, not strength and athleticism.  MMA doesn't change that at all.

Fitness is a big part of MMA training, as it is in any sport.  Why?  Because, where technical ability is equal, the edge in a competition is  fitness.   In golf, the swing should be effortless.  When you hit the ball correctly, you don't even feel it when the club head hits it.  But, the elite level golfers know that a fit body and fit mind can be the edge necessary to prevail at the very top of the sport.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> If the "attacker" used proper body mechanics, the "defender" would go right off the stage. One good thrust kick...



That thrust kick would be detected as soon as he lifted his foot off the ground , that is the whole point of chi sau.
Changes in pressure as well as weight shifts are sensed through the arms.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Jaeimseu said:


> Looks to me like the "aggressor" is standing flatfooted and not really attempting to push the guy off the stage. The other guy is up on the balls of his feet and leaning pretty heavily on the bigger guy.
> 
> I watched the video without sound (sleeping baby) but I don't get it. What if the other guy actually attacks or just decides to take both of them over the edge instead of just pressing their arms together? Or is this just a wing chun vs. wing chun thing?



It is a Wing Chun vs Wing Chun thing.
Chi sau to be exact.
They are trying to search for gaps in each others defence , if the other guy did try and draw back to try and strike he would be immediately hit.
The Wing Chun arms are like springs that go forward to strike when there is no counter pressure.

It is just an example of how the Wing Chun stance is able to absorb a great deal of force and channel it down to the ground.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Actually tried this at training tonight with non compliant partners. Cool!  :s81:


A proper "head lock" has to meet the following requirements:

- Your upper body has to bend forward between 45 to 90 degree.
- You have to be in a solid low "horse stance".
- Your non-head locking arm should control one of your opponent's arms (This will leave your opponent with only 1 free arm).
- Your opponent's head has to touch on your chest.
- Your "head lock" should make your opponent's spine to bend (side way is better than forward).
- The elbow of your "head locking" arm has to point vertically straight down to the ground (This is the most important guideline. When doing this, your opponent's structure has been crashed).

 In the following clip, his head locking elbow is pointing "horizontally sideway" which does not meet the requirement. To be able to escape and counter a weak and improper "head lock" is easy. Every technique has counters. To escape a proper executed technique will not be easy. When your structure has been crashed and your spine has been bent, there will be no counters that you can apply at that moment.

[video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]


----------



## K-man (Aug 5, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A proper "head lock" has to meet the following requirements:
> 
> - Your upper body has to bend forward between 45 to 90 degree.
> - You have to be in a solid low "horse stance".
> ...


I think we are talking of different things. Here we are talking of a full Nelson. There is no free arm and the head is pushed away from the chest. The applications in the video are the way it is normally taught. The secret is not to allow it to be applied in the first place because once it is on it is extremely difficult to escape. However I doubt that many people could escape this hold the way the guy in the video did, not using strength. Hats off to you if you can.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Don't really get why a solid stance and the ability to manipulate peoples balance and structure is seen as da "Mystical Skillz"
> 
> Suppose this one must be "Mystical" as well.
> 
> ...



Mostly because the only people who can do it are chunners on chunners. for some reason it never relates to competition. And as a fundamental process it should.

So there is something there that is getting stopped when it is actively resisted.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> The secret is not to allow it to be applied in the first place because once it is on it is extremely difficult to escape.
> :asian:



I say that a LOT to our students. Learn to recognize the what hold they're going for, and don't let them have it. It is pretty much ALWAYS going to be MUCH harder to get out once the hold is properly applied.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think we are talking of different things. Here we are talking of a full Nelson. There is no free arm and the head is pushed away from the chest. The applications in the video are the way it is normally taught. The secret is not to allow it to be applied in the first place because once it is on it is extremely difficult to escape. However I doubt that many people could escape this hold the way the guy in the video did, not using strength. Hats off to you if you can.
> :asian:


The full nelson escape is pretty fundamental.  Bring your elbows down.  I don't see anything mystical about it, but neither do I see anything uniquely WC.  What makes this "escape" unrealistic is the reaction of the partner after having his grip broken.  

You can see how similar this demonstration is to what is taught in BJJ/GJJ:  

[video=youtube_share;-f8_lvLCWjo]http://youtu.be/-f8_lvLCWjo[/video]

Also for comparison are the four typical head lock defenses in BJJ/GJJ:

[video=youtube_share;6U1znsPw0vI]http://youtu.be/6U1znsPw0vI[/video]


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think we are talking of different things. Here we are talking of a full Nelson.


If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should

- apply leverage,
- move back,
- use your knee to crash his structure, and 
- force him to sit on the ground. 

This way, your opponent won't be able to apply any counters on you. 

[video=youtube_share;KOb5_WHu3K4]http://youtu.be/KOb5_WHu3K4[/video]

I'm talking about the "head lock" at 2.17.

[video=youtube_share;0wm5YhUjqCo]http://youtu.be/0wm5YhUjqCo[/video]

In the following clip, since your left hand did not control your opponent's right arm, it gives your opponent all the freedom to apply his counters to against you.

[video=youtube_share;6U1znsPw0vI]http://youtu.be/6U1znsPw0vI[/video]

In the following picture, you use your right hand to control your opponent's left arm. Your opponent will only have one arm left (his right arm) to counter you. that leading arm control is very important when you apply "head lock". Also your opponent's structure has been crashed. His spine is bending forward and side way to his right.

 If you 

- use your left leg to block his left leg, 
- make your left elbow to point straight down to the ground,
- you can take your opponent down.

IMO, the reason that you apply "full Nelson" or "head lock" is to take your opponent down and not just stand there.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

Steve said:


> The full nelson escape is pretty fundamental.  Bring your elbows down.  I don't see anything mystical about it, but neither do I see anything uniquely WC.  What makes this "escape" unrealistic is the reaction of the partner after having his grip broken.
> 
> You can see how similar this demonstration is to what is taught in BJJ/GJJ:
> 
> ...



No the BJJ defence is totally different , he is creating a frame by holding his hands up to his forehead to take the pressure off his neck.

In the Wing Chun defence  the frame is not needed , structural integrity is maintained by visualising a straight line from the coccyx to the top of the head , then the arms are just relaxed and lowered.

The reaction of the partner having his grip broken is because  he has just the felt a very large percentage of the demonstrators body mass fall straight onto his arms , remember what he says on the video about transferring body mass to the contact points.

Again , there is no demonstrating this on video you have to feel it for yourself.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Mostly because the only people who can do it are chunners on chunners. for some reason it never relates to competition. And as a fundamental process it should.
> 
> So there is something there that is getting stopped when it is actively resisted.



This might come as a bit of a revelation to you , but not everybody gives a rats **** about competition.


----------



## K-man (Aug 5, 2014)

Steve said:


> The full nelson escape is pretty fundamental.  Bring your elbows down.  I don't see anything mystical about it, but neither do I see anything uniquely WC.  What makes this "escape" unrealistic is the reaction of the partner after having his grip broken.


Just one is using strength and one isn't.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

Lol.  You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths.  On the one hand, we can't draw any conclusions from the wc demo because we just don't know.  But on the other, you can tell from the video that the Bjj demo is all strength.  Such arrogant bs.


----------



## K-man (Aug 5, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should
> 
> - apply leverage,
> - move back,
> ...


Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as *Mook* has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. There is a level after technique.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

Yeah. Okay.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> This might come as a bit of a revelation to you , but not everybody gives a rats **** about competition.



And we are back to the OP and a fundamental difference. 

MMA is structured on function. The fundamentals have to work fully resisted. And competition is the testing ground. And in that testing ground we do not find hundred year old grand masters throwing people around like rag dolls. 

Form follows function or whatever that SIG says.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tvCFrf9kJwI


----------



## drewtoby (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as *Mook* has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. *There is a level after technique.*
> :asian:



Another key difference or similarity in the TMA vs. MMA dichotomy. Perhaps the "level after technique" is different in TMA and MMA. I think it is not.

I have to agree with Steve saying

 "It's this insecurity that drives threads like this, wanting to compare  TMA to MMA where everyone picks a side and judges the other...  Vanity,  my friends, and insecurity.  That's my take, at least." 

even if I am trying to break down the barriers, so to speak, and see how each "style" leans to certain training methods, viewpoints, and goals yet each produce artists capable of defending themselves. *It is amazing to see just how many differences can be observed in the martial arts, yet despite the differences the common goal is met, sometimes sooner, and sometimes later.* However, what I find to be true is a lot of overlap. 

I have to admit that this thread has carried on longer than I would have liked, and has turned to comparing the differences. That was not my intention. I want to find the similarities with out looking down on the others, as is starting to happen.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you apply "full Nelson" on your opponent, you should
> 
> - apply leverage,
> - move back,
> ...




For the full nelson you can also gable grip and then neck crank them. Making is a pig of a thing if you are silly enough to get caught.


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> Another key difference or similarity in the TMA vs. MMA dichotomy. Perhaps the "level after technique" is different in TMA and MMA. I think it is not.
> 
> I have to agree with Steve saying
> 
> ...


I think that this isn't even about TMA vs MMA, but has become an insecure Wing Chun guy making it a WC vs MMA thread.   Frankly, I think that it could just as easily be WC vs Judo or WC vs Karate or WC vs Aikido...  WC vs anything NOT WC based upon the nature of the comments being made.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

K-man said:


> Regardless. We are talking of two different things. as *Mook* has repeated time after time, "if you haven't felt it you really don't understand what we are talking about". You are discussing technique alone. There is a level after technique.
> :asian:



Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.

Ben askren is kind of the guy for that.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QZAtfHDanMs


----------



## Steve (Aug 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.



Lol.  It can't be!  That's heresy, buddy.


----------



## drewtoby (Aug 5, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Interesting. Because the guys I know who do throw people around like rag dolls. Are specifically using technique only. Just they are quite good at the technique.



True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?



In a competition sense yes.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2014)

Steve said:


> Lol.  It can't be!  That's heresy, buddy.



Yeah apparently. But then competition obviously blocks chi. Because nobody can use it effectively.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah apparently. But then competition obviously blocks chi. Because nobody can use it effectively.



And apparently competition also blocks intelligent thought and the ability to assimilate new concepts.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> And apparently competition also blocks intelligent thought and the ability to assimilate new concepts.



Well that is the other theory.

That even though this fundamental training advantage exists and is freely available. Nobody has decided to use it. There has not been a single chunner punch a guy across the room and have this method become integrated into pretty much all sports that could take advantage of it.

And especially martial arts like MMA because that is pretty much all they do.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Well that is the other theory.
> 
> That even though this fundamental training advantage exists and is freely available. Nobody has decided to use it. There has not been a single chunner punch a guy across the room and have this method become integrated into pretty much all sports that could take advantage of it.
> 
> And especially martial arts like MMA because that is pretty much all they do.


Maybe Randy Coutoure(spelling) will make a comeback in about 50 years and retake the title^^.


----------



## K-man (Aug 6, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> True, then is the "level above technique" knowing the technique inside and out, what makes it work, the ability to adapt to different opponents, etc. so that it can be called upon flawlessly at any time, and new techniques can be created based upon the principals of learned technique?


Partly, but not new techniques as such. If you read up on Shuhari, I am talking of the 'ri' application.
:asian:


----------



## drewtoby (Aug 6, 2014)

drop bear said:


> In a competition sense yes.



That is our goal in Hapkido as well. Be able to apply and adapt to grabs, strikes, weapons, etc. Not much different at all. Just a different way to get to the goal.


----------



## Steve (Aug 6, 2014)

drewtoby said:


> That is our goal in Hapkido as well. Be able to apply and adapt to grabs, strikes, weapons, etc. Not much different at all. Just a different way to get to the goal.


Is Hapkido a TMA, a sport or both?


----------



## Ironcrane (Aug 6, 2014)

I have an idea. Not sure how well it works for more clear definition but, let's see.
Instead of MMA, and TMA, how about kickboxing/grappling styles, and non kickboxing/grappling styles? I can't think of an overall term for non kickboxing/grappling styles.


----------



## swordway (Aug 8, 2014)

(skribs) I agree with your entire post but would like to add, you left out one very important reason for studying ma, which, when I began training in the 1970's, was one of the most important: namely, the development of your own character - 'the way.' With the current fads focusing almost exclusively on self-defense, competition and the broadest definition of martial arts which subsequently includes firearms, helicopter gunships and blanket bombing, personal enlightenment, self discovery, defeating the self, etc, etc, seem to have disappeared off the agenda. 

When your focus is solely competition or self defense, when the emphasis is simply within the confines of what you can achieve, rather than the quest for something you can never achieve, the chances of you practicing for a lifetime diminish. When the emphases is obtaining the obtainable, your 'art' becomes simply another sport or hobby which one is likely to cease once your body can no longer win competitions or defeat the mugger. You mention Tai chi, I don't know much about this style but I do know the most common form of TC focuses on the internal development. And certainly, all the traditional ma I've studied, shotokan, yoseikan, Chang-hon tkd, entailed some attribute that went beyond the physical. With respect, your examples are mostly external - to do with, the body and when you mention 'art' it is without anything deeper than 'form' or 'technique'. To take BL's tacky line, you're focusing on the finger and not the moon.  I guess what I'm trying to say is you've missed the spiritual, internal, philosophical aspects of ma, most especially traditional martial arts, which at one time were a defining yard stick. I'm sure its just an over sight but it does seem a constant trend among younger martial artists.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 9, 2014)

The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.



Welcome back. So basically you are saying that one is new and the other has been around for a while.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 9, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.



Not necessarily. Certainly taekwondo is an example of a TMA that (in most schools) uses modern training methods.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 9, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Welcome back.



Thank you.



> So basically you are saying that one is new and the other has been around for a while.



The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 9, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not necessarily. Certainly taekwondo is an example of a TMA that (in most schools) uses modern training methods.



TKD is reformed Shotokan and Shito Ryu Karate, and it still uses its methods (katas for example), so I would still label it a TMA.

The problem with striking arts is that if they remove their traditional methods, they'd all start to look very similar (i.e. Kickboxing). Thus, I can understand their desire to remain traditional.


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.



Do you really think that the student experience in a modern shotokan school is the same as for students in the early 20th century?


----------



## K-man (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Thank you.
> The training methods, not the art itself. For example, Bjj is about as old as Shotokan. However Bjj incorporates modern training methods while Shotokan is still trained like it was back in the 1920s, which in turn are training methods from old Okinawan Karate and CMA. Muay Thai is thousands of years old, but most MT schools utilize very modern training methods taken from modern boxing and sports science.


Shotokan got its name from the dojo that was built in 1936 so 1920's is not really correct. Also Shotokan karate is nothing like any Okinawan karate I have seen and absolutely nothing like CMAs. Shotokan to me is a relatively modern form of martial art. The Japanese view of traditional is, "has the style changed from when the art was originally developed". As a result Isshin Ryu karate, that is relatively modern (1956), is recognised by the Okinawans as a traditional form of karate as it is still trained the way Shimabuku trained. 
:asian:


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 10, 2014)

i think that you would hope so - you would hope that the way it's taught and the people that turn up are motivated by the same things as they were a hundred years ago but i don't thinik it is.

in todays world everyone wants everything now and if it costs they just put it on the plastic and that's it sort of "i'll have a black belt" that'll be $2000 "ok here you go (hands over card)"  

i don't think that TMA's have got the "glitz" and "glamour" that the likes of MMA has gained which is part of the reason why they're taught differently.  TMA's are what some would call "old school" and MMA is the "new kid on the block".

i honestly don't think that you could do a fair comparison between TMA and MMA they both have their differences -- MMA borrows everything from various MA's so should it not be called a TMA given that all the moves started life in a TMA ?????


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 10, 2014)

Steve said:


> Do you really think that the student experience in a modern shotokan school is the same as for students in the early 20th century?



If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.



K-man said:


> Shotokan got its name from the dojo that was built in 1936 so 1920's is not really correct. Also Shotokan karate is nothing like any Okinawan karate I have seen and absolutely nothing like CMAs. Shotokan to me is a relatively modern form of martial art. The Japanese view of traditional is, "has the style changed from when the art was originally developed". As a result Isshin Ryu karate, that is relatively modern (1956), is recognised by the Okinawans as a traditional form of karate as it is still trained the way Shimabuku trained.



I said 1920s because Funakoshi was teaching his style in Japan in the 1920s. It just didn't get its name until the 1930s.

I would say that Shotoakn falls under the Japanese definition of a traditional martial art.


----------



## K-man (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.
> 
> I said 1920s because Funakoshi was teaching his style in Japan in the 1920s. It just didn't get its name until the 1930s.
> 
> I would say that Shotoakn falls under the Japanese definition of a traditional martial art.


The reason it is not 'traditional' from the Japanese perspective is that it is not taught as Funakoshi taught it or wanted it taught. It was changed by the JKA.



> Funakoshi's interpretation of the word kara to mean "empty" was reported to have caused some recoil in Okinawa, prompting Funakoshi to remain in Tokyo indefinitely. In 1949 Funakoshi's students created the Japan Karate Association (JKA), with Funakoshi as the honorary head of the organization. However in practise this organization was led by Masatoshi Nakayama. The JKA began formalizing Funakoshi's teachings. Funakoshi was not supportive of all of the changes that the JKA eventually made to his karate style.
> Gichin Funakoshi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So what changes did he oppose? Traditional Okinawan karate does not have competitive sparring and Funakoshi had a traditional Okinawan background.


> In 1927, three men, Miki, Bo and Hirayama decided that kata practice was not enough and tried to introduce jiyukumite (free-fighting). They devised protective clothig and used kendo masks in their matches in order to utilize full contact. Funakoshi heard about these bouts and, when he could not discourage such attempts at what he considered belittling to the art of karate, he stopped coming to the Shichi-Tokudo. Both Funakoshi and his top student, Otsuka, never showed their faces there again.
> Gichin Funakoshi - Shotokan Karate-Do International Federation



So traditional?   Or the same as the 1920s?   :hmm:


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If it isn't, the instructors do their best to make it as close to that experience as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK there is just a lot of fuzzy in the idea.

So if I do traditional MA but supliment it with cross fit. Am I still doing traditional?

Even easier. If I am doing traditional cripple some guy call them an ambulance or use modern first aid am I still doing traditional.

I think you will find very few styles that do not take advantage of modern training methods.


----------



## Buka (Aug 10, 2014)

"_What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet_."

Quote attributed to Middleweight fighter, Billy Shakes, during the dojo wars of 1597 between Montague's Martial Arts and Capulet Karate-Do.

I heard it got ugly at the end.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The difference is training methods. One incorporates thousand year old methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.



So what would you classify as a modern training method?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 10, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So what would you classify as a modern training method?



Generally what you find in the more sport-based styles like boxing, or MMA. No forms, no chambered punching, no training with ancient weaponry.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 10, 2014)

what ancient weaponry these days --- a stick is a stick a staff made out of whatever is to hand is modern cos the materials that were used are now depleted.

and training methods - there's a lot more science involved whether you know it or not - the stretches, the warm ups, the warm down and stretch off at the end of the session --- that's all modern and applicable to both formats.

from a physical point of view the only thing i can think of would be the intensity that training is done with.  every MA has it's forms and ways of doing things so you can't say that that's just in TMA --- MMAers might not stand in front of mirror practising them but they are there - it's just done in a different way.

and since MIXED MARTIAL ARTS was born out of combining tma's then it's traditional in all but application.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 10, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> what ancient weaponry these days --- a stick is a stick a staff made out of whatever is to hand is modern cos the materials that were used are now depleted.



We both know that the staff isn't the only ancient martial art weapon practiced. 



> and training methods - there's a lot more science involved whether you know it or not - the stretches, the warm ups, the warm down and stretch off at the end of the session --- that's all modern and applicable to both formats.



Where did I say that traditional styles use NO modern training practices?



> from a physical point of view the only thing i can think of would be the intensity that training is done with.  every MA has it's forms and ways of doing things so you can't say that that's just in TMA --- MMAers might not stand in front of mirror practising them but they are there - it's just done in a different way.



There's a pretty big difference between say shadow boxing/hitting the heavy bag/drilling, and doing a pre-arranged routine over and over again.



> and since MIXED MARTIAL ARTS was born out of combining tma's then it's traditional in all but application.



I doubt many traditional MA stylists/masters would be pleased with how MMA merges styles, drops techniques, and mashes everything together to the point where individual styles are almost lost completely.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> We both know that the staff isn't the only ancient martial art weapon practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And we are back to where either function follows form or form follows function.


----------



## Steve (Aug 10, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> We both know that the staff isn't the only ancient martial art weapon practiced.
> 
> Where did I say that traditional styles use NO modern training practices?
> 
> ...




I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.  It sounds like  you consider the following to be key characteristics of a TMA: study of obsolete/ancient weaponry, a canon of forms/kata, preservation of a canon of techniques untainted by any outside influence, chambered punching, no training techniques younger than 1000 years old.

Honestly, you're making traditional sound more and more like historical, cultural reenactment than any martial art.  I think that anyone training in a style that meets your criteria for TMA would have to do so for historical and/or cultural preservation over any practical, contemporary application.  The only things that really come to mind are maybe Kyudo, perhaps Western fencing... or maybe more like the stuff that ARMA does...  Wait.. they don't chamber punches.  So...  they're out.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.  It sounds like  you consider the following to be key characteristics of a TMA: study of obsolete/ancient weaponry, a canon of forms/kata, preservation of a canon of techniques untainted by any outside influence, chambered punching, no training techniques younger than 1000 years old.
> 
> Honestly, you're making traditional sound more and more like historical, cultural reenactment than any martial art.  I think that anyone training in a style that meets your criteria for TMA would have to do so for historical and/or cultural preservation over any practical, contemporary application.  The only things that really come to mind are maybe Kyudo, perhaps Western fencing... or maybe more like the stuff that ARMA does...  Wait.. they don't chamber punches.  So...  they're out.




Actually people who do cultural reenactment are fairly contemporary. I think it is actually getting hit with a weapon that forces change a bit.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUnPwoA6Lo


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding.  It sounds like  you consider the following to be key characteristics of a TMA: study of obsolete/ancient weaponry, a canon of forms/kata, preservation of a canon of techniques untainted by any outside influence, chambered punching, no training techniques younger than 1000 years old.
> 
> Honestly, you're making traditional sound more and more like historical, cultural reenactment than any martial art.  I think that anyone training in a style that meets your criteria for TMA would have to do so for historical and/or cultural preservation over any practical, contemporary application.  The only things that really come to mind are maybe Kyudo, perhaps Western fencing... or maybe more like the stuff that ARMA does...  Wait.. they don't chamber punches.  So...  they're out.



Well, yes. Those who practice TMAs tend to be far more concerned about historical and cultural reenactment or preservation over martial proficiency. Look at how many TMA practitioners scoff at Mixed Martial Arts or Bjj for example. Nevermind that both MMA and Bjj have proven their effectiveness over and over again in several venues, which is partly why they're inching out many TMA schools around the world. 

Its the same attitude that many traditional Jujitsu schools had towards Judo, ignoring the fact that Judo proved its effectiveness in several venues while many Jujitsu styles hid in the shadows and pointed fingers. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and take on a boxer like Gene Lebelle did back in the day. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and participate in NHB competitions like Vale Tudo like the Gracies did. No, its not about martial arts, its about retaining those ancient, mystical Asian practices because people think they're "magical".

The reverse punch is a prime example. Why train it over and over again? I've never seen anyone use it in a fight, and it simply isn't practical. Boxing/Kickboxing has given us far more practical and useful punches. If the goal is to train someone how to punch, why teach the reverse punch? Why not teach them general boxing techniques? By the same token, why are we wasting time learning katas when time would be better spent learning footwork and evasive techniques from boxing/kickboxing?

Keep in mind; It isn't always about age, its also about the mindset. Aikido is a pretty young art, but I would still label it a traditional MA because it has all the trappings of a TMA. Some Karate styles, Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean, would fall under that umbrella as well. Numerous older Jj styles would definitely fall under that label, especially the ones that revolve around weaponry. Iado is another one. Numerous CMA styles would definitely be considered TMA, and so forth.


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, yes. Those who practice TMAs tend to be far more concerned about historical and cultural reenactment or preservation over martial proficiency. Look at how many TMA practitioners scoff at Mixed Martial Arts or Bjj for example. Nevermind that both MMA and Bjj have proven their effectiveness over and over again in several venues, which is partly why they're inching out many TMA schools around the world.
> 
> Its the same attitude that many traditional Jujitsu schools had towards Judo, ignoring the fact that Judo proved its effectiveness in several venues while many Jujitsu styles hid in the shadows and pointed fingers. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and take on a boxer like Gene Lebelle did back in the day. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and participate in NHB competitions like Vale Tudo like the Gracies did. No, its not about martial arts, its about retaining those ancient, mystical Asian practices because people think they're "magical".
> 
> ...


Okay.  Fair enough.  It sounds like its' a matter of priorities, in your opinion.  A TMA would focus on preserving the art as much as possible over maintaining efficacy of the techniques.  In other words, it would be more important to do it the same way your instructor does it than to making any improvements or modifications to the style to adapt to changes in the world.  A non-traditional art would be more willing to adapt and change.  I can actually get behind this, if this is where you're headed.  

EDIT:  *Want to add that this doesn't mean a style isn't effective.  Just that preservation is the priority.*

I still don't think it's possible to entirely preserve anything over time without completely immersing oneself in it.  And even then, it's likely not going to be the same.  What I mean is, even if you look at organizations like the Shaolin, just by virtue of existing in a modern world, our opinions, values and outlooks are informed by things that are different than our ancestors.  Everything changes.  

 I like coffee, for example.  I have about 14 or so coffee or espresso makers, representing about 9 or so completely different techniques to make coffee/espresso.  I enjoy the low tech models as much or more than the high tech methods.  But even though I own an obsolete, low tech coffee maker that is from the early 20th century, I am not making early 20th century coffee.  The beans I buy are roasted differently are stored more efficiently and get to me far fresher than in the past.  I grind them myself.  The quality of my grinder is way better.  The water I use is cleaner.  Superficially, my experience is the same, but everything that informs the experience is shaped by the world in which we live.  

In the same way, a guy studying any style of MA in the early 21st century may think he's studying a style in the same way they did 100 or more years ago, but any similarity is superficial.


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Actually people who do cultural reenactment are fairly contemporary. I think it is actually getting hit with a weapon that forces change a bit.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUnPwoA6Lo


I am so happy I watched that video!  I was smiling the entire way through.  What's wrong with me?


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 11, 2014)

oh dear   the diving around on that is disgraceful tbph 

also wtf has football got to do with MMA vs TMA ?????  football is for vanity fairy queens and Muay Thai (which is traditional) is for people that like blood, sweat and broken bones (tears) 

don't think that i've ever seen an over payed "footballer" ever break sweat unlike anyone that trains martial arts..........


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> oh dear   the diving around on that is disgraceful tbph
> 
> also wtf has football got to do with MMA vs TMA ?????  football is for vanity fairy queens and Muay Thai (which is traditional) is for people that like blood, sweat and broken bones (tears)
> 
> don't think that i've ever seen an over payed "footballer" ever break sweat unlike anyone that trains martial arts..........




Watch for more than 10 seconds.


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Watch for more than 10 seconds.


Yeah.  That was badass.  Those guys were going for it.  So fun...


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 11, 2014)

sorry for not watching it all the way through first time  what an absolute riot - love it 

medieval combat now that's something that MMA should be like a total free for all   last man standing etc....... totally hilarious to watch  also MMA should consider the use of weaponry as the next step forward --- imagine that in a cage  proper cage rage 

notice though that everyone was wearing chain mail suits - and the weaponry really hasn't ever changed much even now 

i did see one guy looking at his tiny shield and then looking up at everyon else with big shields as if to say "i want more protection than this "


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 11, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Actually people who do cultural reenactment are fairly contemporary. I think it is actually getting hit with a weapon that forces change a bit.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUnPwoA6Lo



Boy, that brings back memories of Pennsic.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> Okay.  Fair enough.  It sounds like its' a matter of priorities, in your opinion.  A TMA would focus on preserving the art as much as possible over maintaining efficacy of the techniques.  In other words, it would be more important to do it the same way your instructor does it than to making any improvements or modifications to the style to adapt to changes in the world.  A non-traditional art would be more willing to adapt and change.  I can actually get behind this, if this is where you're headed.



For the most part, yes. Like once again, the Reverse Punch. Why do some styles teach this technique? Its the conerstone of many TMA hand techniques, and I have yet to see it used on a regular basis. Karatekas train the Reverse punch almost as much as we train the Guard. However, in Bjj we use the Guard CONSTANTLY while fighting, but when I see Karatekas spar, or in competition, they're using what looks like boxing techniques. Clearly, they're training that punch because its part of their art's tradition, and preservation of tradition takes precedence over usefulness.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2014)

donnaTKD said:


> sorry for not watching it all the way through first time  what an absolute riot - love it
> 
> medieval combat now that's something that MMA should be like a total free for all   last man standing etc....... totally hilarious to watch  also MMA should consider the use of weaponry as the next step forward --- imagine that in a cage  proper cage rage
> 
> ...




There was an idea to put a hema fight on an undercard once. Not sure how it went.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 12, 2014)

it'd be interesting to know if there's any footage of it to see just how bad/brutal it got 

my guess is that it wouldn't have been all that exciting cos in the footage it was more of a brawl with swords and shields


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 12, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Actually people who do cultural reenactment are fairly contemporary. I think it is actually getting hit with a weapon that forces change a bit.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUnPwoA6Lo


Hilarious, so what are the swords made of? Guessing not steel by the way they were swinging and hitting each other? Some sort of softer, lighter alloy?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> There's a pretty big difference between say shadow boxing/hitting the heavy bag/drilling, and doing a pre-arranged routine over and over again.



Which is why many traditional martial arts do both.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 12, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Which is why many traditional martial arts do both.



If you say so..... :shrug:

If we're talking about a traditional system, the *emphasis* would be on katas and forms.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If you say so..... :shrug:
> 
> If we're talking about a traditional system, the *emphasis* would be on katas and forms.



So you don't think traditional martial arts do shadow sparring and bag/pad work?:idunno:


----------



## K-man (Aug 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, yes. Those who practice TMAs tend to be far more concerned about historical and cultural reenactment or preservation over martial proficiency. Look at how many TMA practitioners scoff at Mixed Martial Arts or Bjj for example. Nevermind that both MMA and Bjj have proven their effectiveness over and over again in several venues, which is partly why they're inching out many TMA schools around the world.


I don't believe many MAs scoff at MMA or BJJ. Why would they? 



Hanzou said:


> Its the same attitude that many traditional Jujitsu schools had towards Judo, ignoring the fact that Judo proved its effectiveness in several venues while many Jujitsu styles hid in the shadows and pointed fingers. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and take on a boxer like Gene Lebelle did back in the day. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and participate in NHB competitions like Vale Tudo like the Gracies did. No, its not about martial arts, its about retaining those ancient, mystical Asian practices because people think they're "magical".


Could it possibly be because those MAs aren't interested in competition?



Hanzou said:


> The reverse punch is a prime example. Why train it over and over again? I've never seen anyone use it in a fight, and it simply isn't practical. Boxing/Kickboxing has given us far more practical and useful punches. If the goal is to train someone how to punch, why teach the reverse punch? Why not teach them general boxing techniques? By the same token, why are we wasting time learning katas when time would be better spent learning footwork and evasive techniques from boxing/kickboxing?


Whether it's practical or not, we don't train it at all so why would you say that. Even the Japanese Goju fighting stance is almost the same as a boxer's.  And, you derogatory comment on kata demonstrates your total ignorance of what kata is.



Hanzou said:


> Keep in mind; It isn't always about age, its also about the mindset. Aikido is a pretty young art, but I would still label it a traditional MA because it has all the trappings of a TMA. Some Karate styles, Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean, would fall under that umbrella as well. Numerous older Jj styles would definitely fall under that label, especially the ones that revolve around weaponry. Iado is another one. Numerous CMA styles would definitely be considered TMA, and so forth.


How do you define _traditional_? If something is quite different from where it began, like Shotokan for instance, how is that different to BJJ?



Hanzou said:


> For the most part, yes. Like once again, the Reverse Punch. Why do some styles teach this technique? Its the conerstone of many TMA hand techniques, and I have yet to see it used on a regular basis. Karatekas train the Reverse punch almost as much as we train the Guard. However, in Bjj we use the Guard CONSTANTLY while fighting, but when I see Karatekas spar, or in competition, they're using what looks like boxing techniques. Clearly, they're training that punch because its part of their art's tradition, and preservation of tradition takes precedence over usefulness.


You have no idea of karate training and this post demonstrates that yet again. Not all karate has competition. None of your comments apply to my traditional training.



Hanzou said:


> Generally what you find in the more sport-based styles like boxing, or MMA. No forms, no chambered punching, no training with ancient weaponry.


So by this definition Kyokushin karate and Shotokan karate are where?



Hanzou said:


> We both know that the staff isn't the only ancient martial art weapon practiced.
> 
> Where did I say that traditional styles use NO modern training practices?
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should drop into a traditional dojo some time. And by the way, our prearranged routine is very similar to your drill, if it is taught correctly.



Hanzou said:


> If you say so..... :shrug:
> 
> If we're talking about a traditional system, the *emphasis* would be on katas and forms.


And when you consider that a kata is a fighting system, why wouldn't we put a lot of emphasis on that? Are you even aware that traditional karate is basically a grappling art!


----------



## drop bear (Aug 13, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> Hilarious, so what are the swords made of? Guessing not steel by the way they were swinging and hitting each other? Some sort of softer, lighter alloy?



Nope. steel I believe.


----------



## donnaTKD (Aug 13, 2014)

that's why they were wearing chainmail suits


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So you don't think traditional martial arts do shadow sparring and bag/pad work?:idunno:



Where did I say that?

I said the emphasis is on katas/forms over shadow sparring and bag/pad work. That doesn't mean that all TMAs don't practice the latter two.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Could it possibly be because those MAs aren't interested in competition?



More like those MAs don't want to lose their unique identity, which is fine.



> Whether it's practical or not, we don't train it at all so why would you say that. Even the Japanese Goju fighting stance is almost the same as a boxer's.



Which begs the question; If there's one fighting stance, why train several of them?



> And, you derogatory comment on kata demonstrates your total ignorance of what kata is.



You keep saying this, yet you avoid the direct point that I'm making. If the goal is to fight, why waste time learning stances and techniques you're never going to use in a fight?



> How do you define _traditional_? If something is quite different from where it began, like Shotokan for instance, how is that different to BJJ?



Because Bjj constantly incorporates new techniques into its syllabus if its found to be effective. Shotokan retains antiquated techniques regardless of their effectiveness in the name of tradition.



> So by this definition Kyokushin karate and Shotokan karate are where?



They're both traditional styles, despite Kyokushin's competitive side.



> Perhaps you should drop into a traditional dojo some time. And by the way, our prearranged routine is very similar to your drill, if it is taught correctly.



Bjj drills are filled with techniques that a practitioner uses constantly. I have yet to see a kata/form practitioner breaking out into kata when they're fightning someone. They don't even do it when they're sparring in class.

Kyokushin Sparring;





Kyokushin Kata:





Big difference. Are you going to argue that those guys sparring weren't taught correctly?

EDIT: Nidan (2nd degree BB) Goju Ryu Sparring;





Goju Ryu Kata:





Again, big difference.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 13, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Nope. steel I believe.





donnaTKD said:


> that's why they were wearing chainmail suits


Spring steel, nice and flexible. Thought it would be way too dangerous to use anything more tempered.

http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/sword-steels.html


----------



## K-man (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> More like those MAs don't want to lose their unique identity, which is fine.


You know very little of TMAs if you think that is the primary difference.



Hanzou said:


> Which begs the question; If there's one fighting stance, why train several of them?


Mainly because the stances are used in grappling, not in competitive sparring. 



Hanzou said:


> You keep saying this, yet you avoid the direct point that I'm making. If the goal is to fight, why waste time learning stances and techniques you're never going to use in a fight?


Every stance and every technique we train we use in fighting so the time spent training them is not wasted. 



Hanzou said:


> Because Bjj constantly incorporates new techniques into its syllabus if its found to be effective. Shotokan retains antiquated techniques regardless of their effectiveness in the name of tradition.


Shotokan had changed markedly over time and is probably the biggest and most dynamic karate style out there. It has evolved with time and I'm not sure that it had any 'antiquated' techniques. You just don't understand the training.



Hanzou said:


> Their both traditional styles, despite Kyokushin's competitive side.


Well I would argue that Kyokushin maybe as it is pretty much as Mas Oyama left it. Shotokan is nothing like the system Funakoshi left.



Hanzou said:


> Bjj drills are filled with techniques that a practitioner uses constantly, like "shrimping" for example. I have yet to see a kata/form practitioner breaking out into kata when their fightning someone. They don't even do it when they're sparring in class.
> 
> Kyokushin Sparring;
> 
> ...


So basically you are saying that kata is training for competition sparring. Because of your bias and your ignorance of traditional karate you don't even see that they are two totally different things. Kata taught properly is for life and death fighting. Sparring is for sport. Some styles such as Kyokushin keep the kata because without kata it wouldn't be karate. But like most Japanese karate that is focused on competition they don't teach the kata application.

Here is some of our kata training ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zCKsvOrjuEE


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> You know very little of TMAs if you think that is the primary difference.
> 
> Mainly because the stances are used in grappling, not in competitive sparring.
> 
> ...


Nice clip.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Mainly because the stances are used in grappling, not in competitive sparring.



Except that grappling side isn't displayed even within dojo sparring. So how do you practice it? Is it only during kata? 

As a grappler, I find that argument quite dubious.



> Every stance and every technique we train we use in fighting so the time spent training them is not wasted.



And yet when you're fighting you look like kickboxers. Those Goju Nidans were throwing boxing punches and basic kicks from a general fighting stance you see throughout martial arts. Then you see the kata and its filled with elegant, exotic hand movements and stances. Again, were those Nidans simply trained poorly?



> Shotokan had changed markedly over time and is probably the biggest and  most dynamic karate style out there. It has evolved with time and I'm  not sure that it had any 'antiquated' techniques. You just don't  understand the training.



Shotokan suffers from the same issues that many traditional karate styles suffer from; Baggage. You could dump dozens of traditional Shotokan techniques, and still end up looking like this when you fight;








> So basically you are saying that kata is training for competition sparring. Because of your bias and your ignorance of traditional karate you don't even see that they are two totally different things. Kata taught properly is for life and death fighting. Sparring is for sport. Some styles such as Kyokushin keep the kata because without kata it wouldn't be karate. But like most Japanese karate that is focused on competition they don't teach the kata application.
> 
> Here is some of our kata training ...
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zCKsvOrjuEE



Any videos of two Goju stylists using this in dojo sparring/randori? This stuff looks great on a compliant, non resisting target, but where's the practice on a resisting, non-compliant target?


----------



## K-man (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Except that grappling side isn't displayed even within dojo sparring. So how do you practice it? Is it only during kata?
> 
> As a grappler, I find that argument quite dubious.


You really have no idea yet you keep burrowing in.  Dojo sparring is something that is practised by sport based styles. Okinawan Goju for example doesn't have that sort of sparring. The basic kata you see is not what you use for fighting. I posted one of Taira Sensei's clips for you and there are many others if you care to look. I'm not going to spend a lot of time telling you how we use kata when in reality you couldn't give a damn. You are in your own little world taking shots at the way TMAs train, yet you have never seen that type of training.


What is grappling? If you are talking of ground fighting, we do very little. Kata is all about stand up grappling. It only applies to close contact fighting. We don't want to go to the ground if that can be avoided.



Hanzou said:


> And yet when you're fighting you look like kickboxers. Those Goju Nidans were throwing boxing punches and basic kicks from a general fighting stance you see throughout martial arts. Then you see the kata and its filled with elegant, exotic hand movements and stances. Again, were those Nidans simply trained poorly?
> 
> Any videos of two Goju stylists using this in dojo sparring/randori? This stuff looks great on a compliant, non resisting target, but where's the practice on a resisting, non-compliant target?


You have never seen TMAs fighting like kickboxers because we don't have that type of sparring in Okinawan Goju. So the guys you are referring to are most like Japanese Goju. At this time I can't access videos so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, but if it is what I think, then no, they are not poorly trained. They are probably training for competition.

As to the put down in your last sentence .. we have been there, done that, in recent discussions. You can go find it if you like but I wouldn't waste my time going over it again for someone who is just out to bag TMAs. Suffice to say we train against full resistance, non-compliance, just not in the ring. There is no video of such sparring as we do not train that way. The video I posted is showing training, not full speed application.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> More like those MAs don't want to lose their unique identity, which is fine.



No it.s more like those MA's aren't interested in competition!


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> You really have no idea yet you keep burrowing in.  Dojo sparring is something that is practised by sport based styles. Okinawan Goju for example doesn't have that sort of sparring. The basic kata you see is not what you use for fighting. I posted one of Taira Sensei's clips for you and there are many others if you care to look. I'm not going to spend a lot of time telling you how we use kata when in reality you couldn't give a damn. You are in your own little world taking shots at the way TMAs train, yet you have never seen that type of training.



Instead of telling me, you could simply show me.

And you are correct; I have never seen that type of training. The training I've seen and experienced during my time in karate is reinforced by the videos I've posted. When we engaged in sparring (kumite), we looked like those people in the videos I've posted. When we had a grandmaster come in for a seminar, he or she looked like that video of Taira Sensei you posted. When we did kata, it looked like that video of Antonio Diaz I posted.

The only piece missing here is the video of karate stylists (ANY karate stylist) performing the movements of Taira Sensei (or something similar) on a non compliant target. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Now you're telling me that you guys don't spar (kumite) in the dojo at all? How do you practice your techniques then? How do you know what you're learning even works on a non-compliant, moving target? 



> What is grappling? If you are talking of ground fighting, we do very little. Kata is all about stand up grappling. It only applies to close contact fighting. We don't want to go to the ground if that can be avoided.



Judo, wrestling, Bjj, etc. I find the argument dubious because in my experience you can't practice grappling via solo kata. You need to practice with a resisting, non compliant partner (randori) or you're wasting your time.



> You have never seen TMAs fighting like kickboxers because we don't have that type of sparring in Okinawan Goju. So the guys you are referring to are most like Japanese Goju. At this time I can't access videos so I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to, but if it is what I think, then no, they are not poorly trained. They are probably training for competition.



This isn't competition;






That is a test for sandan. Again, I find it interesting that during a test for a rank above instructor level, the practitioner isn't displaying many of the techniques you discuss, or displayed within kata.

Then, again, these guys are probably just Japanese style Goju right?



> As to the put down in your last sentence .. we have been there, done that, in recent discussions. You can go find it if you like but I wouldn't waste my time going over it again for someone who is just out to bag TMAs. Suffice to say we train against full resistance, non-compliance, just not in the ring. There is no video of such sparring as we do not train that way. The video I posted is showing training, not full speed application.



There is no put down in that last sentence.

Full speed application is part of training. The video you showed is a demonstration. Both of which encompass training. Demonstrate, practice, apply. 

Example; My instructor demonstrates a choke to the class. The class practices the choke. During rolling/randori/sparring the class applies the choke at full speed against a resisting partner.

The issue here is that the application doesn't match the other two parts in traditional Karate. Why is that?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> No it.s more like those MA's aren't interested in competition!



Competition has little to do with it. If karatekas trained the way they fight (or they appear to fight in every instance I've seen or experienced), they wouldn't be much different than kickboxers.

I can understand the desire not to become kickboxers.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, yes. Those who practice TMAs tend to be far more concerned about historical and cultural reenactment or preservation over martial proficiency. Look at how many TMA practitioners scoff at Mixed Martial Arts or Bjj for example. Nevermind that both MMA and Bjj have proven their effectiveness over and over again in several venues, which is partly why they're inching out many TMA schools around the world.
> 
> Its the same attitude that many traditional Jujitsu schools had towards Judo, ignoring the fact that Judo proved its effectiveness in several venues while many Jujitsu styles hid in the shadows and pointed fingers. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and take on a boxer like Gene Lebelle did back in the day. I didn't see too many Jujitsu schools step up and participate in NHB competitions like Vale Tudo like the Gracies did. No, its not about martial arts, its about retaining those ancient, mystical Asian practices because people think they're "magical".
> 
> Keep in mind; It isn't always about age, its also about the mindset. Aikido is a pretty young art, but I would still label it a traditional MA because it has all the trappings of a TMA. Some Karate styles, Okinawan, Japanese, and Korean, would fall under that umbrella as well. Numerous older Jj styles would definitely fall under that label, especially the ones that revolve around weaponry. Iado is another one. Numerous CMA styles would definitely be considered TMA, and so forth.



I will tell you some things about the art I study, which is trained as a traditional martial art of self defence.

- We care nothing about historical and cultural reenactments.
- We have absolutely no interest in 'proving' anything in any kind of sporting venue. It gets 'proven' every time it gets used successfully in a self defence situation, and it has on many occasions. 
- There is nothing mystical about it.
- We have some boxing like techniques.
- The emphasis is on technique (martial proficiency) in everything we do.
- We may use chambered punches from the hip in the basics and patterns but not in sparring or self defence, they are used from the guard. A close inspection of all of our hand techniques will show that there are actually very few that actually start from the hip.
- Our sparring does not look much like kickboxing.
- We practice drills and basics and sparring more than we do patterns.
- We do not do many fancy kicks. There is nothing pretty, it is a very straight forward, to the point martial art. Techniques and strategies being effective is much more important than looking pretty or being historical.
- We do not train weapons.
 - Our techniques and training methods are not set in stone. Just about every action day (grading) Master Rhee changes something to improve the art, either the way to perform a technique better or a change in training method to make the art easier to teach. Just last year he showed us 101 uses for pool noodles in training.



Hanzou said:


> The reverse punch is a prime example. Why train it over and over again?  I've never seen anyone use it in a fight, and it simply isn't practical.  Boxing/Kickboxing has given us far more practical and useful punches.  If the goal is to train someone how to punch, why teach the reverse  punch? Why not teach them general boxing techniques? By the same token,  why are we wasting time learning katas when time would be better spent  learning footwork and evasive techniques from boxing/kickboxing?



Why would you not train a simple, powerful hand strike over and over again? You train it over and over again to improve it, that's why. The reverse punch and the boxing straight punch are not all that different. I have used it in a fight and it certainly was practical.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I will tell you some things about the art I study, which is trained as a traditional martial art of self defence.
> 
> - We care nothing about historical and cultural reenactments.
> - We have absolutely no interest in 'proving' anything in any kind of sporting venue. It gets 'proven' every time it gets used successfully in a self defence situation, and it has on many occasions.
> ...



Interesting...

Rhee Tae Kwon Do - Perth Western Australia

Is this your school? 




> Why would you not train a simple, powerful hand strike over and over again? You train it over and over again to improve it, that's why. The reverse punch and the boxing straight punch are not all that different. I have used it in a fight and it certainly was practical.



They're actually very different. The reverse punch begins at the hip, leaving your upper body wide open. The boxer's straight punch is performed from the shoulder, yet keeps the upper body protected, and comes out far more quickly, and is more applicable for combination strikes.

The result?






So the question is; If the goal is to perform a powerful straight punch, why not train like the boxer since it is the superior training method, and produces the superior results?


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I will tell you some things about the art I study, which is trained as a traditional martial art of self defence.
> 
> - We care nothing about historical and cultural reenactments.
> - We have absolutely no interest in 'proving' anything in any kind of sporting venue. It gets 'proven' every time it gets used successfully in a self defence situation, and it has on many occasions.
> ...


It sounds to me like you're describing a style that many would not consider TMA.  What, in your opinion, makes this a "traditional martial art of self defence" as opposed to a "non-traditional martial art of self defence."  Can you give some examples of other styles you would consider traditional and non-traditional?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Rhee Tae Kwon Do - Perth Western Australia
> 
> Is this your school?



That is the region where I started out for the first 4 or 5 years until I stopped training for a while, then I moved south, did Hapkido for 14 months then came back to my original art in another region in the Perth southern suburbs;

Rhee Taekwondo Peel Region (the website needs a bit of work)




Hanzou said:


> They're actually very different. The reverse punch begins at the hip, leaving your upper body wide open. The boxer's straight punch is performed from the shoulder, yet keeps the upper body protected, and comes out far more quickly, and is more applicable for combination strikes.
> 
> The result?
> 
> ...



When practiced in the basics, line work and patterns the reverse punch is performed from the hip. In sparring and practical applications it is performed from the guard position at the shoulder, keeping the upper body protected, so how is that very different? There are many other techniques that permit fast combination strikes as well. Why not train like a boxer to throw a powerful punch? Because it is not the only way to train powerful punches and why should you limit yourself to just punching when there are many other powerful hand strikes that can be used as well.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> When practiced in the basics, line work and patterns the reverse punch is performed from the hip. In sparring and practical applications it is performed from the guard position at the shoulder, keeping the upper body protected, so how is that very different?



Again, why would you practice it differently than how you're applying it? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive? 



> There are many other techniques that permit fast combination strikes as well. Why not train like a boxer to throw a powerful punch? Because it is not the only way to train powerful punches and why should you limit yourself to just punching when there are many other powerful hand strikes that can be used as well.



Because as evidenced by karate sparring, you can't use those hand techniques in an efficient manner. At least not at the level necessary to apply it in a relatively stable, yet resisting environment. And I'm talking black belts not being able to use those techniques efficiently. So why train them at all? Just train the punches you're actually using while sparring; Jab, straight, hook, uppercut.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> It sounds to me like you're describing a style that many would not consider TMA.  What, in your opinion, makes this a "traditional martial art of self defence" as opposed to a "non-traditional martial art of self defence."  Can you give some examples of other styles you would consider traditional and non-traditional?



It is never quite that simple, there are always traditional and non-traditional elements in most traditional marital arts It is not so much the individual techniques and training methods that make an art traditional but rather how it is taught and presented and some self defence arts also have some sporting elements to various degrees. I do not know enough about most other martial arts to quantitatively say which ones are more traditional than others but if I were to hazard to guess then I would say:

Traditional - Some varieties of Karate, Kung Fu, Taekwondo JJJ.
Non-Traditional - RSBD's


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again, why would you practice it differently than how you're applying it? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive?



I like to think of it this way; The basic techniques (from the hip for example) are like full words, the sparring versions, abbreviations (or shorthand). If you want to speak efficiently you speak in abbreviations. Now there are two ways you can get to that point; you can either, a) start out learning just the abbreviations or b) learn the full words first and then abbreviate them later. Option a will get you to that point faster but option b will give you a better understanding of what the conversation is about in the long run.



Hanzou said:


> Because as evidenced by karate sparring, you can't use those hand techniques in an efficient manner. At least not at the level necessary to apply it in a relatively stable, yet resisting environment. And I'm talking black belts not being able to use those techniques efficiently. So why train them at all? Just train the punches you're actually using while sparring; Jab, straight, hook, uppercut.



The Karate sparring you have seen is not the only sparring around. Back fist, knife hand strike, reverse knife hand (ridge hand) strike etc, these are the the techniques we ARE actually using in sparring, along with the Jab, straight, hook, uppercut.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I like to think of it this way; The basic techniques (from the hip for example) are like full words, the sparring versions, abbreviations (or shorthand). If you want to speak efficiently you speak in abbreviations. Now there are two ways you can get to that point; you can either, a) start out learning just the abbreviations or b) learn the full words first and then abbreviate them later. Option a will get you to that point faster but option b will give you a better understanding of what the conversation is about in the long run.



And yet Boxers are incredibly proficient and powerful punchers, arguably far more proficient than any TKD stylist. However, they train from the "abbreviated" form, not from the "full word" form that you describe above. You even argued that your school embraces boxing concepts, indicating that even you accept this reality on some level. 

Wouldn't that disprove everything you've said here? If boxers can become incredible punchers training the abbreviated form, shouldn't your school discard the less effective training method for the more effective training method?

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you on one hand admit that the reverse punch is inefficient for actual fighting, and then turn around and try to make it relevant as a training method only. We both know that the reverse punch was designed to be applied exactly as it was trained. The harsh reality is that western boxing simply had a superior method and application to the straight punch, but traditionalist refuse to let the inferior method (the reverse punch) go.



> The Karate sparring you have seen is not the only sparring around.



Well again, please show me this other type of sparring I'm not seeing. The videos I've posted are pretty consistent from style to style karate-wise, and they come from dojos around the world. They also match up with my personal experiences with karate and similar arts (TKD, TSD). I'd be more than willing to be exposed to some hidden form of karate I'm just not seeing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> And yet Boxers are incredibly proficient and powerful punchers, arguably far more proficient than any TKD stylist. However, they train from the "abbreviated" form, not from the "full word" form that you describe above.



To push the analogy to its elastic limit; boxers have a limited  vocabulary. Boxers are incredibly proficient and powerful punchers  because that is primarily what they focus on, they are not very proficient at  kicking. We have had many students from other martial arts train with  us in the past, including kickboxing, and no one has shown us up yet.



Hanzou said:


> You even argued that your school embraces boxing concepts, indicating that even you accept this reality on some level.



I believe the phrase was "We have some boxing like techniques"



Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that disprove everything you've said here? If boxers can become incredible punchers training the abbreviated form, shouldn't your school discard the less effective training method for the more effective training method?



If it aint broke don't fix it! There has never been any direct comparative tests between RTKD hand strikes and boxing punches, all I know is that we can hit pretty damn hard. I doubt there would be many people who could withstand a full power back fist to the temple, so why would we want to discard that?




Hanzou said:


> Furthermore, I find it interesting that you on one hand *admit that the reverse punch is inefficient for actual fighting*, and then turn around and try to make it relevant as a training method only. We both know that the reverse punch was designed to be applied exactly as it was trained. The harsh reality is that western boxing simply had a superior method and application to the straight punch, but traditionalist refuse to let the inferior method (the reverse punch) go.



That is a strawman argument it is not what I said at all. It is the same punch but starting from a different position. There are many reasons to teach punching from the hip, if you search some of my posts on previous threads you will find where I have given several reasons.



Hanzou said:


> Well again, please show me this other type of sparring I'm not seeing. The videos I've posted are pretty consistent from style to style karate-wise, and they come from dojos around the world. They also match up with my personal experiences with karate and similar arts (TKD, TSD). I'd be more than willing to be exposed to some hidden form of karate I'm just not seeing.



That is a hasty generalization. You have a very narrow view of karate, and martial arts in general from a limited sample size.


----------



## Buka (Aug 13, 2014)

I love reverse punches. I love overhand rights and left hooks. My favorite punch is the uppercut.

When  I was a white belt we did some training from a horse stance, throwing  reverse punches, paying close attention to the alignment of the wrist  and being sure the front two knuckles, and only the front two knuckles,  were the striking surface. We also did a lot of push ups, we did a lot  of pull ups, we did a lot of stretching. But we never did a push up in a  fight, nor a pull up, or a stretch, or a horse stance. 

I've been boxing almost as  long as I've been doing Martial Arts. Spent far to long in front of a  speed bag. But never once in a fight, or in sparring, did I hold my  hands the way they are used on a speed bag, or punch anyone in even  remotely that way. I've spent a jillion hours skipping rope for  endurance and footwork. But never once in my life did I ever use the  foot motion that's particular to skipping rope in the footwork of  sparring, or actual fighting.

I'm sure most of us do, or  have done, bag work and focus mitt work. But we hit people a little  differently. Some may say it's the same, but it's not. You hit a bag  like a bag, a mitt like a mitt, a shield like a shield and a person like  a person. Even if it's the same punch, they are all done a little differently.

As  for a reverse punch being inefficient for actual fighting, that would  depend on the puncher. I know some folks who throw a pretty good reverse  punch. Just left one of those guys a couple hours ago at his office.  He's in the NFL Hall of Fame and has been practicing Martial arts since  he was a kid. As good as he was as a linebacker, he's always been an  even better karate man and sure knows a lot about hard contact. He's got  a nice reverse punch. As do his students who are more the size of you  and I.

As far as western boxing simply having a superior  method and application to the straight punch.....the straight punch came  fairly late in history, as did the left hook. I learned the straight  punch through Martial Arts first. And we can't use the argument that if  the boxer throws his and I throw mine, blah, blah....cuz, as I've said,  I've done a lot of boxing. He ain't going to throw much of a straight  right hand while he's sitting on his *** or trying to figure out what  the hell this arm triangle is.

I fail to see any argument  against either a straight right from boxing or a reverse punch from  Martial Arts. Having eaten many of both, they both pretty much suck to get hit with.


----------



## K-man (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Instead of telling me, you could simply show me.?


So again, if it's not on YouTube it doesn't exist! Perhaps you need to visit a dojo that teaches the way I have described or visit Okinawa for yourself. It was only after seeing Okinawan karate that I changed styles.



Hanzou said:


> And you are correct; I have never seen that type of training. The training I've seen and experienced during my time in karate is reinforced by the videos I've posted. When we engaged in sparring (kumite), we looked like those people in the videos I've posted. When we had a grandmaster come in for a seminar, he or she looked like that video of Taira Sensei you posted. When we did kata, it looked like that video of Antonio Diaz I posted.?


So what style of karate did you practise, at what age and for how long? We don't have any Grandmasters that I know of, so you are very fortunate. And I know of only a handful of people that teach the way Taira does, Iain Abernethy being one of them.



Hanzou said:


> The only piece missing here is the video of karate stylists (ANY karate stylist) performing the movements of Taira Sensei (or something similar) on a non compliant target. I don't think that's too much to ask.?


Then take some time and look for it on YouTube since you want to see it. I don't think you'll find much that will satisfy you. However, a lot of the stuff Taira is doing is against a fair degree of resistance. When we train the bunkai with experienced guys it is fast but again, you can't just be smacking your partner in the head. It is very hard to defend against the strikes.



Hanzou said:


> Now you're telling me that you guys don't spar (kumite) in the dojo at all? How do you practice your techniques then? How do you know what you're learning even works on a non-compliant, moving target? ?


The Okinawan philosophy is to enter and engage and not disengage so we do not spar in the way you have been posting. We used to spar that way when we were training under the Goju Kai. Our sparring is just as intense but in a different way. 



Hanzou said:


> Judo, wrestling, Bjj, etc. I find the argument dubious because in my experience you can't practice grappling via solo kata. You need to practice with a resisting, non compliant partner (randori) or you're wasting your time.?



Obviously you don't practise grappling without a partner. That is why there is the bunkai or application for the kata. The kata is the system. You have to learn how to use the system and for that you need an experienced instructor and a partner. And, yes, your partner is resisting. 



Hanzou said:


> This isn't competition;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly! That is the original style of Goju I trained. The badge at the bottom is the Goju Kai emblem and the head instructor was graded in Japan if you visit the website. Goju Kai are very big into that type of sparring. We used to do that every training session. It is continuous sparring rather than point sparring but the principles are the same. You won't find any grappling in that style of kumite. Occasionally they might catch a foot and take the guy down but that's about it. And, thanks for another put down ... it is not 'just' Japanese style Goju. Gogen Yamaguchi did a fantastic job in promoting Goju Kai around the world. Goju Kai is one of the world' stop karate styles, but it is heavily sport oriented.



Hanzou said:


> There is no put down in that last sentence.
> 
> Full speed application is part of training. The video you showed is a demonstration. Both of which encompass training. Demonstrate, practice, apply.
> 
> ...


It was a put down and it was offensive. I haven't seen video of army guys breaking each other's necks during training either. It was an ex commando who showed me how to do that and the kata are full of neck cranks. How am I meant to train them at full strength and speed? Some things you can train at full speed and power, some things you can't.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> To push the analogy to its elastic limit; boxers have a limited  vocabulary. Boxers are incredibly proficient and powerful punchers  because that is primarily what they focus on, they are not very proficient at  kicking. We have had many students from other martial arts train with  us in the past, including kickboxing, and no one has shown us up yet.



Nor do boxers claim to be proficient at kicking.  I'm sure if a boxer wanted to learn kicking, they'd probably learn from TKD and emulate its training techniques. However that wasn't my point. My point is that you've already admitted that the boxing method is the superior method to the traditional method, yet you hold on to the traditional method for preservation purposes.




> I believe the phrase was "We have some boxing like techniques"



You also stated that while sparring you straight punch from the guard position. You went on to presume that there's no difference between the boxing straight punch and the reverse punch. After that belief was proven false, you're now backpedaling into saying that your TKD system with its traditional methodology somehow has a punching system on par with boxing/kickboxing.  



> If it aint broke don't fix it! There has never been any direct comparative tests between RTKD hand strikes and boxing punches, all I know is that we can hit pretty damn hard. I doubt there would be many people who could withstand a full power back fist to the temple, so why would we want to discard that?



Well clearly its broke, since you're not using the chambered reverse punch while sparring. You fixed it by adapting a sport technique instead. Your school discovered this either by having a student who used boxing-like techniques your top students couldn't counter, or further in the past a western boxer beat the crap out of an TKD stylist and its trickled down to the modern day. In either case, there's a reason you're not punching like you're training to punch.



> That is a strawman argument it is not what I said at all. It is the same punch but starting from a different position. There are many reasons to teach punching from the hip, if you search some of my posts on previous threads you will find where I have given several reasons.



Sorry, but the reverse punch and the boxer's straight punch is not the same punch. You could argue that they share some principles, but it sure as heck isn't the same.

I'm sure there are many reasons to punch from the hip. Unfortunately all those reasons are pointless if you're supplanting it with a different punch entirely.



> That is a hasty generalization. You have a very narrow view of karate, and martial arts in general from a limited sample size.



Yes, I keep hearing that criticism. Yet for some reason the ones that keep repeating that can provide no evidence to the contrary outside of anecdotal accounts and personal opinion.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> So again, if it's not on YouTube it doesn't exist! Perhaps you need to visit a dojo that teaches the way I have described or visit Okinawa for yourself. It was only after seeing Okinawan karate that I changed styles.



Simply a long winded way of saying you have no objective evidence to back up your claims?



> So what style of karate did you practise, at what age and for how long? We don't have any Grandmasters that I know of, so you are very fortunate. And I know of only a handful of people that teach the way Taira does, Iain Abernethy being one of them.



For the better part of the decade I trained in Shotokan, TKD, and TSD. I received a BB in Shotokan. The seminar I spoke of was during my TKD years where our GM popped in and did some fancy stuff on a willing participant.



> Then take some time and look for it on YouTube since you want to see it. I don't think you'll find much that will satisfy you. However, a lot of the stuff Taira is doing is against a fair degree of resistance. When we train the bunkai with experienced guys it is fast but again, you can't just be smacking your partner in the head. It is very hard to defend against the strikes.



All I'm asking for is some video of Goju Ryu practitioners applying what Taira did (or bunkai in general) on resisting opponents during a sparring session. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

I'm sure I could find some seminars of one of the Gracies where they demonstrate techniques, and then find a video of students applying those techniques on resisting opponents.

Different arts I suppose....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> . My point is that you've already admitted that the boxing method is the superior method to the traditional method, yet you hold on to the traditional method for preservation purposes.



 Anotherr strawman argument. I have admitted no such thing other than boxers punch good. I hold to the traditional method because it works.




Hanzou said:


> You also stated that while sparring you straight punch from the guard position. You went on to presume that there's no difference between the boxing straight punch and the reverse punch. After that belief was proven false, you're now backpedaling into saying that your TKD system with its traditional methodology somehow has a punching system on par with boxing/kickboxing.



I said there was not much difference between the reverse punch and boxing straight punch, which is different to saying exactly the same. I said that the two versions of our punch are the same punch, but from different starting positions.



Hanzou said:


> Well clearly its broke, since you're not using the chambered reverse punch while sparring. You fixed it by adapting a sport technique instead. Your school discovered this either by having a student who used boxing-like techniques your top students couldn't counter, or further in the past a western boxer beat the crap out of an TKD stylist and its trickled down to the modern day. In either case, there's a reason you're not punching like you're training to punch.



That is an argument from personal incredulity. No one has been able to get the better of one of our top students in one of our classes before. But hey you are more than welcome to come to one of our classes and test your hypothesis anytime you like.

Here is one of our instructors from over east taking part in a 100 man Kumite for a charity event against multiple styles, including boxing. Does he appear particularly disadvantaged to you? And before you say "Oh but it looks like kickboxing" he is using the rules and allowed striking targets of each individual style he is facing. 








Hanzou said:


> I'm sure there are many reasons to punch from the hip. Unfortunately all those reasons are pointless if you're supplanting it with a different punch entirely.



And so is that.



Hanzou said:


> Yes, I keep hearing that criticism. Yet for some reason the ones that keep repeating that can provide no evidence to the contrary outside of anecdotal accounts and personal opinion.



Then maybe you should listen for once.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 13, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Anotherr strawman argument. I have admitted no such thing other than boxers punch good. I hold to the traditional method because it works.



So you didnt type this?



			
				RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> - *We may use chambered punches from the hip in the basics and patterns but not in sparring or self defence, they are used from the guard. *A close inspection of all of our hand techniques will show that there are actually very few that actually start from the hip.[/b]




How else should I interpret that statement?



> That is an argument from personal incredulity. No one has been able to get the better of one of our top students in one of our classes before. But hey you are more than welcome to come to one of our classes and test your hypothesis anytime you like.



No offense, but I'm not traveling to Western Australia just to experience a traditional TKD school. There's plenty of them here in the states.



> Here is one of our instructors from over east taking part in a 100 man Kumite for a charity event against multiple styles, including boxing. Does he appear particularly disadvantaged to you? And before you say "Oh but it looks like kickboxing" he is using the rules and allowed striking targets of each individual style he is facing.



I'm curious; What rules say that he can't use karate stances or hand techniques? I didn't see too many reverse punches in that vid. However, I did see quite a bit pseudo boxing.E]


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 13, 2014)

Folks,
Keep things friendly. If you think there has been a personal shot... Use the RTM button.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Simply a long winded way of saying you have no objective evidence to back up your claims?



Not at all. I teach it that way and they teach it at the Jundokan in Okinawa that way. There are schools all over the world doing the same. I don't give a stuff that you haven't seen it. If you take the trouble you will find a number of videos on YouTube.



Hanzou said:


> For the better part of the decade I trained in Shotokan, TKD, and TSD. I received a BB in Shotokan. The seminar I spoke of was during my TKD years where our GM popped in and did some fancy stuff on a willing participant.


I notice you didn't give your age when you were training. But regardless, you have never trained karate as it used to be trained before it became a sport. Yet you are an expert on traditional karate. Mmm!



Hanzou said:


> All I'm asking for is some video of Goju Ryu practitioners applying what Taira did (or bunkai in general) on resisting opponents during a sparring session. I don't think that's too much to ask for.


Just Google Taira Bunkai. There's heaps there but you won't find any sparring because traditional karate as trained in Okinawa doesn't spar. It there something in that statement you don't understand?



Hanzou said:


> I'm sure I could find some seminars of one of the Gracies where they demonstrate techniques, and then find a video of students applying those techniques on resisting opponents.
> 
> Different arts I suppose....


True! One is a sport and one is not. As to demonstrating on resisting opponents ... it is irrelevant as seminars are for learning not for demonstrating how to hurt people which is what RB martial arts do if you go too hard. There are videos of the seminars available. If you want them then you can pay for them like the rest of us. As to resistance. We even practise Aikido against total resistance so don't think it is only MMA that does that.

Since you arrived back this has just degenerated into the old "MMA/BJJ is great and the rest isn't real and the techniques are crap" arguement. I don't have any issues in respecting what MMA or BJJ do. And, I don't have issues with MAs that have gone down the sport road. I teach Karate and I teach Krav and I can assure you there is no difference in effectiveness between them. You seem to have a problem with anything other than what you have experienced.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> No offense, but I'm not traveling to Western Australia just to experience a traditional TKD school. There's plenty of them here in the states.



You can go anywhere in Australia or New Zealand. There are none like ours in the US that I am aware of.



Hanzou said:


> I'm curious; What rules say that he can't use karate stances or hand techniques?



That could have something to do with him wearing boxing gloves for the boxers and kickboxers and that he does not do Karate.



Hanzou said:


> I didn't see too many reverse punches in that vid.



At 0:11, 0:35, maybe you should look again.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Anotherr strawman argument. I have admitted no such thing other than boxers punch good. I hold to the traditional method because it works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't compare an unproven claim like your instructor has taken out an unknown quantity of challengers of unknown skill with no evidence. Against an evidence based claim like a professional fight record. Which is documented and recorded.

It is not the same thing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 14, 2014)

drop bear said:


> You can't compare an unproven claim like your instructor has taken out an unknown quantity of challengers of unknown skill with no evidence. Against an evidence based claim like a professional fight record. Which is documented and recorded.
> 
> It is not the same thing.


:idunno:


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> Just Google Taira Bunkai. There's heaps there but you won't find any sparring because traditional karate as trained in Okinawa doesn't spar.



None of which benefits this discussion in the slightest.



> True! One is a sport and one is not. As to demonstrating on resisting opponents ... it is irrelevant as seminars are for learning not for demonstrating how to hurt people which is what RB martial arts do if you go too hard. There are videos of the seminars available. If you want them then you can pay for them like the rest of us. As to resistance. We even practise Aikido against total resistance so don't think it is only MMA that does that.
> 
> Since you arrived back this has just degenerated into the old "MMA/BJJ is great and the rest isn't real and the techniques are crap" arguement. I don't have any issues in respecting what MMA or BJJ do. And, I don't have issues with MAs that have gone down the sport road. I teach Karate and I teach Krav and I can assure you there is no difference in effectiveness between them. You seem to have a problem with anything other than what you have experienced.



I never said the techniques were crap. I simply pointed out a discrepancy between the training methodology and its combat application in traditional martial arts. I used various karate styles as an example. Unfortunately, since Okinawan karate practitioners don't spar, I have to limit that observation to Japanese and Korean karate styles. 

However, that observation and evidence is still in place, and is still relevant.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You can go anywhere in Australia or New Zealand. There are none like ours in the US that I am aware of.



From what I saw via your instructor's kumite, I see little difference between your version of TKD, and TKD taught here in the states.





> That could have something to do with him wearing boxing gloves for the boxers and kickboxers and that he does not do Karate.



How exactly do boxing gloves prevent a martial artist from performing *punches*? For that matter, where are the blocking techniques commonly taught in traditional karate? Please don't tell me that boxing gloves prevent you from doing those as well.

Also TKD and Japanese Karate share several techniques, stances, and forms.



> At 0:11, 0:35, maybe you should look again.



I did. At neither point in that video did your instructor perform a reverse punch as demonstrated here;


----------



## K-man (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I never said the techniques were crap. I simply pointed out a discrepancy between the training methodology and its combat application in traditional martial arts. I used various karate styles as an example. Unfortunately, since Okinawan karate practitioners don't spar, I have to limit that observation to Japanese and Korean karate styles.
> 
> 
> However, that observation and evidence is still in place, and is still relevant.


Well let's look at what you said. I think what follows constitutes bagging TMAs. If not I'd love you to tell us what you really think about TMAs. 

As to basing your observation on Japanese and Korean karate styles because Okinawan styles don't spar ... well that is as logical as saying I haven't seen French cooking but because McDonalds put out plastic food French food must be plastic too. Logic is not your strong suite. You don't have the first clue about Okinawan karate, but I'll give you a heads up. It is nothing like TKD and it is very different to Japanese Karate.



Hanzou said:


> Judo, wrestling, Bjj, etc. I find the argument dubious because in my experience you can't practice grappling via solo kata. *You need to practice with a resisting, non compliant partner (randori) or you're wasting your time.*





Hanzou said:


> For the most part, yes. Like once again, the Reverse Punch. Why do some styles teach this technique? Its the conerstone of many TMA hand techniques, and I have yet to see it used on a regular basis. Karatekas train the Reverse punch almost as much as we train the Guard. However, in Bjj we use the Guard CONSTANTLY while fighting, but when I see Karatekas spar, or in competition, they're using what looks like boxing techniques. *Clearly, they're training that punch because its part of their art's tradition, and preservation of tradition takes precedence over usefulness.*





Hanzou said:


> If the goal is to fight, *why waste time learning stances and techniques you're never going to use in a fight?*
> 
> Because Bjj constantly incorporates new techniques into its syllabus if its found to be effective. *Shotokan retains antiquated techniques regardless of their effectiveness* in the name of tradition.
> 
> Bjj drills are filled with techniques that a practitioner uses constantly.* I have yet to see a kata/form practitioner breaking out into kata when they're fightning someone.* They don't even do it when they're sparring in class.





Hanzou said:


> Because as evidenced by karate sparring, *you can't use those hand techniques in an efficient manner. *At least not at the level necessary to apply it in a relatively stable, yet resisting environment. And I'm talking black belts not being able to use those techniques efficiently. *So why train them at all?* Just train the punches you're actually using while sparring; Jab, straight, hook, uppercut.





Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't that disprove everything you've said here? If boxers can become incredible punchers training the abbreviated form, *shouldn't your school discard the less effective training method for the more effective training method?*
> 
> Furthermore, I find it interesting that you on one hand admit that the reverse punch is inefficient for actual fighting, and then turn around and try to make it relevant as a training method only. We both know that the reverse punch was designed to be applied exactly as it was trained. T*he harsh reality is that western boxing simply had a superior method and application to the straight punch, but traditionalist refuse to let the inferior method (the reverse punch) go.*





Hanzou said:


> *My point is that you've already admitted that the boxing method is the superior method to the traditional method*, yet you hold on to the traditional method for preservation purposes.
> 
> *Well clearly its broke, since you're not using the chambered reverse punch while sparring*. You fixed it by adapting a sport technique instead. Your school discovered this either by having a student who used boxing-like techniques your top students couldn't counter, or further in the past a western boxer beat the crap out of an TKD stylist and its trickled down to the modern day. In either case, *there's a reason you're not punching like you're training to punch.*



Because you are fixated on the usefulness or otherwise of the reverse punch from the hip, I will say that in most circumstances, as trained, it is totally useless. But that is because you, and others like you, don't have the first idea about the technique. All you see is the punch. To me the punch is secondary to the chambered hand. Perhaps you might think about that.



Hanzou said:


> Shotokan suffers from the same issues that many traditional karate styles suffer from; Baggage. You could dump dozens of traditional Shotokan techniques, and still end up looking like this when you fight;


Now I find this particularly interesting because when I left the Japanese based style I trained in favour of the Okinawan style I reckon I threw out at least two thirds of the training syllabus. But you see, it is not the traditional style with the baggage. It is the modified style that has had all the extras added.  Still, maybe we agree on something. Some styles have a lot of 'fillers' in their training mainly to cater to their sport aspect that could be thrown away. Unless of course you want to compete in a sport environment.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Simply a long winded way of saying you have no objective evidence to back up your claims?



He just gave you a way (visit a Dojo) to obtain that objective evidence for yourself.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> From what I saw via your instructor's kumite, I see little difference between your version of TKD, and TKD taught here in the states.




That is because of a lack of information and imagination on your part. You can not tell what an entire art is like from one anomalous video of highlights. That kind of sparring was for a special charity event and is atypical of the usual sparring style in our art.

Here is a video of of a black belt grading form the same school (which is rather different from most of our schools), I have never trained there myself. The sparring appears to be  low intensity sparring (technique sparring), not the usual flat out continuous, one after the other sparring we usually put the black belts through but if you look closely you will see some blocks, reverse knife hand strikes, even a spinning knife hand and the back stance throughout. Of course this is just a highlight video and only shows what was put up on YouTube.









Hanzou said:


> How exactly do boxing gloves prevent a martial artist from performing *punches*? For that matter, where are the blocking techniques commonly taught in traditional karate? Please don't tell me that boxing gloves prevent you from doing those as well.



I refer you to your previous statement;

"I'm curious; What rules say that he can't use karate stances or *hand techniques*?"

If you wanted to be that specific you should have said so. The gloves do not prevent punches but they do hamper the performance of the palm, knife hand and reverse knife hand strikes. Without knowing more of what types of strikes that particular Karate style allows in their rules I can't really say why or why not he is using certain techniques. Also he is following their rules and allowed striking areas, not emulating their styles. Most competition styles do not allow neck and groin strikes in their bouts.



Hanzou said:


> Also TKD and Japanese Karate share several techniques, stances, and forms.



TKD does not share techniques, stances, and forms with Karate, TKD's are derived from them, there's a difference.



Hanzou said:


> I did. At neither point in that video did your instructor perform a reverse punch as demonstrated here;



What exactly do you think a reverse punch is? It is a straight punch from close to the body form the side of the rear leg, it does not have to be performed EXACTLY like in the video to be a reverse punch.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well let's look at what you said. I think what follows constitutes bagging TMAs. If not I'd love you to tell us what you really think about TMAs.
> 
> As to basing your observation on Japanese and Korean karate styles because Okinawan styles don't spar ... well that is as logical as saying I haven't seen French cooking but because McDonalds put out plastic food French food must be plastic too. Logic is not your strong suite. You don't have the first clue about Okinawan karate, but I'll give you a heads up. It is nothing like TKD and it is very different to Japanese Karate.



You seem to be a bit confused. What I said was that I can't include Okinawan karate in my observation because they don't spar. There is sparring in Japanese and Korean karate, thus I can compare their forms and training to their fighting applications.

In other words, my argument is that TMAs aren't fighting like they're training. I'm currently using Karate as an example, and I've showed several videos to illustrate that point. Since Okinawan style Karate doesn't provide video documentation of sparring, I can't fairly include them in my argument.



> Because you are fixated on the usefulness or otherwise of the reverse punch from the hip, I will say that in most circumstances, as trained, it is totally useless. But that is because you, and others like you, don't have the first idea about the technique. All you see is the punch. To me the punch is secondary to the chambered hand. Perhaps you might think about that.
> 
> Now I find this particularly interesting because when I left the Japanese based style I trained in favour of the Okinawan style I reckon I threw out at least two thirds of the training syllabus. But you see, it is not the traditional style with the baggage. It is the modified style that has had all the extras added.  Still, maybe we agree on something. Some styles have a lot of 'fillers' in their training mainly to cater to their sport aspect that could be thrown away. Unless of course you want to compete in a sport environment.



What I find interesting is that even styles like RTKDCMB's who completely disregard the sporting or competitive aspect still arrive at the same results as the styles that compete or participate in sports.

My argument is simply this; If the end result is an upright fighting stance that utilizes boxing-style posture, defense, and striking, why are the forms/katas and drills stressing the other side of the spectrum with deep stances and chambered hand movements? Why not simply perfect the upright fighting stance, and boxing style posture, defense, and striking? 

The only conclusion I can draw is that practitioners of those arts seek to preserve the traditions of their style. To me, that is the hallmark of a TMA.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because of a lack of information and imagination on your part. You can not tell what an entire art is like from one anomalous video of highlights. That kind of sparring was for a special charity event and is atypical of the usual sparring style in our art.
> 
> Here is a video of of a black belt grading form the same school (which is rather different from most of our schools), I have never trained there myself. The sparring appears to be  low intensity sparring (technique sparring), not the usual flat out continuous, one after the other sparring we usually put the black belts through but if you look closely you will see some blocks, reverse knife hand strikes, even a spinning knife hand and the back stance throughout. Of course this is just a highlight video and only shows what was put up on YouTube.



Despite being low intensity, I'm still noticing a big difference between the sparring techniques used and the techniques displayed during katas/patterns. 

For example, why do I not see the chambered upper, middle, or lower blocks used while sparring, yet I see them throughout forms and drilling practice? Again, the defensive techniques utilized during sparring comes directly from martial sports like western boxing. Why aren't the traditional defensive methods being utilized during combat?




> I refer you to your previous statement;
> 
> "I'm curious; What rules say that he can't use karate stances or *hand techniques*?"
> 
> If you wanted to be that specific you should have said so. The gloves do not prevent punches but they do hamper the performance of the palm, knife hand and reverse knife hand strikes. Without knowing more of what types of strikes that particular Karate style allows in their rules I can't really say why or why not he is using certain techniques. Also he is following their rules and allowed striking areas, not emulating their styles. Most competition styles do not allow neck and groin strikes in their bouts.



Which is fine, but during my time in Shotokan, the purpose behind the reverse punch was as a counter blow. For example, the opponent would throw a punch, I would block the punch with say an outer middle block, and then counter with a reverse punch to an open area. Now, I was never able to pull that off while sparring, because (as in the case of just about every karate/TKD school I've observed) both parties immediately engage in the pseudo-boxing method instead. We know that the Katas are expressions of our art, however something has happened within our arts that has forced us to diverge from that particular application to an entirely different application that doesn't resemble the drills or kata at all.



> TKD does not share techniques, stances, and forms with Karate, TKD's are derived from them, there's a difference.



Semantics?



> What exactly do you think a reverse punch is? It is a straight punch from close to the body form the side of the rear leg, it does not have to be performed EXACTLY like in the video to be a reverse punch.



So you're saying that during drills and kata your instructor was fine with you performing the reverse punch like this;


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2014)

I am confused as all get out. True, a somewhat normal state of affairs for me, but still. Since when do Okinawan karate guys not spar? When did that start? 

Hanzou - All the Shotokan guys I ever sparred with, especially the ones I competed against, had some really nasty reverse punches. I always joke to my friends, "Shotokan guys like to punch a hole right through your body so they can give the finger to guy behind you." But I'm only half kidding when I say that because those boys can hit. You must have a nasty reverse punch, yes?


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2014)

P.S.

The crazy thing about computer conversations....

If  we were all hanging out and shooting the bull about this we'd be having  a grand old time. There wouldn't be any bickering, raised tempers or  harsh feeling, we'd be having a fricken' ball.

It must be the lack of tone in the voice, facial expressions, immediate feedback and all that. 

Or maybe we'd just beat the crap out of each other. I dunno'.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

Buka said:


> Hanzou - All the Shotokan guys I ever sparred with, especially the ones I competed against, had some really nasty reverse punches. I always joke to my friends, "Shotokan guys like to punch a hole right through your body so they can give the finger to guy behind you." But I'm only half kidding when I say that because those boys can hit. You must have a nasty reverse punch, yes?



Nope. My reverse punch was always terrible. Probably why I switched to grappling.


----------



## Jaeimseu (Aug 14, 2014)

I have actually been to visit a school (Tangsoodo) that sparred using the same stances and techniques you see in forms, hip chambered punches, blocks, and all. It was kind of funny to me, honestly, but it worked in that context.

I don't train MMA, but I get the argument MMA people often make and I think it does have some merit.


----------



## K-man (Aug 14, 2014)

Buka said:


> I am confused as all get out. True, a somewhat normal state of affairs for me, but still. Since when do Okinawan karate guys not spar? When did that start?
> 
> Hanzou - All the Shotokan guys I ever sparred with, especially the ones I competed against, had some really nasty reverse punches. I always joke to my friends, "Shotokan guys like to punch a hole right through your body so they can give the finger to guy behind you." But I'm only half kidding when I say that because those boys can hit. You must have a nasty reverse punch, yes?


Karate was never about sparring or competition. It was only about having the ability to survive in a relatively lawless environment without weapons.

When Kano developed Judo as a fighting system that could be used as sport, Funakoshi's students and I think the JKA, against Funakoshi's wishes developed Shotakan Karate into sport. Yamaguchi did the same with Goju. Mas Oyama thought they were all ******* and developed Kyokoshin. Competition sparring as you see it now was never part of karate. That is not to say that techniques weren't tested, just not in competition.
:asian:

Edit ... The stars refer to baby cats.


----------



## K-man (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You seem to be a bit confused. What I said was that I can't include Okinawan karate in my observation because they don't spar. There is sparring in Japanese and Korean karate, thus I can compare their forms and training to their fighting applications.


I'm not confused. Okinawan karate is the original or traditional karate. Karate as it developed in Japan is not the same and I would argue that technically it is not traditional. Therefore by not including Okinawan karate in the traditional mix you are in fact throwing out the traditional karate and replacing it in the discussion with non-traditional karate. That is basically ignoring the facts.



Hanzou said:


> In other words, my argument is that TMAs aren't fighting like they're training. I'm currently using Karate as an example, and I've showed several videos to illustrate that point. Since Okinawan style Karate doesn't provide video documentation of sparring, I can't fairly include them in my argument.


Again, if you were to say "modern karate doesn't fight like it trains" I would agree completely. Traditional karate does fight like it trains because all the moves you see in kata are in fact grappling techniques. 



Hanzou said:


> What I find interesting is that even styles like RTKDCMB's who completely disregard the sporting or competitive aspect still arrive at the same results as the styles that compete or participate in sports.


I can't speak for TKD with any authority but keep in mind, TKD developed from Shotokan Karate.



Hanzou said:


> My argument is simply this; If the end result is an upright fighting stance that utilizes boxing-style posture, defense, and striking, why are the forms/katas and drills stressing the other side of the spectrum with deep stances and chambered hand movements? Why not simply perfect the upright fighting stance, and boxing style posture, defense, and striking?
> 
> The only conclusion I can draw is that practitioners of those arts seek to preserve the traditions of their style. To me, that is the hallmark of a TMA.


And the answer is also simple. If someone is out of range you are not going to be waiting for them in some weird and wacky deep stance. Moto dachi or fighting stance is very similar to a boxers stance so if we are fighting from striking range then we train as we fight. However, as I keep pointing out, kata is training for grappling, not standup punching. The fact that you have never trained that way simply means that it was not part of your modern karate training.



Hanzou said:


> Despite being low intensity, I'm still noticing a big difference between the sparring techniques used and the techniques displayed during katas/patterns.
> 
> For example, why do I not see the chambered upper, middle, or lower blocks used while sparring, yet I see them throughout forms and drilling practice? Again, the defensive techniques utilized during sparring comes directly from martial sports like western boxing. Why aren't the traditional defensive methods being utilized during combat?


It might come as a surprise but I don't teach any blocks in karate. 'Uke' means receive, not block. All 'blocks' include a parry and either a strike or some means of control. As I point out to all, my 5 year old grandson will instinctively raise his hands to stop a strike so why do I need to teach him differently? Defensive techniques in sparring are one thing but I don't see defensive technique in kata, only offensive. Then you keep banging on about the chambered hand as if it is some weird thing. The hand is normally only chambered if there is something it it. In other words you grab someone and pull them in to hold them or unbalance them. You would never use a chambered hand to spar, or at least in my world you wouldn't.




Hanzou said:


> Which is fine, but during my time in Shotokan, the purpose behind the reverse punch was as a counter blow. For example, the opponent would throw a punch, I would block the punch with say an outer middle block, and then counter with a reverse punch to an open area. Now, I was never able to pull that off while sparring, because (as in the case of just about every karate/TKD school I've observed) both parties immediately engage in the pseudo-boxing method instead. We know that the Katas are expressions of our art, however something has happened within our arts that has forced us to diverge from that particular application to an entirely different application that doesn't resemble the drills or kata at all.
> 
> So you're saying that during drills and kata your instructor was fine with you performing the reverse punch like this;


Yes, that's pretty punch how I teach a reverse punch. Nothing to do with the technique you are talking about though. I would call it a cross, and my hands would be open and one slightly lower.

But you see, again you are referring back to your experience with Shotokan which is a modern adaptation of karate. I can demonstrate to anybody that techniques that are taught as 'blocks' just cannot work the way they are taught in most places. The reason you can't pull them off in sparring makes perfect sense because they are not blocks. As I keep saying, traditional karate fights as it trains.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not confused. Okinawan karate is the original or traditional karate. Karate as it developed in Japan is not the same and I would argue that technically it is not traditional. Therefore by not including Okinawan karate in the traditional mix you are in fact throwing out the traditional karate and replacing it in the discussion with non-traditional karate. That is basically ignoring the facts.



How long must an art be practiced before it's traditions become traditional enough?

Or are we back to the only really traditional art being the "Ogg hit Ugg with stick" from which all else derives?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> Karate was never about sparring or competition. It was only about having the ability to survive in a relatively lawless environment without weapons.
> 
> When Kano developed Judo as a fighting system that could be used as sport, Funakoshi's students and I think the JKA, against Funakoshi's wishes developed Shotakan Karate into sport. Yamaguchi did the same with Goju. Mas Oyama thought they were all ******* and developed Kyokoshin.



And yet I can find numerous examples of Kyokushin students sparring throughout the web. Kyokushin exponents spar constantly. Not for competition, but to test the techniques they have learned.



> Competition sparring as you see it now was never part of karate. That is not to say that techniques weren't tested, just not in competition.



What about sparring for belt rank like the 20-30 person kumite that Kyokushin exponents have to endure to receive dan rank? Are you saying that's also not part of karate?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm not confused. Okinawan karate is the original or traditional karate. Karate as it developed in Japan is not the same and I would argue that technically it is not traditional. Therefore by not including Okinawan karate in the traditional mix you are in fact throwing out the traditional karate and replacing it in the discussion with non-traditional karate. That is basically ignoring the facts.



How is calling Japanese and Korean karate traditional ignoring facts when they themselves consider their arts traditional, and NOT calling them traditional is your opinion?



> Again, if you were to say "modern karate doesn't fight like it trains" I would agree completely. Traditional karate does fight like it trains because all the moves you see in kata are in fact grappling techniques.



Which isn't true. If you view the Bunkai from Bassai Dai for example;






As well as Heian Yondan;






You'll notice that the majority of techniques within it are in fact strikes and blocks.



> I can't speak for TKD with any authority but keep in mind, TKD developed from Shotokan Karate.



I know the roots of TKD. I was trying to avoid making RTKDCMB upset. You know how TKD stylists get when you tell them things like that.



> And the answer is also simple. If someone is out of range you are not going to be waiting for them in some weird and wacky deep stance.



So why are we then training in those weird wacky stances?



> Moto dachi or fighting stance is very similar to a boxers stance so if  we are fighting from striking range then we train as we fight. However,  as I keep pointing out, kata is training for grappling, not standup  punching. The fact that you have never trained that way simply means  that it was not part of your modern karate training.



And like I pointed out above, the entirety of kata bunkai is NOT grappling and throws.



> It might come as a surprise but I don't teach any blocks in karate. 'Uke' means receive, not block. All 'blocks' include a parry and either a strike or some means of control. As I point out to all, my 5 year old grandson will instinctively raise his hands to stop a strike so why do I need to teach him differently? Defensive techniques in sparring are one thing but I don't see defensive technique in kata, only offensive. Then you keep banging on about the chambered hand as if it is some weird thing. The hand is normally only chambered if there is something it it. In other words you grab someone and pull them in to hold them or unbalance them. You would never use a chambered hand to spar, or at least in my world you wouldn't.



Again, an application I never see in full speed, full contact karate sparring. Also I find it bizarre that you don't consider them blocks, when they're called blocks.




> Yes, that's pretty punch how I teach a reverse punch. Nothing to do with the technique you are talking about though. I would call it a cross, and my hands would be open and one slightly lower.



If I punched like that during kata or drills, my instructor would have kicked my *** for performing poor technique. My instructor (like all Karate instructors) want you to perform the reverse punch the old fashioned way; With the punch starting from the hip, with the palm facing up.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> :idunno:




OK you make the claim your instructor fights better than mayweather. By your argument mayweather is undefeated. Your instructor is undefeated. More importantly mayweather is invited at any time to cross hands with your instructor in Perth and the fact he hasn't proves your instructors superiority.

The difference being that maywether has a proven fight record against the best in the world and you instructor has not.

Now if you wanted to take this to the street. That is fine but you would still need to demonstrate a proven fight record. This is not street vs sport. This accountability vs no accountability.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 14, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Nope. My reverse punch was always terrible. Probably why I switched to grappling.



So you gave up instead of working on it?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I was trying to avoid making RTKDCMB upset.



Why stop now?




Hanzou said:


> You know how TKD stylists get when you tell them things like that.



I don't know, how do TKD stylists get when you tell them things like that?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK you make the claim your instructor fights better than mayweather. By your argument mayweather is undefeated. Your instructor is undefeated. More importantly mayweather is invited at any time to cross hands with your instructor in Perth and the fact he hasn't proves your instructors superiority.



You are using a strawman argument.



drop bear said:


> The difference being that maywether has a proven fight record against the best in the world and you instructor has not.



That is a hasty generalization. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the instructor (from Melbourne actually) has or hasn't done or 'proved' in any setting to be able to make that determination.

 I am sure that Floyd Mayweather could look after himself in a fight and he has an impressive record  but a closer inspection of his fight record shows that out of those 46 victories, only 26 of those are actually KO's, most of them TKO's and the rest are descisions. Oh and he is only undefeated as a Pro. A judges decision is not actually a win it is an unfinished fight that the judges decided on who was winning at the time. Also his wins were against other boxers in a boxing competition with specific rules and there were 46 boxers who lost.



drop bear said:


> Now if you wanted to take this to the street. That is fine but you would still need to demonstrate a proven fight record. This is not street vs sport. This accountability vs no accountability.



In the 'street' a fight record, a belt, a title or a trophy means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So you gave up instead of working on it?



I was half joking. I actually had a rather solid reverse punch. 

I left Shotokan (and Karate in general) because of the issue we're discussing; The actual fighting form of karate didn't resemble the drills or the forms.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

this is stupid....
WOW boxing u know the one that only has punches is better at punching than taekwondo 

Btw western boxing doesnt fit with every style u know....


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

U know boxing punches like straights and stuff can be found in almost every style... 

A style is completly retarded if a chambered reverse punch is all they practice.

A chambered punch like thta is only used to train fa jing from what i learnt


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> U know boxing punches like straights and stuff can be found in almost every style...



Of course. However the straight punch seen in many traditional striking styles (while sparring) comes directly from western boxing. How do I know this? Because it is accompanied by the stance, footwork, and defensive posture of western boxing. The straight punch in Shotokan is very similar to the reverse punch. It shares little with the boxer straight punch.

Check out this exchange between two Kung Fu stylists;






If you notice, they start out in a deep stances, but quickly begin to utilize the high stance and posture of a kickboxer. 

They even engage in some sloppy ground fighting when they both end up on the ground multiple times. I cringed at the attempts of submission grappling by those two, but what can you do?



> A style is completly retarded if a chambered reverse punch is all they practice.



Chambered punches and blocks are the core of traditional practice in many styles.



> A chambered punch like thta is only used to train fa jing from what i learnt



What's the point of training something if you're not going to apply it while fighting?


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> How long must an art be practiced before it's traditions become traditional enough?
> 
> Or are we back to the only really traditional art being the "Ogg hit Ugg with stick" from which all else derives?


Depends on what you are discussing. In this situation Hanzou is using a relatively recent form of karate to demonstrate that karate techniques don't correspond with actual fighting. 

In other situations I couldn't give a damn.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> And yet I can find numerous examples of Kyokushin students sparring throughout the web. Kyokushin exponents spar constantly. Not for competition, but to test the techniques they have learned.
> 
> What about sparring for belt rank like the 20-30 person kumite that Kyokushin exponents have to endure to receive dan rank? Are you saying that's also not part of karate?


Not at all. Perhaps if you reread my posts you might see what I actually said. Kyokoshin has always had sparring but is heavily into competition, and they are very good at it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2014)

I'm still trying to figure out what a bloody TMA actually is.  No one wants to take the time to ensure we're talking apples to apples.   

Kyokushin karate spars, has a competition element with rules.    Also has kata and forms and is Asian.  TMA? Sport?  Self defense?  All three?  Why.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what a bloody TMA actually is.  No one wants to take the time to ensure we're talking apples to apples.
> 
> Kyokushin karate spars, has a competition element with rules.    Also has kata and forms and is Asian.  TMA? Sport?  Self defense?  All three?  Why.


lol yeah, when you get down to brass tacks, devil is in the detail.


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> How is calling Japanese and Korean karate traditional ignoring facts when they themselves consider their arts traditional, and NOT calling them traditional is your opinion?



They can call them what they like. I will stick with the official Okinawan definition. Not my opinion ... just the fact.



Hanzou said:


> Which isn't true. If you view the Bunkai from Bassai Dai for example;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once again you are showing Shotokan karate. Once you add a second attacker to a kata it becomes choreography as multiple attacks don't occur at a particular time. 



Hanzou said:


> So why are we then training in those weird wacky stances?
> 
> And like I pointed out above, the entirety of kata bunkai is NOT grappling and throws.
> 
> Again, an application I never see in full speed, full contact karate sparring. Also I find it bizarre that you don't consider them blocks, when they're called blocks.


Firstly the stances are only wacky when performed out of context. Seeing you have obviously never been taught the application I won't bother taking that further.

What you pointed out above was some form of choreography to demonstrate an interpretation of the kata. It was not what I consider bunkai. Bunkai is not choreographed.

What is it that you can't comprehend? You are never going to find Okinawan karate sparring on YouTube.

Then we have you assertion that there are blocks. Please show me how that is. 'Uke' is to receive, not to block. Block is a term given to describe what you have obviously been taught. The fact that you said they don't work means that, again, their might be a better explanation. Why would traditional martial artists be taught techniques that don't work? 



Hanzou said:


> If I punched like that during kata or drills, my instructor would have kicked my *** for performing poor technique. My instructor (like all Karate instructors) want you to perform the reverse punch the old fashioned way; With the punch starting from the hip, with the palm facing up.


Crap! If you are performing a kata you will perform the technique as the kata dictates. I don't teach drills like that unless they are grappling drills. If I am teaching guys how to punch I teach them how to punch. No different to Krav or Systema for that matter. The fact that no one punches the way you are describing in a fight might make an intelligent person think that perhaps there might be a different explanation.


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what a bloody TMA actually is.  No one wants to take the time to ensure we're talking apples to apples.
> 
> Kyokushin karate spars, has a competition element with rules.    Also has kata and forms and is Asian.  TMA? Sport?  Self defense?  All three?  Why.


I think it depends on the context. We are certainly not comparing apples with apples here but Hanzou can't or won't acknowledge there is a difference. When I trained Goju Kai kata were really just for show and a grading requirement. We had very basic explanation of what the movements were meant to represent similar to what Hanzou posted earlier. Having kata that is meaningless is a pretty useless waste of valuable training time to me. 

So Kyokoshin ... TMA? Technically yes, but still different to Okinawan karate. Sport? Most definitely. Self defence? Well, as has been discussed elsewhere, I believe it has at least as much to offer as any other martial art. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I left Shotokan (and Karate in general) because of the issue we're discussing; The actual fighting form of karate didn't resemble the drills or the forms.


And I left Goju Kai karate for a similar reason. But I found the answer in a Okinawan Goju Ryu.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what a bloody TMA actually is.  No one wants to take the time to ensure we're talking apples to apples.
> 
> Kyokushin karate spars, has a competition element with rules.    Also has kata and forms and is Asian.  TMA? Sport?  Self defense?  All three?  Why.



Traditional martial art.

Because again, they retain traditional techniques simply for preservation purposes. By contrast, I would consider Bjj a modern martial art because nothing we do in Bjj isn't used when we fight. We fight like we train.

So Bjj is modern, Kyokushin is traditional, despite Bjj being older than Kyokushin.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 15, 2014)

K-man said:


> But I found the answer in a Okinawan Goju Ryu.



I liked that a lot. Sadly, I changed states after brown belt and had to start over again (Uechi-ryu--fascinating, but very different).

Okinawan karate is the _original_ karate, but I'm not sure what people mean by 'traditional' here if it isn't 'first'. I think TMA is more about the means of training than the art itself, in practice.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So Bjj is modern, Kyokushin is traditional, despite Bjj being older than Kyokushin.



That's strictly true but I think one needs to consider Kyokushin in a context of continuing, with variations and innovations, an older tradition of Shotokan and its Okinawan predecessors. The changes introduced in Kyokushin were, like those in BJJ, disruptive in a way most new minor changes leading to a new name aren't, but it did evolve from a consistent tardition, a specific traditional lineage.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

K-man said:


> They can call them what they like. I will stick with the official Okinawan definition. Not my opinion ... just the fact.



Why would the Okinawan karate viewpoint override the viewpoint of Japanese and Korean karate stylists?



> Once again you are showing Shotokan karate. Once you add a second attacker to a kata it becomes choreography as multiple attacks don't occur at a particular time.








Okinawan Goju Ryu Kata bunkai.

Again, mostly strikes, not grappling.

And the instructor is part of the IOGKF. So yes it is an actual Okinawan Goju-Ryu school and instructor.



> Then we have you assertion that there are blocks. Please show me how that is.



Because they're called blocks;

LEARNING JAPANESE ? Blocking Techniques (Uke-waza) ? Using Arms
List of Taekwondo techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic Terminology - Traditional Okinawan Goju Ryu Karate-do Association

According to the traditional Okinawan Karate-do Association,  Okinawan Shorin-Ryu Karate, and Okinawan Goju Ryu, Uke=block.

Of course it makes sense that Uke would mean "to receive", since when you're blocking, you're receiving the attack. It doesn't have to mean that you grapple with someone, or throwing them. In fact, in other Japanese arts like Aikido or Judo, Uke is the one getting tossed.



> 'Uke' is to receive, not to block. Block is a term given to describe what you have obviously been taught. The fact that you said they don't work means that, again, their might be a better explanation. Why would traditional martial artists be taught techniques that don't work?



The same reason some martial arts teach people how to use swords and bladed spears in an era when people are armed with handguns, and don't carry swords on their hip or pole-arms on their back. Its all about maintaining/preserving tradition.



> Crap! If you are performing a kata you will perform the technique as the kata dictates. I don't teach drills like that unless they are grappling drills. If I am teaching guys how to punch I teach them how to punch. No different to Krav or Systema for that matter. The fact that no one punches the way you are describing in a fight might make an intelligent person think that perhaps there might be a different explanation.



Okay, but Karate katas are loaded with chambered hand movements. As I showed above and in earlier posts, all of those applications aren't for grappling and throws. In fact, the good majority of them are for striking. Hence why it's called a "punch" in Karate is called a punch, not a movement that sets up a throw or a grapple.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

I suppose this Wing Chun guy is also using punches from boxing , boxing footwork and the boxing defensive posture?

Because as everybody knows , all traditional martial artists when they fight their form degenerates into crappy kickboxing doesn't it.

[video=youtube_share;OtpLNp24UUM]http://youtu.be/OtpLNp24UUM[/video]


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> lol yeah, when you get down to brass tacks, devil is in the detail.


Agreed.  There's a lot of talking past each other going on here, I think. 



K-man said:


> I think it depends on the context. We are certainly not comparing apples with apples here but Hanzou can't or won't acknowledge there is a difference. When I trained Goju Kai kata were really just for show and a grading requirement. We had very basic explanation of what the movements were meant to represent similar to what Hanzou posted earlier. Having kata that is meaningless is a pretty useless waste of valuable training time to me.
> 
> So Kyokoshin ... TMA? Technically yes, but still different to Okinawan karate. Sport? Most definitely. Self defence? Well, as has been discussed elsewhere, I believe it has at least as much to offer as any other martial art.
> :asian:


Thanks, I would agree that Kyokushin is a TMA and also a sport.  Regarding self defense, I would also agree that it has as much to offer as any other style.  I would actually lean toward having MORE to contribute, because my opinion is that the competition and sparring are much closer to testing proficiency and application than styles which don't spar or compete.  But that's another discussion, I think.



Hanzou said:


> Traditional martial art.
> 
> Because again, they retain traditional techniques simply for preservation purposes. By contrast, I would consider Bjj a modern martial art because nothing we do in Bjj isn't used when we fight. We fight like we train.
> 
> So Bjj is modern, Kyokushin is traditional, despite Bjj being older than Kyokushin.


I also train BJJ and hear what you're saying.  But to play devil's advocate for a moment, can you tell me what you mean by "fight?"  Do you mean when we spar?  Maybe when we compete?  Or are you talking about the videos where BJJ is used successfully in a self defense situation, such as maybe when Ryan Hall defended himself in the popular video?  

Do you think you'd ever use upside down guard or deep half in a self defense situation?  What about 50/50?  Good for self defense?  Ryan Hall is THE deep half guy, and in competition, he is not at all reluctant to dive into guard/half guard and work from the bottom.  But in a self defense situation, he first did a lot of talking and staying calm, kept his wits, tried to deescalate, and when it became physical, he took the guy to the ground and controlled him from the top.  Ryan Hall's "self defense" bore no resemblance to the way he "fights" in competition.  

I personally think BJJ is a terrific self defense martial art.  And I agree that we practice applying technique against resistance.  But, I don't know that I agree we fight like we train.  Or, more accurately, I would say that of the techniques we train, only a fraction of them would be relevant to self defense.


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2014)

arnisador said:


> That's strictly true but I think one needs to consider Kyokushin in a context of continuing, with variations and innovations, an older tradition of Shotokan and its Okinawan predecessors. The changes introduced in Kyokushin were, like those in BJJ, disruptive in a way most new minor changes leading to a new name aren't, but it did evolve from a consistent tardition, a specific traditional lineage.


Strictly speaking, BJJ is also the continuing, with variations and innovations, the tradition of a much older style, which was itself a continuing of a much older style.  I think the biggest difference between BJJ as a martial arts style and Kyokushin Karate as a martial arts style is that the Brazilians added a lot of their personality to the training traditions.  The culture of BJJ is much closer to the personality of the Brazilians than of the Japanese.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I would say that of the techniques we train, only a fraction of them would be relevant to self defense.



Only a small fraction of the techniques in any martial art would be used for self defence, but we practice them all because we won't know what we will need to use in any situation until it happens.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> I also train BJJ and hear what you're saying.  But to play devil's advocate for a moment, can you tell me what you mean by "fight?"  Do you mean when we spar?  Maybe when we compete?  Or are you talking about the videos where BJJ is used successfully in a self defense situation, such as maybe when Ryan Hall defended himself in the popular video?
> 
> Do you think you'd ever use upside down guard or deep half in a self defense situation?  What about 50/50?  Good for self defense?  Ryan Hall is THE deep half guy, and in competition, he is not at all reluctant to dive into guard/half guard and work from the bottom.  But in a self defense situation, he first did a lot of talking and staying calm, kept his wits, tried to deescalate, and when it became physical, he took the guy to the ground and controlled him from the top.  Ryan Hall's "self defense" bore no resemblance to the way he "fights" in competition.
> 
> I personally think BJJ is a terrific self defense martial art.  And I agree that we practice applying technique against resistance.  But, I don't know that I agree we fight like we train.  Or, more accurately, I would say that of the techniques we train, only a fraction of them would be relevant to self defense.



When I say "fight" I'm including competition, sparring in class, and self defense. You really don't see many traditional karate techniques in competition, or sparring in class, which makes the possibility of pulling it off in a self defense situation highly unlikely.



mook jong man said:


> I suppose this Wing Chun guy is also using punches from boxing , boxing footwork and the boxing defensive posture?
> 
> Because as everybody knows , all traditional martial artists when they fight their form degenerates into crappy kickboxing doesn't it.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;OtpLNp24UUM]http://youtu.be/OtpLNp24UUM[/video]



While that didn't degenerate into crappy kickboxing, it definitely degenerated into crappy slap-fu.

In case you're wondering, Slap-Fu is worse.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> When I say "fight" I'm including competition, sparring in class, and self defense. You really don't see many traditional karate techniques in competition, or sparring in class, which makes the possibility of pulling it off in a self defense situation highly unlikely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I didn't see any Slap Fu , what I did see however is a Wing Chun guy deflecting every one of the Muay Thai guys punches and then going straight through his centerline and then running over him until he backed him into a mirror.

What you think are slaps are actually open hand deflections.
But since you brought up the topic of slaps , do not underestimate the power of a slap.

They can knock you out cold just as well as any punch can , they can also be a lot more powerful because the hand and forearm stay relaxed as they don't have to tense up the muscles to form a fist.


----------



## Buka (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> But since you brought up the topic of slaps , do not underestimate the power of a slap.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Buka said:


>



Exactly.
And he did it from a neutral stance , not a boxing or martial arts stance.
Nice and relaxed with a slight pivot of the body to generate power.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Oh I didn't see any Slap Fu , what I did see however is a Wing Chun guy deflecting every one of the Muay Thai guys punches and then going straight through his centerline and then running over him until he backed him into a mirror.
> 
> What you think are slaps are actually open hand deflections.



If you say so. From my PoV it looked like two guys windmilling each other with the WC guy actually connecting. Neither looked overly impressive or good in a technical sense. If my instructor looked like either one of those guys did in that little sparring match, I would immediately quit that school and look for some place legit.



> But since you brought up the topic of slaps , do not underestimate the power of a slap.
> 
> They can knock you out cold just as well as any punch can , they can also be a lot more powerful because the hand and forearm stay relaxed as they don't have to tense up the muscles to form a fist.



Which is why that MT boxer got slapped dozens of times and walked out of that without a single mark or bruise on him? There was no power behind any of those slaps. He probably got more damage from running into the glass.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

Buka said:


>



That one slap had way more power in it than any of those WC slaps did.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> If you say so. From my PoV it looked like two guys windmilling each other with the WC guy actually connecting. Neither looked overly impressive or good in a technical sense. If my instructor looked like either one of those guys did in that little sparring match, I would immediately quit that school and look for some place legit.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why that MT boxer got slapped dozens of times and walked out of that without a single mark or bruise on him? There was no power behind any of those slaps. He probably got more damage from running into the glass.



Again , they were deflections not slaps.

Maybe the Wing Chun guy thought he didn't have to punch the guys face in to prove a point and just stopped his punches short of contact.
But it's no use talking to you because you haven't got the faintest idea of what Wing Chun deflections look like.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Again , they were deflections not slaps.
> 
> Maybe the Wing Chun guy thought he didn't have to punch the guys face in to prove a point and just stopped his punches short of contact.
> But it's no use talking to you because you haven't got the faintest idea of what Wing Chun deflections look like.



Or maybe the Wing Chun guy lacks power in his strikes?

This isn't the first time I've seen a "Wing Chun" person fight like this. Check this out;






Slap-Fu literally looks like someone who watched a Kung Fu movie, and tried to copy the movements.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Or maybe the Wing Chun guy lacks power in his strikes?
> 
> This isn't the first time I've seen a "Wing Chun" person fight like this. Check this out;
> 
> ...



Yes , and I've seen Wing Chun people who generate massive striking power.
First hand , not on YouTube.
So your point is.

Although a great resource , YouTube can be cherry picked to support whatever particular bias you may have.

With enough digging around I'm sure we could come up with examples of incompetent boxers , incompetent BJJ practitioners , incompetent MMA people and yes....... incompetent Wing Chun practitioners.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Yes , and I've seen Wing Chun people who generate massive striking power.
> First hand , not on YouTube.
> So your point is.



They're never on Youtube.

Yet I can find plenty of boxers, BJJers, Wrestlers, Judokas, etc. on youtube doing what they do best.

Funny how that works.



> Although a great resource , YouTube can be cherry picked to support whatever particular bias you may have.
> 
> With enough digging around I'm sure we could come up with examples of incompetent boxers , incompetent BJJ practitioners , incompetent MMA people and yes....... incompetent Wing Chun practitioners.



Yet with Wing Chun or other traditional styles, you can't find the counter example?

Here's some more slap fu, straight from China;






And this is HARD CORE FULL CONTACT.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> They're never on Youtube.
> 
> Yet I can find plenty of boxers, BJJers, Wrestlers, Judokas, etc. on youtube doing what they do best.
> 
> ...



Like I said mate , cherry picking , cherry picking.
See how this works , you can pretty much find anything you want to support a biased viewpoint.

Heres a BJJ guy showing those phenomenal ground skills we hear so much about.

[video=youtube_share;tpwi1cmR3N0]http://youtu.be/tpwi1cmR3N0[/video]


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Like I said mate , cherry picking , cherry picking.
> See how this works , you can pretty much find anything you want to support a biased viewpoint.



Except for some reason, you can't find a video that supports your viewpoint.



> Heres a BJJ guy showing those phenomenal ground skills we hear so much about.



And we both know that I can find multiple counter examples, yet you're unable to find a single counter example to what I posted.

That's the difference.

I will give the CMAs credit; At least they resemble their training better than karate does while sparring. However, those hits lack power, and its two guys just slapping each other like girls fighting in the school yard. 

I would like to see CMA with stronger, more concise hand techniques, and stopping power.

The entire time I'm watching these vids, I'm just thinking how easy it would be for a grappler to take them down and have their way with them. They fall on the ground constantly because their footwork is all over the place, and if they're not generating power while standing, they're not going to be generating much power in an inferior position. It's really interesting.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Except for some reason, you can't find a video that supports your viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You think it's interesting watching Wing Chun novices with no stance , and no concept of the centerline?

Your easily entertained aren't ya champ.


----------



## K-man (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Traditional martial art.
> Because again, they retain traditional techniques simply for preservation purposes. By contrast, I would consider Bjj a modern martial art because nothing we do in Bjj isn't used when we fight. We fight like we train.
> 
> So Bjj is modern, Kyokushin is traditional, despite Bjj being older than Kyokushin.


 So now we have differentiation. Kyokushin is not much like the original karate but is traditional but BJJ that is very similar to where the Gracies started out is modern. How does that work?



Hanzou said:


> Why would the Okinawan karate viewpoint override the viewpoint of Japanese and Korean karate stylists?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mainly because Karate was from Okinawa and was exported to Japan and modified into the form of karate you see in Japan. As to the bunkai, it is a basic stylised basic bunkai used as demonstration. I posted real hands on bunkai for you but you disregarded it as something you had not seen. Well the simple fact is you have never seen traditional Okinawan karate but you continue to try to disprove its existence. How strange is that.



Hanzou said:


> Because they're called blocks;
> 
> LEARNING JAPANESE ? Blocking Techniques (Uke-waza) ? Using Arms
> List of Taekwondo techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


And in Aikido as in karate we do not stop an attack. Stop one attack, another will start. Deflect the attack and use that moment to attack. That is the meaning of uke.



Hanzou said:


> The same reason some martial arts teach people how to use swords and bladed spears in an era when people are armed with handguns, and don't carry swords on their hip or pole-arms on their back. Its all about maintaining/preserving tradition.


And this has nothing to do with karate. In Okinawa weapon training is kobudo, separate training.




Hanzou said:


> Okay, but Karate katas are loaded with chambered hand movements. As I showed above and in earlier posts, all of those applications aren't for grappling and throws. In fact, the good majority of them are for striking. Hence why it's called a "punch" in Karate is called a punch, not a movement that sets up a throw or a grapple.


You showed nothing. You posted out of context video that supported your uninformed view.



Hanzou said:


> When I say "fight" I'm including competition, sparring in class, and self defense. You really don't see many traditional karate techniques in competition, or sparring in class, which makes the possibility of pulling it off in a self defense situation highly unlikely.


Quite the contrary. I say to all my karate students, if there is any technique you can't use in a real fight I will throw it out of our training. I haven't had to throw anything out yet. The fact that you would even say what you just said reflects badly on your knowledge and training.



Hanzou said:


> While that didn't degenerate into crappy kickboxing, it definitely degenerated into crappy slap-fu.
> 
> In case you're wondering, Slap-Fu is worse.


This is offensive and totally wrong. The WC guy creamed the MT guy. No slaps just straight in, first for a takedown, then backed him against the wall. You have a very biased point of view.



Hanzou said:


> If you say so. From my PoV it looked like two guys windmilling each other with the WC guy actually connecting. Neither looked overly impressive or good in a technical sense. If my instructor looked like either one of those guys did in that little sparring match, I would immediately quit that school and look for some place legit.
> 
> Which is why that MT boxer got slapped dozens of times and walked out of that without a single mark or bruise on him? There was no power behind any of those slaps. He probably got more damage from running into the glass.


So why didn't the MT guy fight back? Why did he keep backing away? Not to mention the fact that there were not 'dozens of slaps'. And of course you put down the WC guy as not legit because he doesn't look or fight the way your instructor would fight. Well, I've got some news for you. A boxer doesn't look or fight like a sumo wrestler either, and I doubt either looks or fights like your instructor. So, which one is not legit? Pity you can't accept the value of all the different martial arts and move on without the continuous put downs.



Hanzou said:


> Or maybe the Wing Chun guy lacks power in his strikes?


I doubt it. They seemed effective enough in a sparring situation to me, especially when WC guys don't normally spar.



Hanzou said:


> Except for some reason, you can't find a video that supports your viewpoint.
> 
> And we both know that I can find multiple counter examples, yet you're unable to find a single counter example to what I posted.
> 
> That's the difference.


Not all martial artists feel the need to post their training on YouTube. Just because it isn't on YouTube doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



Hanzou said:


> I will give the CMAs credit; At least they resemble their training better than karate does while sparring. However, those hits lack power, and its two guys just slapping each other like girls fighting in the school yard.
> 
> I would like to see CMA with stronger, more concise hand techniques, and stopping power.
> 
> The entire time I'm watching these vids, I'm just thinking how easy it would be for a grappler to take them down and have their way with them. They fall on the ground constantly because their footwork is all over the place, and if they're not generating power while standing, they're not going to be generating much power in an inferior position. It's really interesting.


And of course you are talking about training against a specialist grappler. Footwork all over the place obviously is in a sparring context. As I said sparring has no real place in our training. But thanks for your insight that CMA's are better than Karate in the way they train. Your ignorance of my martial art in particular continues to amaze.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Of course. However the straight punch seen in many traditional striking styles (while sparring) comes directly from western boxing. How do I know this? Because it is accompanied by the stance, footwork, and defensive posture of western boxing. The straight punch in Shotokan is very similar to the reverse punch. It shares little with the boxer straight punch.
> 
> Check out this exchange between two Kung Fu stylists;
> 
> ...



Fa jing is used in a fight....
It's good body positioning when issuing power, boxers use it as well it's like rotating ur waist and then putting that power into ur punch, good body mechanics


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

It's cause his not wearing gloves... So he doesn't want to use fists


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

U would then find the people in that video...
jerry is a wing chun situ and a former Hong Kong Sanda champion and representative.
phillip is a choy lee fut and wing chun sift u can find videos if his students going a lot harder than that.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> You think it's interesting watching Wing Chun novices with no stance , and no concept of the centerline?
> 
> Your easily entertained aren't ya champ.



So all of those guys I watched in all of those videos are novices?

That can't be correct.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

K-man said:


> So now we have differentiation. Kyokushin is not much like the original karate but is traditional but BJJ that is very similar to where the Gracies started out is modern. How does that work?



Because Kyokushin utilizes traditional techniques that they don't use within their fighting method solely for the purpose of preservation and tradition. Bjj has no techniques like that.



> Mainly because Karate was from Okinawa and was exported to Japan and modified into the form of karate you see in Japan.



Still doesn't mean that an Okinawan Karate practitioner has more say on what is traditional karate than a Japanese or Korean Karate practitioner. 



> As to the bunkai, it is a basic stylised basic bunkai used as demonstration. I posted real hands on bunkai for you but you disregarded it as something you had not seen. Well the simple fact is you have never seen traditional Okinawan karate but you continue to try to disprove its existence. How strange is that.



And again, the point was that the entirety of Okinawan kata bunkai is NOT grappling and throws like you claimed it was.



> And in Aikido as in karate we do not stop an attack. Stop one attack, another will start. Deflect the attack and use that moment to attack. That is the meaning of uke.



Deflecting an attack still constitutes blocking an attack. So yes, blocking does exist in karate, yet isn't present in sparring.



> And this has nothing to do with karate. In Okinawa weapon training is kobudo, separate training.



It's called an analogy.



> You showed nothing. You posted out of context video that supported your uninformed view.



I showed Karate Kata, and then I showed Karate sparring, and then made the argument that Karate sparring isn't matching Karate fighting. How is that out of context?



> Quite the contrary. I say to all my karate students, if there is any technique you can't use in a real fight I will throw it out of our training. I haven't had to throw anything out yet. The fact that you would even say what you just said reflects badly on your knowledge and training.



Well unfortunately there is no video of your students sparring with these techniques. So we'll just have to take your word for it.



> So why didn't the MT guy fight back? Why did he keep backing away? Not to mention the fact that there were not 'dozens of slaps'. And of course you put down the WC guy as not legit because he doesn't look or fight the way your instructor would fight. Well, I've got some news for you. A boxer doesn't look or fight like a sumo wrestler either, and I doubt either looks or fights like your instructor. So, which one is not legit? Pity you can't accept the value of all the different martial arts and move on without the continuous put downs.



Actually I put them both down. I said both were pretty terrible. I wouldn't hold up that video as an expression of either art's effectiveness.



> I doubt it. They seemed effective enough in a sparring situation to me, especially when WC guys don't normally spar.



That's quite apparent.



> Not all martial artists feel the need to post their training on YouTube. Just because it isn't on YouTube doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



So only the terrible  and mediocre traditional martial artists post their training on YT while the "real" TMA stylists hide in the shadows?



> And of course you are talking about training against a specialist grappler. Footwork all over the place obviously is in a sparring context. As I said sparring has no real place in our training. But thanks for your insight that CMA's are better than Karate in the way they train. Your ignorance of my martial art in particular continues to amaze.



I never said that CMAs are better than Karate. I simply said that CMA sparring more resembles the forms that they practice. That doesn't mean that CMA is more effective than Karate or vice versa.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> It's cause his not wearing gloves... So he doesn't want to use fists



Amazon.com : UFC Practice Glove : Martial Arts Training Gloves : Sports & Outdoors

It would improve those hand techniques.



qianfeng said:


> U would then find the people in that video...
> jerry is a wing chun situ and a former Hong Kong Sanda champion and representative.
> phillip is a choy lee fut and wing chun sift u can find videos if his students going a lot harder than that.



Would you happen to know the name of their schools/academies? That would be very helpful.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> You are using a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No it is still accountability vs no accountability. I can find maywhethers fight record who he fought and how he won. And I can not find your instructors. 

One has a proven fight record one does not.

And you can't compare the claims as equal. This is why people find tales of instructor superiority suspect.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Traditional martial art.
> 
> Because again, they retain traditional techniques simply for preservation purposes. By contrast, I would consider Bjj a modern martial art because nothing we do in Bjj isn't used when we fight. We fight like we train.
> 
> So Bjj is modern, Kyokushin is traditional, despite Bjj being older than Kyokushin.



http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVxgHW5C5g


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ApVxgHW5C5g



Hmm, that's actually better than my warm-up. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Amazon.com : UFC Practice Glove : Martial Arts Training Gloves : Sports & Outdoors
> 
> It would improve those hand techniques.
> 
> ...



I only know the one for philip ng
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/straightblast5/videos

Site: Ng Family Chinese Martial Arts Association


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Buka said:


>



There's no taste in that guy's mouth anymore.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> I only know the one for philip ng



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVTQb2tvSkU&list=UUHKRCZotjbF9l_XWVsNoj_Q

Sigh.....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I can find maywhethers fight record who he fought and how he won. And I can not find your instructors.



Probably because the RTKD instructor does not compete in competitions to have a fight record.



drop bear said:


> This is why people find tales of instructor superiority suspect.



That is an argument for personal incredulity and a strawman, how efficient of you. I have never said that our intsructors are superior to anyone, only that they have been able to defend themselves in real situations on many occasions.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Because Kyokushin utilizes traditional techniques that they don't use within their fighting method solely for the purpose of preservation and tradition. Bjj has no techniques like that.
> 
> I showed Karate Kata, and then I showed Karate sparring, and then made the argument that Karate sparring isn't matching Karate fighting. How is that out of context?
> 
> ...



Perhaps you fail to realize that sparring and self defence are not actually the same thing.


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Perhaps you fail to realize that sparring and self defence are not actually the same thing.



Strictly speaking, training of any kind is not actual self defense.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

drop bear said:


> OK you make the claim your instructor fights better than mayweather. By your argument mayweather is undefeated. Your instructor is undefeated. More importantly mayweather is invited at any time to cross hands with your instructor in Perth and the fact he hasn't proves your instructors superiority.
> 
> The difference being that maywether has a proven fight record against the best in the world and you instructor has not.
> 
> Now if you wanted to take this to the street. That is fine but you would still need to demonstrate a proven fight record. This is not street vs sport. This accountability vs no accountability.



Some perspective:

I showed a 100 man Kumite (for charity where they are not trying to beat each other, just spar for 100 rounds).

I said to *Hanzou*;



RTKDCMB said:


> No one has been able to get the better of one of our top students in one  of our classes before. But hey *you *are more than welcome to come to one  of our classes and test your hypothesis anytime you like.



You said to *me*;



drop bear said:


> You can't compare an unproven claim like your  instructor has taken out an unknown quantity of challengers of unknown  skill with no evidence. Against an evidence based claim like a  professional fight record. Which is documented and recorded.
> 
> It is not the same thing.



Then;



drop bear said:


> OK you make the claim your instructor fights better than mayweather



Basically like saying 'my dad is going to beat you up". I made no claims whatsoever.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Steve said:


> Strictly speaking, training of any kind is not actual self defense.



True, but not what I was getting at. I was referring to the fact that not all of the techniques, strategies, stances etc can or should be used in sparring and are better off being used in various drills.


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> True, but not what I was getting at. I was referring to the fact that not all of the techniques, strategies, stances etc can or should be used in sparring and are better off being used in various drills.



Yeah. I know what you were getting at.  I think it's specious, though.   Sparring is bot self defense.  Neither is competition.  But kata, forms, one or two step drills or any other kind of training are no closer for exactly the same reasons.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 15, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Except for some reason, you can't find a video that supports your viewpoint.
> 
> 
> And we both know that I can find multiple counter examples, yet you're unable to find a single counter example to what I posted.
> ...



Yes, because we all know YouTube is the ultimate authority/truth and only credible source of unbiased, contextual information on everything!


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 15, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Perhaps you fail to realize that sparring and self defence are not actually the same thing.



So you're saying that traditional martial artists only resemble their kata and one step drills during self-defense situations?

If so, why would a martial artist be unable to perform those techniques in a controlled environment, yet be perfectly capable of performing those techniques in an uncontrolled environment?



RTKDCMB said:


> Yes, because we all know YouTube is the ultimate authority/truth and only credible source of unbiased, contextual information on everything!



I never made that argument.

I'm saying that in the modern age of the internet, mobile video recorders, camera phones, and social media, the idea that somehow no one has been able to properly document the true nature of hundreds of TMA styles is a pretty ridiculous notion.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 15, 2014)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Sometimes, in the course of our discussions on issues important to us, tempers will rise and posts become increasingly less friendly. Sometimes, posts become downright UNfriendly. The hope of the Moderation Team, at times like these, is that by stepping in with a public reminder that this is Martial Talk: A Friendly Martial Arts Community we can avoid the need to step in with stronger measures.
Please. Keep the discussion friendly, polite and professional.

Thank you.
Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Yes, because we all know YouTube is the ultimate authority/truth and only credible source of unbiased, contextual information on everything!



Depends what you are comparing it to. If some valid study was done the no. But if it is weighed against a personal opinion then yes.

What would you consider a more credible source?

And of course you are welcome to present it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> Yeah. I know what you were getting at.  I think it's specious, though.   Sparring is bot self defense.  Neither is competition.  But kata, forms, one or two step drills or any other kind of training are no closer for exactly the same reasons.



Sparring has two issues one that they are fighting back and two they are as good as you are so the strategies and techniques are probably over engineered for  what is neccesary in self defence. So where you may need 20 guard passes to defeat a guy who knows how to defend guard passes. You don't need that level of depth for someone who doesn't know any.

For example. Mma. In the UFC there have been I think two non choke submissions this year. Now this is not because sub's don't work. It is because people have trained to defend them. So now I have to train submissions for no other reason than to negate them from the equation.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Probably because the RTKD instructor does not compete in competitions to have a fight record.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument for personal incredulity and a strawman, how efficient of you. I have never said that our intsructors are superior to anyone, only that they have been able to defend themselves in real situations on many occasions.



That is the reason behind personal incredulity because one is evidence based and the other is anecdotal. I am going to follow the evidence obviously.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 16, 2014)

U know u didn't have to find that one video where one guy (not from ng family martial arts) sucks and gets owned and looked at the better ones....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> What would you consider a more credible source?
> 
> And of course you are welcome to present it.



What kind of source would satisfy you?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> That is the reason behind personal incredulity because one is evidence based and the other is anecdotal. I am going to follow the evidence obviously.



It's called eyewitness accounts actually, but then if it's not on YouTube it didn't happen.YOU have never provided any evidence of your superior fighting style you think you have, nor any videos of YOU doing anything, only random YouTube videos of others and examples of martial arts for you to disparage.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> While that didn't degenerate into crappy kickboxing, it definitely degenerated into crappy slap-fu.



Yet it was still better than the Muay Thai.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 16, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> U know u didn't have to find that one video where one guy (not from ng family martial arts) sucks and gets owned and looked at the better ones....



Was there another video showing free sparring that I missed?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 16, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> Yet it was still better than the Muay Thai.



Well to the boxer's credit, his low kick looked very crisp. Unfortunately everything else looked like poop.

More to the point; We know that boxers look crisp and very clean when they fight. We also know that they're incredibly dangerous strikers. There's countless videos and examples that show this, and numerous martial art schools focus on defenses against these fighters.

I'd like to see some examples of crisp, technique-rich Karate or Kung Fu in a sparring or competition environment. As of right now, I'm left wondering why their forms and demonstrations look one way, yet their fighting looks completely different (and in some cases far worse).


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> What kind of source would satisfy you?



I am easy.Something that is not anecdotal. Which I know is hard and why I tend to use YouTube.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> It's called eyewitness accounts actually, but then if it's not on YouTube it didn't happen.YOU have never provided any evidence of your superior fighting style you think you have, nor any videos of YOU doing anything, only random YouTube videos of others and examples of martial arts for you to disparage.



I don't think I have made any sort of claim that I am awsome. I have actively tried to make it not about me.

An eyewitness account would have to be varafiable so for example up here we have a guy Paul Cale who does street. The difference being he has varafiable experience.

http://www.news.com.au/national/dig...aliban-commander/story-fncynjr2-1226593075852

Interestingly he heads up Kudo. Which I would put as neo traditional. A new martial art with traditional trappings.


----------



## qianfeng (Aug 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Was there another video showing free sparring that I missed?



There is sparring in the training vids and the kung fu quest behind the scenes one


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> More to the point; We know that boxers look crisp and very clean when they fight.
> 
> I'd like to see some examples of crisp, technique-rich Karate or Kung Fu in a sparring or competition environment.



I have seen many MMA and Kickboxing fights were the fighting was sloppy and unfocussed.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 16, 2014)

qianfeng said:


> There is sparring in the training vids and the kung fu quest behind the scenes one



I suppose you would prefer me referencing this clip?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syxf4EEAIGE&list=UUHKRCZotjbF9l_XWVsNoj_Q

Fantastic unarmed and weapons forms. I do enjoy seeing traditional martial forms performed by people who know what they're doing.

However then the sparring began. Despite the exotic techniques displayed in the forms, and the drills, the students and instructors fight like western boxers. Why learn all of those exotic movements if when I actually fight, I'm going to be using the 4 punches that boxers use? Why not simply train boxing if that's the case?

BTW, I'm not the only person who noticed it. From the comments;



> [h=3]ozhunga[/h]7 months ago
> 
> I  love your ethics and training* but why do you western box when you train  Choy lay fut it seems so many styles of kungfuqld have such good  training Jongs etc but always end up jabbing each other.*
> Appreciate your time and efforts for uploading your training.&#65279;






It goes back to the very point of this thread; Traditional Martial Arts train techniques not for fighting or combat effectiveness, but for preservation purposes.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 16, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I don't think I have made any sort of claim that I am awsome. I have actively tried to make it not about me.
> 
> An eyewitness account would have to be varafiable so for example up here we have a guy Paul Cale who does street. The difference being he has varafiable experience.
> 
> ...



There are many traditional martial artists that have military records. Master Rhee was the lead instructor for the Korean 'Demon Hunter' Marines, who have verifiable military experience.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> There are many traditional martial artists that have military records. Master Rhee was the lead instructor for the Korean 'Demon Hunter' Marines, who have verifiable military experience.



Then you would for example present that as proof if the situation came up. So the documentation of when it was used would be applicable.

I would throw this out if for example someone wanted to make a false allegations that sports systems are not battlefield systems.

And having a look it seems that tkd is separated into traditional and competitive.

Which is not always a line that is made in a martial art.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 17, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I have seen many MMA and Kickboxing fights were the fighting was sloppy and unfocussed.



Probably because brawling and dirty boxing is a big part of MMA and kickboxing. I expect martial arts that contain beautiful forms and acrobatics to be a bit more attractive when it comes to fighting.


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 18, 2014)

Having practiced both very traditional styles and modern mixed ones I can`t see any real difference. You train to accuire skill. Sparing in traditional karate and mma is the same, "fist meets flesh". The repeated ad naseum silly arguments of "tma is inneffective and for show" and "mma is only monkey-dance sport" are both equally false.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 18, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Having practiced both very traditional styles and modern mixed ones I can`t see any real difference. You train to accuire skill. Sparing in traditional karate and mma is the same, "fist meets flesh". The repeated ad naseum silly arguments of "tma is inneffective and for show" and "mma is only monkey-dance sport" are both equally false.



We've already established the difference. TMAs are loaded with antiquated forms and katas, training with feudal weaponry, minimal sparring,  and ancient/secretive techniques that supposedly maim or kill.

Modern MAs don't have these features.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 18, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> We've already established the difference. TMAs are loaded with antiquated forms and katas, training with feudal weaponry, minimal sparring,  and ancient/secretive techniques that supposedly maim or kill.
> 
> Modern MAs don't have these features.




There is some grey area in that.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NouSD4OMEac


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 18, 2014)

drop bear said:


> There is some grey area in that.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NouSD4OMEac



Machida isnt a martial art. He's a martial artist.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Machida isnt a martial art. He's a martial artist.



Who uses traditional methods to supliment his success in a hybrid competition.

MMA does this a lot.

There are more highly ranked traditional stylists who are elite MMA guys than you would think. People equate MMA to Bruce lee,s philosophy and there is a difference. Bruce did one hybrid. MMA people do a hybrid and grade into legitimate practitioners of the component tma,s that make up their style.

They don't reject the useless.

When you do the bjj component of MMA you put on the GI. Do things the bjj way grade get the belt and have a real grounding in that martial art.

If you do karate you do the kata and the stances.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> There are many traditional martial artists that have military records. Master Rhee was the lead instructor for the Korean 'Demon Hunter' Marines, who have verifiable military experience.




Varify it.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Aug 19, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Varify it.



It's already verified. Verify your own experience.


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> We've already established the difference. TMAs are loaded with antiquated forms and katas, training with feudal weaponry, minimal sparring, and ancient/secretive techniques that supposedly maim or kill.
> 
> Modern MAs don't have these features.



Maybe you can establish black is white and get killed on your next zebra crossing as well. Like I said, it is all fist meet flesh (or weapon meets flesh since you bring that up). The differences in how to accuire skill are not at all that huge, drills might be different at first sight but principles remain the same. The old "you all suck" does nothing but display insecurity.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> It's already verified. Verify your own experience.



I wasn't comparing my experience with master Rhee. I was comparing Paul Cale as an example of varifyable street.  And did that only because there is a news article relating directly to street experience there.

All I try to do is.
Make a point. Back that point up with some sort of evidence. And leave the emotion at home.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 20, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Oh I didn't see any Slap Fu , what I did see however is a Wing Chun guy deflecting every one of the Muay Thai guys punches and then going straight through his centerline and then running over him until he backed him into a mirror.
> 
> What you think are slaps are actually open hand deflections.
> But since you brought up the topic of slaps , do not underestimate the power of a slap.
> ...



I would have to agree in that the Wing Chun guy did exactly what he was trained to do.  Advance, deflect, off balance the opponent and attack.  In the two instances on that tape one ended with the Muay Thai guy on the ground and being punched and the other with him being forced backward and off balance while being struck and forced into the mirror. The mistake the Muay Thai guy made was in not getting off the line quickly in both instances.  I will admit that it did not look pretty but if we have to rate who won the sparring match it was clearly the Wing Chun guy!


----------



## Buka (Aug 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would have to agree in that the Wing Chun guy did exactly what he was trained to do.  Advance, deflect, off balance the opponent and attack.  In the two instances on that tape one ended with the Muay Thai guy on the ground and being punched and the other with him being forced backward and off balance while being struck and forced into the mirror. The mistake the Muay Thai guy made was in not getting off the line quickly in both instances.  I will admit that it did not look pretty but if we have to rate who won the sparring match it was clearly the Wing Chun guy!



I agree. And fighting is seldom pretty. Oh, we would love it to be, especially when we're doing it (would be cool, no?) but it seldom works or looks that way. The example I like to use for guys in my gym is the Gonzaga knockout of Crocop -






We could pick apart that roundhouse in all sorts of ways. But it seemed to work pretty well.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 20, 2014)

Buka said:


> I agree. And fighting is seldom pretty. Oh, we would love it to be, especially when we're doing it (would be cool, no?) but it seldom works or looks that way. The example I like to use for guys in my gym is the Gonzaga knockout of Crocop -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, real fighting is seldom pretty!


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 22, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Maybe you can establish black is white and get killed on your next zebra crossing as well. Like I said, it is all fist meet flesh (or weapon meets flesh since you bring that up). The differences in how to accuire skill are not at all that huge, drills might be different at first sight but principles remain the same. The old "you all suck" does nothing but display insecurity.



Except its not. How one is trained also matters quite a bit as well. If your school isn't teaching you sparring or randori, you're not going to build the muscle memory necessary to perform that technique when you need it. You can't punch something effectively unless you've actually punched something. You can't throw someone unless you actually throw someone. Some styles provide that training, many don't.

 We simply have too much evidence to believe otherwise.


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Except its not. How one is trained also matters quite a bit as well. If your school isn't teaching you sparring or randori, you're not going to build the muscle memory necessary to perform that technique when you need it. You can't punch something effectively unless you've actually punched something. You can't throw someone unless you actually throw someone. Some styles provide that training, many don't.
> 
> We simply have too much evidence to believe otherwise.



Both old and new styles have excellent ways of building muscle memory. It is not like we just recently discovered there is such a thing.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 25, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> Both old and new styles have excellent ways of building muscle memory. It is not like we just recently discovered there is such a thing.



False. Refer back to the earlier discussion in this thread about the Karatekas not being able to reverse punch while sparring. Clearly their training did not develop the muscle memory necessary to perform the reverse punch under duress.


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> False. Refer back to the earlier discussion in this thread about the Karatekas not being able to reverse punch while sparring. Clearly their training did not develop the muscle memory necessary to perform the reverse punch under duress.



As a student of traditional karate I have no problem using the reverse punch during sparring, nor have I found what I have learned there to be inferior to more modern styles in that regard. That goes the other way too. There is really no reason for the "you suck" since we all pretty much do the same thing, accuire skill trough hard training over time.


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 25, 2014)

Cirdan said:


> As a student of traditional karate I have no problem using the reverse punch during sparring, nor have I found what I have learned there to be inferior to more modern styles in that regard. That goes the other way too. There is really no reason for the "you suck" since we all pretty much do the same thing, accuire skill trough hard training over time.



Would you happen to have any video of you or your classmates sparring? I would be very interested in seeing it.

If not, your school's name will suffice.


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 26, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would you happen to have any video of you or your classmates sparring? I would be very interested in seeing it.
> 
> If not, your school's name will suffice.



Have a look in my profile for some webpages.


----------



## carloscrane (Sep 1, 2014)

Thanks for correcting me but, according to me in TMA, there are no rules, there is no defined code of behavior, there is no defined start and stop, no one will say start and stop, and there is no list of techniques and targets. Survival is not guaranteed.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 1, 2014)

carloscrane said:


> Thanks for correcting me but, according to me in TMA, there are no rules, there is no defined code of behavior, there is no defined start and stop, no one will say start and stop, and there is no list of techniques and targets. Survival is not guaranteed.



This occurs in training?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8QrOAghZ0


----------



## Steve (Sep 1, 2014)

drop bear said:


> This occurs in training?
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8QrOAghZ0


Okay.  I don't know about anyone else, but that's a great clip.  Peter Sellers was a genius.


----------

