# Traditional vs MMA



## Slihn (Aug 28, 2006)

*Hello all.What are you ideals on Traditional Martials and MMA?*

*Which one do you prefer over the other and why?*

*In your opionion what are their strengths and weaknesses?*

*Do you think it is better to train in one or the other,or have a balanced mix between them both?*

                                I primarly train in Modern Martial Arts (MMA and both Traditional Style and Modern Style Muay Thay) the reason for this is because I believe that it is more practical concentrating on Techniques that can perform at almost combat speed then it is to concentrate on moves that you cannot really truly pratice ,but you have faith they they will work.For example a few techniques that I get to practice and I KNOW will work are: the rear naked choke, all arm locks, Thai kicks , knees and elbows . 

While training in a traditional dojo I was often taught "deadly" techniques, but since I never really got a chance to practice them I dont know how effective the will really be,so how would I know that they will even work.Sure an eye gougue will work,but how do you truly know how to distinguish the pressure it takes to temporarily blind someone or cause serious injury or death?

I firmly beilve that being able to practice your techniques near combat speed is the morst effective way of developing them.It is the concept of Randori.Soon after Kodokan Judo was founded the Judokais challenged their "mother" art (one of the reasons Kano created Judo was because most of the techniques he learned in Japanese Jujistu where not able to be practiced at combat speed,and therefor there was little evidence,besides faith,that they even worked.Also Jujitsu did not have any type of strategy) The Judokais almost always won and Kano believe that the reason for this is because the Judokais got to train their techniques constantly at combat speed.That is the way that I feel about Martial Arts training and that is why I personaly prefer "Mordern/MMA" over Traditional.

Another reason I perfer MMA is because most people today fight more like boxers or wrestlers ,abit different than the way people fought thousnads of years ago.

With all of tha being said there are aspects of Traditional Martial Arts that I srtand for.They are the Spirtiuality,the discipline and the honor.The downfall of many "mordern" Studios is that they have lost the spirtuality and honor that follows with traditional arts.(I feel like fighting in a cage is abit degrading to the martial arts.) 

Another aspect on Traditional that I stand for is that they teach students not to want to be on the ground,I feel that many mordern schools,see groud fighting as an alternitve,but the fact of the matter  is(the way I was taught in Bujikian Taijitsu) that you DO NOT want to be on the ground and the reason why groud fight should be practice is not to try to take it to the ground,but if you end up there you will be so skillful that you will not be there for long.

Also the idea of taking about your opponent quickly apeals to me,espeically when faced against multiple attackers.I think that some "mordern" schools may implement(rather intenional or not) that its ok,to"wait for an opening" or that its ok to "work a technique in" as oppose to taking your opponet or attacker out quickly.

Traditional Arts also often teach weapon defense,which is very important cause now days you never know what your attacke/opponet might be hiding.

My ideal studio would have the practicalness of MMA and the mindset of the seriousness of combat found in the traditional art.

Like in everything in life there should be a balance between the two.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 28, 2006)

Since I'd guess at least 95% of the people involved in martial arts will never "need it", "it" being the physical fighting skills, I'd say it is purely a matter of personal prefrence.

That said, I am a MMA type person and don't like static drills, untested theory based on old knowledge and tradition for the sake of tradition 

On some of the other things, like weapon defence. We are a MMA club, but occasionally involve weapons.  The lesson there is if you are unarmed, and the other guy is not very little works, and pretty much nothing is reliable.  Find a weapon or run away, and if you take the first both of you will get hit.

Multiple attackers - We've done it.  Unless they suck you are going to loss, and loss bad.  Even if they suck it's going to be very hard to come out on top.

"Seriousness" - Not sure what you mean there, Most MMA folks are quite serious about what they do.  Most not to the level of the pro's that train full time, But seriousness is found in all arts.

"Honor" - Honor is there, but it's an individual thing, not a style thing.  And in some ways the meaning of the term changes.  MMA, and other combat sports, are in a sense "Duels."  Which historically where a matter of "honor".  When you fight someone, with the right attitude, both people gain a lot of respect for the other.

"Spirituality" is in the eye of the beholder.  When an athlete pushes themself beyond what they where previously capable of, hits "the zone" and achieves what seemed impossible, there is a spiritual component there.  IMO a much stronger one then a bunch of people kneeling, bowing and meditating.


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 28, 2006)

well I hope i do not offend anyone. before I state my opinion I will give you a short back ground ( yeah i could be bull crapping, this is the net, but I think you will find me an honest person in the long run)

when i hear people use the term mma today it is as if something is new, well it is not. after 30 years I have studied to an advanced level, okinawa karate, japanes karate, kenpo, juijitsu, external and internal cma's, i grew up in a bad home and ran the streets and got into plenty of dumb trouble, i wrestled in school, until i was kicked out, and had the pleasure of being locked up with some bad street gangs as a teen, no I am not proud of all of my past, but it certainly made me realize what would and wouldn't work, atleast in the circumstances i have faced.

I have always been bewildered by the people who have only studied one style for decades, or by the black belts who open a school, become the "master" and never have a teacher again, I to this day still study with a teacher, my master rank is nothing to me, I love the ability to learn new skills and hone what i have.

I beleive traditional ma's are very valid, though not often taught as such, nearly every system has grappling, controling, striking, and throwing, but they are often not taught as a whole system, just parts and peices.

i study and practice traditional arts, but not in a way most would consider traditional. so most traditionlists consider me a mma person and most mma people consider me traditional.

to me each is great and each lack in areas, but not as a whole, it is certainly the person teaching or practicing that lacks or excells not the system.

again just my opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> untested theory based on old knowledge and tradition for the sake of tradition



Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd.  Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"

48 year old _small_ female security guard studying BBT breaks a LARGE male agressers arm and ko's him before the police arive. (story in the X-kan section of this board)  Is that art "untested?"

A small... Id say hes maybe 5'2... local Kung fu instructor put a LARGE self proclaimed chaimpon boxer in the hospital when he came in spouting crap about how boxing was the **** cuz they take "real" hits and challenged the guy... is that art "Untested?"

Basically, Andrew...and the rest of you MMA guys... any art, TMA, Modern Combatives, MMA, or whatever... is only as good as the practitioner... Im sure all of them have their successes and failures...  I know one MMA cop who got ****ED up because he tried to use his MMA skills in a livingroom crowded with furniture.  Did he successfully take the guy down... YUP... but the guy got right back up after the MMA guy cracked his head open on the coffeetable when they went down... incidently, his partner, a BBT practitioner prolly saved his life when SHE took the guy back down and cuffed him... Lesson learned? MAYBE not the best art to use when there are obstacles, or maybe the guy was a bad practitioner.  You decide.  

Fact is... testing in the ring is fine, it doesnt mean its the ONLY THING THAT WORKS.  I wouldnt wanna step into the ring with one of you guys, you are great athletes and sport fighters, but Id pit an art like mine against almost any MMA guy on the street, with no ring rules.  

Why?

My "TMA" trains with firearms, so while you train to "shootfight" we train to fight by shooting... in that situation, which of us wins on the street?


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

Oh, and to answer Slihn's original question, I like many of the MMA techniques I have been shown, I think incorporated into the correct fighting strategy they are SOLID techniques, so I would say a good balance would be appropriate.  A lot of arts lack solid groundfighting techniques, and I think MMA crosstraining would be a benefit to that.

However... if I can steal a bit of wisdom from a master here for a moment... technique doesnt go very far... unless its paired with strategy.

Walk up to a girl in a bar, and say "hey Baby. Whats your sign" and it MAY work, but probably not.  THATS a technique.

Walk up to a Girl in a bar, and use some strategy to apply that technique... and you are far more likely to go home with the girl.

Please note, Im not saying MMA has no strategy, Im saying another art cant just take the techniques, and expect them to work.


----------



## Rook (Aug 28, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd. Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"


 
No problem.  



> 48 year old _small_ female security guard studying BBT breaks a LARGE male agressers arm and ko's him before the police arive. (story in the X-kan section of this board) Is that art "untested?"


 
We hear stories like this all the time between two or more totally untrained individuals.  It happens.  It will happen more if you train for it.  It will happen more effectively and you'll be able to do it more consistanly as your methods of breaking and methods of training to break improve.  



> A small... Id say hes maybe 5'2... local Kung fu instructor put a LARGE self proclaimed chaimpon boxer in the hospital when he came in spouting crap about how boxing was the **** cuz they take "real" hits and challenged the guy... is that art "Untested?"


 
Against who?  Did his art prove itself or did one proponent just beat another?  



> Basically, Andrew...and the rest of you MMA guys... any art, TMA, Modern Combatives, MMA, or whatever... is only as good as the practitioner...


 
I generally think of it as a combination of factors.  In the birth of cagefighting, Royce beat people who had trained longer, were substantially larger, stronger, faster, and more physically capable in almost every form than he was.  He beat most of them easily because they were utterly unprepared for him.  If you watch the MMA videos floating around the internet, many BJJ guys are skinny south americans who have little muscle mass and are tiny compared to some of the people they choke out with ease.  

The level of consistancy with which this is done seems to disprove the idea that it is just a few extraordinarly skilled MMAists or BJJers who wipe out everyone else...  




> Im sure all of them have their successes and failures... I know one MMA cop who got ****ED up because he tried to use his MMA skills in a livingroom crowded with furniture. Did he successfully take the guy down... YUP... but the guy got right back up after the MMA guy cracked his head open on the coffeetable when they went down...


 
He needs to work on his takedowns.  You will find incompetent practitioners or bad luck in any style.  



> incidently, his partner, a BBT practitioner prolly saved his life when SHE took the guy back down and cuffed him... Lesson learned? MAYBE not the best art to use when there are obstacles, or maybe the guy was a bad practitioner. You decide.


 
I don't think the lesson is just that the art doesn't work... the guy made a stupid mistake.  



> Fact is... testing in the ring is fine, it doesnt mean its the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. I wouldnt wanna step into the ring with one of you guys, you are great athletes and sport fighters, but Id pit my art against almost any MMA guy on the street, with no ring rules.


 
Go for it!  I want to see the video.  It has been done before and will be done again.  



> Why?
> 
> My "TMA" trains with firearms, so while you train to "shootfight" I train to fight by shooting... in that situation, which of us wins on the street?


 
So what is your rating in NRA competitions or the local target shooting events?  Compare that to your fellow gunmen to see who would win... its slightly less direct than fighting in a ring, but its the same sort of statistical comparison.  

-----

The problem with the use of anecdotal comparisons is that everyone has a lucky day, and 999 out of every 1000 of the stories out there are either lies or greatly exadurated.  People promoting herbal healing and psi-powers as well as multilevel marketers and hawkers of all useless junk have one or ten happy customers who gladly write of the miracles that have befallen them.  

It is better to look at the statistical breakdown when fighters from different styles go head to head.  The fact right now is that almost every time MMA clashes with another style, the MMA has won.  These fights take place in rings, on sidewalks and in allyways in dojos and kwoon and in MMA training halls.  

If you can beat MMA proponents consistantly, then I would love to see a "buj. in action" video tape of you beating people in MMA gyms all across america to match the gracies in action tapes (which I don't even own).  

The martial artists of the past trained for the conditions of their own time (JJJ often assumed the opponent was both armed and wearing wood laminate armor, ringkampf was grappling between armored knights - unfortunately a lost art - and kung fu styles were often built to counter each other).  They also were limited in their knowledge of good athletic training at the time - their endurance, strength and speed would pale in comparison to modern fighters.  

With the advent of video, jet travel, the internet and the mixed martial arts cage, we can easily compare unarmed components of styles head to head to see which ones work against other styles.  Some people, rather than acknowledging that their style doesn't work like this will come up with elaborate chains of excuses why they can't prove the efficacy of their actions or why they can make only anecdotal claims.  

This arguement has been rehashed so many times no good is likely to come of it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 28, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Andrew... this is the #1 argument I hear from the MMA crowd.  Can you explain to me how the people who study TMA and use it to kick *** when needed are "untested?"



I shall do my best...

When I say untested I refer to ME personally, not being able to test it.  If I am given a technique I want to try it, as full speed and as hard as I safely can.  I want to look for counters, close up weaknesses, etc.

Obviously it is not neccessary in all cases as your examples point out.  I don't have to try slicing someone with a sword to know that a sword will cut someone.  I don't have to try blasting someone in the face to know if I can hit hard it will hurt them.

But if I have a sword, I want to spar with it, I want to try it out.  Safety steps in and I have to surender the live blade to do so, but to me that is preferable to slicing up the air and running patterns.  I want to try and hit a moving person that is trying to hit me, and do it without getting hit back.

I'm not going to try and debate wehter testing is even beneficial in "real life" as I can't, as the result is ultimately, untestable.

I also won't claim that it is neccessary for me to test something live to know it will do something.  Medical Science and anatomy can tell me that.

That said there is still a lot of nonsense that gets away without being tested, simply because it is not.  Hit the nose to pierce the brain, hit spots x and y followed by a and b to explode the liver, etc.

Of course pointing at the stupid from either side is not a argument for anything.

Self-defence is ultimately untestable, and yes, it is different then sport fighting.  Those funky karate blocks that leave you wide open to a trained boxer might suddenly become a great idea against someone throwing wild haymakers.  Those silly Aikido wrist locks that are impossible against trained fighters in a fight can become very useful in a more static situation.

Lot's of things about use of force can be simulated quite well, other things cannot.  I recognize this, and accept it.  I know lots of potentially useful things that are untested, or tested and failed in sports fighting, but in other situations have proven useful.

Right now, my preference is for things that can be tested.

To further expand my ideas on training a "complete" martial artist needs those "tested" skills first and foremost, those are what comes out when the poop hits the fan.  But those skills can definately be added on, and the non-tested stuff learnt and used as well, but for me, I'd want a fall-back plan of being able to "fight" before trying anything that was less tested.  I also think it gives more perspective to the person as to whether something is or is not practical.  A simple example is no boxer would buy the palm to the nose drives bone into brain story, simply because after being punched in the nose so many times and still walking around it becomes a silly story.

Now as the thread is about opinions and preferances mine is towards sparring and live testing, not drilling things which are not really testable. Eventually my training preferences might shift, who knows


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 28, 2006)

Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> well I hope i do not offend anyone. before I state my opinion I will give you a short back ground



Usually anyone that is offended by a honest opinion, and not one grounded in racism or that sort of thing deserves to be offended


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> It is better to look at the statistical breakdown when fighters from different styles go head to head.  The fact right now is that almost every time MMA clashes with another style, the MMA has won.  These fights take place in rings, on sidewalks and in allyways in dojos and kwoon and in MMA training halls.
> 
> This arguement has been rehashed so many times no good is likely to come of it.


The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street?  And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like _real_ Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.

I agree with you about it being rehashed a million times... Unfortunatley, it seems like EVERY FREAKIN DAY some MMA practioner has to start a new thread about their "Ultimate" martial art vs Everyone else.

Lastly... dont mistake my post... Im not a great fighter by any means... I dont think I personally could win many fights againts a trained fighter in a TMA _or _MMA, Hell, I dont even have a black belt... *But* I have seen TMA fighters win fights firsthand, and heard plenty of stories to boot that I dont buy the "Untested  cuz it aint done in a match in the ring"... thats why I said "My art" as opposed to "I can"


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 28, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I shall do my best...



That is one of the BEST answers I have heard to date, Andrew.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 28, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> That is one of the BEST answers I have heard to date, Andrew.


Agreed.  Well said.


----------



## MJS (Aug 28, 2006)

Slihn said:
			
		

> *Hello all.What are you ideals on Traditional Martials and MMA?*
> 
> *Which one do you prefer over the other and why?*
> 
> ...


 
This is another thread that will most likely never solve the questions, but I'll throw in my .02 just for the sake of discussion.

IMHO, I feel that both TMA and MMA can benefit from one another, as there are aspects from each that we could say are lacking.  For example, some TMAs could stand to use the aliveness factor that we see with MMA.  On the other hand, weapons and multiple attackers are something that appears to be lacking in MMA.  The list can go on and on, but for the most part, it should be pretty self explanitory.

Again, as I said above, they can both benefit from each other.  I've always given credit where its due, to the MMA area, and I include many aspects into my own training.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Aug 28, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street? And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like _real_ Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.


 
I too, would be interested in seeing this.



> I agree with you about it being rehashed a million times... Unfortunatley, it seems like EVERY FREAKIN DAY some MMA practioner has to start a new thread about their "Ultimate" martial art vs Everyone else.
> 
> Lastly... dont mistake my post... Im not a great fighter by any means... I dont think I personally could win many fights againts a trained fighter in a TMA _or _MMA, Hell, I dont even have a black belt... *But* I have seen TMA fighters win fights firsthand, and heard plenty of stories to boot that I dont buy the "Untested cuz it aint done in a match in the ring"... thats why I said "My art" as opposed to "I can"


 
We both enjoy our arts John, and will most likely hear that the methods of training are not as good as (insert the latest craze here).  One thing to keep in mind, is that chances are, we won't be fighting a Royce Gracie on the street.  I doubt the average "Joe" is going to be on the level of (insert the latest top MMA fighter here).

Mike


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 29, 2006)

I think MMA would get the athletically inclined person up to speed on all ranges of fighting faster than any traditional art. Certainly, I would have taken it had it been widely available when I was younger - I had to study boxing, judo, TKD and Karate in order to try to get some semblance of a well-rounded fighting system. However; as Andrew pointed out, since most people DON'T ever have to use their skills, it comes down to personal preference (taken as a given that no false confidence is held).


----------



## Ybot (Aug 29, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The problem with THAT is that when MMA "clashes" with other styles its almost always in the ring with rules, referees, etc... Can you point me to a few good examples of MMA vs other styles on the street? And I am not talking like some Sport TKD McDojo guy either... I'm talking about a substantial combat art like _real_ Krav Maga, or Systema, or even BBT.


I don't know what BBT is, but isn't Krav Maga a more modern military art?  Really don't know much about it's history, but I guess I never really considered it a Traditional art.  Isn't it more like a combatives system?   Systema, although another military art I can kind of see, as it seems more like other traditional systems.

My take is this, I enjoy the feeling of testing myself against others on a regular basis, so that's why I do BJJ.  In the end I feel I get the most realistic experience out of this art, because I pretty much train exactly what I will use it for...  BJJ compitition.  Perhaps there was a time when traditional arts could say the same thing, though they couldn't slice eachother up with a sword in practice, they did get experience on the battle field.  They could see their deadly techniques utilized either by themselves, their comrads, or their enemy.  If they survived they took this knowlage back to training with them.  They don't have that anymore, and really with modern warfare they haven't for a long time.  (this is talking hand to hand or short rang weaponry)


----------



## Cirdan (Aug 29, 2006)

I train at both a traditional school and a modern one. 

The traditional school has a very structured curriculum and you can really feel that things you learn build upon each other. Also there is very much attention to detail and I`ve benefited greatly from the relaxation that is taught. 

The modern school uses a system that mixes good exercise, self defense and sports fighting. A lot of pair work and special classes for different aspects of the art (ground fighting, throws, competition etc). I come here for the fun and the chanse to spar more. It also gives me the opportunity to test what I have learned at the traditional school. It usually works very well. 

On the less posetive side, taditional can occationaly get boring (kata and one- and three steps over and over) and modern teaches some techniques and tactics that are of little use outside of competition. However I think I`ve found a really good way to mix.

Personally, I am a traditionalist at heart, perhaps because I`ve never been much into sports. I view the arts as a lifelong study that will continue long after I am past my prime.
:asian:


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 29, 2006)

This topic always amazes me. it goes back to my dad is bigger than yours, my brother can beat up your brother.

most arts are realistic in its fighting approach, times may have changed, but humans are humans, we have organs, joints, and other weak areas.

some one can win a "fight" by strength, or speed, or power, or technique, but they are just "fights", nothing else.

when your family is threatened or your life, i owuld hope you are not rolling on the ground, putting on gloves, or following any rules, you will not "fight" you will be protetcing your life or your family's.

lets take the gracies for example, no doubt great "fighters" but do you think they would use the same methods to stop some one from killing their mother? or raping their sister? I know that sounds harsh, but that is what the arts are about, protecting your loved ones and your beleifs, not "fighting".

when any rules are apllied things change, notice that in the cage, when some one is hit in the groin they have all the time they need to recover, no downward elbows, no small joint attacks, no neck strikes, gouges. now I am not saying these techniques will beat anyone, I am saying they will change the situation. but more importantly the mind set can not even come close. beating up some one for money or fame or because you are angry, does not give the same edge or effect if fighting for your beleifs, family, life, or country. mind set is a major factor in real combat, make no mistake, it is not an intent of winning or making money, it is about survival. endorphins, adreniline, and dopemene are far greater enhancers than any thing on the market today.

I am guessing most of you are young or relativly new to the arts and or enfluenced by testosterone and the "my dad can beat your dad" mentality. I have been there and though it will not help you, i can honestly say your opinions and ideas will change with time, beating some one up may sound cool, but is just a foolish act of some one who needs to prove themselves, and the sad things it proves nothing.

again no ofense intended toward anyone, just my opinion, whether foolish or not it is mine and I will stick to it.

take it lightly it is just the internet!


----------



## funnytiger (Aug 29, 2006)

I guess I am lucky in the fact that my MA although considered a TCMA is pretty young compared to other TMA's (its only a little over 100 yrs old). It is by definition an MMA since it combines several other styles and adds some ground and grappling with its techniques to make it more rounded. It is constantly evolving as a style and (in my opinion) a practical and effective art. 

The 'traditional' part of any MA doesn't necessarily mean that its fighting techniques are old and stagnant (although it seems to be the case more than not). The traditional aspects I enjoy about my kwoon are the family ranking system (no belts), traditional lion and dragon dancing, and some other cultural aspects that are all part of the 'traditional' package.

- ft

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that whenever a set of examples is given in which either an MMA practicioner overcomes a TMA or vice versa the bloke on the losing side always says it was a fluke, circumstances were the reason they lost or "statistics" show differently... *shrug*


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 29, 2006)

Funny tiger I had the pleasure of poking into some jow ga training around twenty years ago, and it is a great system, I am glad no belts have been added.


----------



## funnytiger (Aug 29, 2006)

Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> Funny tiger I had the pleasure of poking into some jow ga training around twenty years ago, and it is a great system, I am glad no belts have been added.



Thank you. :asian:

Unfortunately some schools have adopted the belt (or sash) system. But it is only few and far between as much as I can tell.

Who did you study with/under?

- ft


----------



## Ybot (Aug 29, 2006)

Shrewsbury, I want to point out that though you may not have meant offence, there are comments in your arguement that are offensive.


			
				Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> This topic always amazes me. it goes back to my dad is bigger than yours, my brother can beat up your brother.


Really?


			
				Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> I am guessing most of you are young or relativly new to the arts and or enfluenced by testosterone and the "my dad can beat your dad" mentality. I have been there and though it will not help you, i can honestly say your opinions and ideas will change with time, beating some one up may sound cool, but is just a foolish act of some one who needs to prove themselves, and the sad things it proves nothing.


I can deal with the rest of your arguement because it is actually dealing with the martial arts in question, and questioning their effectiveness in certain situations.  But these quoted statements are about the character of the MMA practicioner rather than the art it's self.  While these statements may be true of some MMA practitioners, I would also like to point out that the same motivation can be applied to a lot of TMAers.


----------



## funnytiger (Aug 29, 2006)

Ybot said:
			
		

> Shrewsbury, I want to point out that though you may not have meant offence, there are comments in your arguement that are offensive.
> 
> Really?
> 
> I can deal with the rest of your arguement because it is actually dealing with the martial arts in question, and questioning their effectiveness in certain situations.  But these quoted statements are about the character of the MMA practicioner rather than the art it's self.  While these statements may be true of some MMA practitioners, I would also like to point out that the same motivation can be applied to a lot of TMAers.



What statements did he make about other MMA practicioners that could have been construed as offensive remarks??


----------



## tradrockrat (Aug 29, 2006)

A few points if I may:

1.  Anyone who is willing to make final statements about "TMA's" effectiveness while simultaneously grouping all arts other than "MMA" into "TMA" is not really worth listening to.  To put Jiu Jitsu into the same catagory as Escrima and link both to TKD is pretty ludicrous.  What you're really saying is that in MMA competitions, MMA does better than various other MA's.  But wouldn't that make sense?  It _is_ a MMA event after all.  I imagine professional football players will do better in the NFL than Cal Ripkin.  I imagine that Olympic TKD atheletes will perform better in their sport than an olympic wrestler would.  Can we all at least agree on that?  If so, then the next thing to look at is...

2. ...the assertion about self defense.  This one frosts my  - well, you get the idea - History is full of stories about successful self defense encounters in _*all*_ MA's.  In fact MMA has been around for such a short time that I bet there are THOUSANDS more true stories out there about Kung Fu working effectively.  It all comes down to the quality of instruction, and the quality of the student.

2.  Using one persons fantastic and awesome record in the ring (octagon, cage, whatever...) to prove the dominance of a style is nothing new - but it's still a logical fallacy (your Leaping Tiger is no match for my Iron Palm!)


> In the birth of cagefighting, Royce beat people who had trained longer, were substantially larger, stronger, faster, and more physically capable in almost every form than he was. He beat most of them easily because they were utterly unprepared for him. If you watch the MMA videos floating around the internet, many BJJ guys are skinny south americans who have little muscle mass and are tiny compared to some of the people they choke out with ease.
> 
> The level of consistancy with which this is done seems to disprove the idea that it is just a few extraordinarly skilled MMAists or BJJers who wipe out everyone else...



In this quote is an excellent example of what I mean. Royce is great.  He kicked *** of stronger, better trained guys *(Says who?  Who trained harder than Royce for these fights?  Yeah there were stronger guys - they were the ones that almost beat him despite being outclassed in skill level - Ken Shamrock, Kimo, The Giant killer whats his name, ...just to name a few)*  And because he did it so well for so long,  - now get this -  it must be because of his STYLE.  Which is BJJ by the way, not MMA.

If that were true, any first year BJJ guy should be able to beat Matt Hughes, right?  Oh that's right, Hughs won because Gracie is getting old...

Yeah, whatever.

3.  Invariably, once the name calling starts, it comes down to stereotypes.  MMA is better cause they're _real _but all TMA's are just Mc Dojos pretending to teach, but really doing nothing.  Black and white, night and day, good and bad.  

Life just doesn't work that way.  Study and train what you want because you want to - and frankly - try minding your own business if you're not really interested in what the other might have to teach you.  Honest questions are only good if you're ready to hear the answer that differs from your own.

4. Personal opinion here - In arguments about the superiority of anything, I am always reminded of a passage in that great textbook Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance .  It goes a little like this - 

"Nobody runs around shouting that sun will _rise_ tomorrow."  In other words, when one is really sure of the truth of something, he doesn't need to shout down the naysayers.  He lets the truth speak for itself.  It's  the ones who have doubts that cause the ruckus.

JMHO


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 29, 2006)

Ybot,

that is why I apologized first, I knew i would not be able to convey in words what my opinion was.

If they offened you I certainly apologize to you or anyone else.

perhaps it is my own prejudice that gives way to those statements. as a punk kid and teen, i though tevery thing was about respect, unfortunatly my idea of respect was encrusted with ego and the need to be tough. some strange circumstances changed that, no not a fight or being beat up, jsust a strange event perhaps better suited for a diferent topic.

when i hear of tough people or fighters, i cringe because i beleive people can be different than that, in my opinion beter. 

i truly think mma's people are great, they train hard,condition well, and compete on a dangerous physial level. i also have great respect for pro wrestlers, they train hard, condition well, and compete on a dangerous physical level perhaps not as dangerous as mma's but still dangerous.

i am just saying to claim this as the true way, best way, or only "real" way is demeaning to what they do.

maybe i should shut up because perhaps i am digging a deeper hole.

I agree what i said is in the tma's just as much if not more than in the mma's, and not meant to be a blanket statement of the arts, but rather certain individuals in the arts themsleves.


----------



## Rook (Aug 29, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> A few points if I may:
> 
> 1. Anyone who is willing to make final statements about "TMA's" effectiveness while simultaneously grouping all arts other than "MMA" into "TMA" is not really worth listening to.


 
Hmm.   There is also a category called RBSD and then their are untrained fighters, sports fighters from non-MMA systems (like boxers for instance) and fradulent systems.  



> To put Jiu Jitsu into the same catagory as Escrima and link both to TKD is pretty ludicrous.


 
Not really.  All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition, discussing tradition in some form or another, and doing poorly against Mixed Martial artists.  



> What you're really saying is that in MMA competitions, MMA does better than various other MA's. But wouldn't that make sense? It _is_ a MMA event after all.


 
No.  That isn't what I'm saying.  I have repeatedly drawn attention to fights without rules outside of tournament competition as well as in tournaments.  Do all the videos mean nothing?  Do all the people that say "well, that isn't really representative of the true expression of our style" have counterexamples?  Do any of them?  



> I imagine professional football players will do better in the NFL than Cal Ripkin. I imagine that Olympic TKD atheletes will perform better in their sport than an olympic wrestler would. Can we all at least agree on that? If so, then the next thing to look at is...


 
I wouldn't have a problem with that IF and ONLY IF these people won against MMAists outside of tournaments using prohibited techniques or tactics.  They don't.  



> 2. ...the assertion about self defense. This one frosts my - well, you get the idea - History is full of stories about successful self defense encounters in _*all*_ MA's. In fact MMA has been around for such a short time that I bet there are THOUSANDS more true stories out there about Kung Fu working effectively. It all comes down to the quality of instruction, and the quality of the student.


 
Someone will get lucky sometimes.  Some martial arts experiance is better than none.  Do you think no smaller untrained fighter has ever knocked out a larger untrained fighter?  Good martial arts should only improve their odds.  The better the art, the better their chances become.  



> 2. Using one persons fantastic and awesome record in the ring (octagon, cage, whatever...) to prove the dominance of a style is nothing new - but it's still a logical fallacy (your Leaping Tiger is no match for my Iron Palm!)


 
Thats exactly the point.  You can't say just Royce Gracie beat everyone, or Rickson is just really technically skilled and would do well regardless of what he studied etc. when there are people with brief training in MMA or component arts doing well against others.  Its not just Royce or Rickson or Hughes or Liddel or Fedor... its not some couple of superathletes who demolish everyone else through sheer athleticism or such.  There are simply so many recorded matches between different BJJ, MMA, and component arts fighters and TMAists, RBSD practitioners, untrained fighters etc that I (and many others) see the efficacy of MMA training and elements as a defining factor.  




> In this quote is an excellent example of what I mean. Royce is great. He kicked *** of stronger, better trained guys *(Says who? Who trained harder than Royce for these fights? Yeah there were stronger guys - they were the ones that almost beat him despite being outclassed in skill level - Ken Shamrock, Kimo, The Giant killer whats his name, ...just to name a few)* And because he did it so well for so long, - now get this - it must be because of his STYLE. Which is BJJ by the way, not MMA.


 
I don't think that a with Royce's attributes would have done as well as he did if he had studied another set of styles.  Sakuraba ("the gracie killer") who finally beat him decicively was even smaller than Royce and trained in a similar manner.  Likewise with Walid Ismail and Hughes - sportsfighters all, with very solid groundwork.  These people were not simply outmuscling him - they won on the strenght of their own styles and their own training.  



> If that were true, any first year BJJ guy should be able to beat Matt Hughes, right?


 
No.  Hughes is also an MMAist, who is in point of fact better both technically and in physicality than Royce.  



> Oh that's right, Hughs won because Gracie is getting old...


 
I doubt Royce would have lasted much better if he were younger.  



> Yeah, whatever.
> 
> 3. Invariably, once the name calling starts, it comes down to stereotypes. MMA is better cause they're _real _but all TMA's are just Mc Dojos pretending to teach, but really doing nothing. Black and white, night and day, good and bad.


 
Not really.  There are bad MMA schools and some TMA schools are better than others.  However, if you look at who wins full contact fights, you see very consistant patterns emerging.  The more you correspond to these patterns, the better your training probably serves you.  



> Life just doesn't work that way. Study and train what you want because you want to - and frankly - try minding your own business if you're not really interested in what the other might have to teach you. Honest questions are only good if you're ready to hear the answer that differs from your own.


 
I am an amateur history buff and I love learning about martial arts history.  I am, however, not conviced by arguements not backed up on tape or well recorded.  There is too much theoretical excuses why something should work, but if no one can make it work, then what does that leave observers to conclude?



> 4. Personal opinion here - In arguments about the superiority of anything, I am always reminded of a passage in that great textbook Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . It goes a little like this -
> 
> "Nobody runs around shouting that sun will _rise_ tomorrow." In other words, when one is really sure of the truth of something, he doesn't need to shout down the naysayers. He lets the truth speak for itself. It's the ones who have doubts that cause the ruckus.
> 
> JMHO


 
Well, no one is unconvinced that the sun will rise tomorrow.  Some people still are unconvinced of other things, and I don't have any fear of informing them of the information I have come across.


----------



## MJS (Aug 29, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Not really. All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition, discussing tradition in some form or another, and doing poorly against Mixed Martial artists.


 
I can't speak for TKD or JJ, as I don't study those arts, but I do study Arnis. Many of the Kali/Escrima/Arnis systems out there engage in contact sparring. The Dog Brothers are a perfect example. My inst. regularly has us gear up and stick spar. It certainly opens our eyes as to what we can pull off and what we need to work on, when the stick is coming. I can attest to the welts and bruises that I've received. 





> No. That isn't what I'm saying. I have repeatedly drawn attention to fights without rules outside of tournament competition as well as in tournaments. Do all the videos mean nothing? Do all the people that say "well, that isn't really representative of the true expression of our style" have counterexamples? Do any of them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As for the rest...I think you and I can both agree on the fact that issues like these have seriously been :deadhorse and then some. I said it before, and I'll say it again...each group has its strong and weak points and each group will benefit from one another. 

Mike


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 29, 2006)

Well said.

Jeff


----------



## Ybot (Aug 29, 2006)

Shewsbury, I honestly didn't take it personally, though I appriciate that you appologized.  I just wanted to make the point that people assume that just because you study MMA arts your some sort of testosterone driven thug looking for a fight.  Some are, but not all.

And by the way, I think training for Pro Wrestling is by far more dangerous than training for MMA.  All those teribly hard falls you have to take...  anyway, off subject there.

I think it's time to bring in the question:  Why do we all feel we have to validate our arts based on it's "Street" efectiveness?  What are the odds that any of us who are not LEOs, bouncers, or other form of security will ever find ourselves forced to use our art on the streets?  I train for fun and the challenge to constantly improve.  It keeps me in great shape, and I don't have to count sets.  If anything it motivates me more than any other out side movivator to continue working out and improving my body so I will do better the next time.

There are a lot of people benifiting from Tai Chi that may not even realize they are practicing a martial art...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> *All three have common characteristics of lacking full-contact freestyle sports competition, *



Thanks Rook.  Couldnt have said it better myself.  MMA is a SPORT... not training for combat.

It's nice to see that we are in agreement, for once.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Thanks Rook. Couldnt have said it better myself. MMA is a SPORT... not training for combat.
> 
> It's nice to see that we are in agreement, for once.


 
Lol. Yep. I may as well stop what it is _I _do, because it doesn't work in the ring against MMA. We're all wrong. It won't work at all in reality as I don't fight in a ring. Well, all of us who study TMA, or mixes of that. Damn it, I've wasted so much money. Woe is me, I wish the neersayers had told me sooner.... 

I wonder before MMA came along, did people who studied MA have this "I don't do boxing, therefore my MA won't work in a real environment, because I don't get hit every time I train"? mentality.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Aug 30, 2006)

I do a TMA, at least I think I do. What I don&#8217;t understand is the ascertation that techniques aren&#8217;t tested in any meaningful way. I have studied boxing, judo a couple of systems of Kempo. The last 18 years have been with Shorinji Kempo. All these systems tested techniques in a live environment, some may be more restrained by rules than others, but in the end everything has some restraints or rules that affect the range of techniques practiced. 

In Shorinji Kempo we don&#8217;t compete in competition. This does not mean the techniques aren&#8217;t tested against a resisting opponent. We also have very little in the way of banned targets or techniques at a senior level of randori. We use a number of different structures in our randori so that we can safely target specific outcomes. What we don&#8217;t have is a winner or loser, your techniques will either work or not. The randori is purely an activity to allow you to experiment and test your ability to apply techniques in a realistic environment.

While Shorinji Kempo is a little different to many TMA, we don&#8217;t have many forms, in fact we don&#8217;t have kata at all, we have hokei. Most of our training is in pairs and revolves around application of technique. So while I note these differences to many TMA I would also expect that there would still be many TMA around that still do test their ability to apply techniques in a chaotic situation.

In the end, as others have noted, it is up to the individual what style of training they enjoy and value most. I&#8217;m certainly not going to tell anyone that is enjoying what they do that it worthless, and they should be doing something else. I personally value budo very highly; I believe it has so much to offer that MMA don&#8217;t deliver. I have no interest in sports based MA at all; however I can completely accept someone else having a diametrically opposed viewpoint and seeing no value in budo.


----------



## Carol (Aug 30, 2006)

I don't think television can be counted out. 

If a student's predominant reason to train is because what s/he saw on TV looks cool, then MMA is most likely to be the better choice.  I'd wager that the majority of the students predominantly attracted by television are most interested in doing what they see done on the screen.


----------



## Odin (Aug 30, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> I don't think television can be counted out.
> 
> If a student's predominant reason to train is because what s/he saw on TV looks cool, then MMA is most likely to be the better choice. I'd wager that the majority of the students predominantly attracted by television are most interested in doing what they see done on the screen.


 
...and marital arts films havent done the same for TMA?????

The massive boom in interest of the martial arts in the 70's was linked directly to the influnence of cinema.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> ...and marital arts films havent done the same for TMA?????
> 
> The massive boom in interest of the martial arts in the 70's was linked directly to the influnence of cinema.


 
I'll definately agree.  All that cinema and TV does is get knowledge of some very superficial aspects of a given style out there.   There are way more people who are doing something acrobatic because it looks good on TV than people who have chosen MMA or the like because of TUF or the UFC broadcasts.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I'll definately agree.  All that cinema and TV does is get knowledge of some very superficial aspects of a given style out there.   There are way more people who are doing something acrobatic because it looks good on TV than people who have chosen MMA or the like because of TUF or the UFC broadcasts.



Really?  So if UFC had never been aired the MMA boom still would have happened?  

If there was no UFC or Pride broadcasts, MMA (if it had even developed as it has today, which is doubtful) would proabably be a few sweaty guys in a corner dojo somplace rolling around on the floor together.  I mean, How did MMA gain popularity?  

OH YEAH... people watched UFC fights.

You've been hit in the head alot durring practice havent you?


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Really? So if UFC had never been aired the MMA boom still would have happened?
> 
> If there was no UFC or Pride broadcasts, MMA (if it had even developed as it has today, which is doubtful) would proabably be a few sweaty guys in a corner dojo somplace rolling around on the floor together. I mean, How did MMA gain popularity?
> 
> ...


 
And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas?  Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents?  Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?  

MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.


----------



## Odin (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas? Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents? Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?
> 
> MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.


 
I agree, two shows played on T.V compared to the hundreds of thousand different media TMA is showcased on rangeing from Films to comic books to computer games the list is endless.


----------



## Ybot (Aug 30, 2006)

I admit that I started BJJ after watching Royce Gracie in tapes of early UFC events.  When I was a kid I trained Karate because I use to watch black belt theatre and the neighbor invited me to go to karate with him.  In both cases I found something I enjoyed, so really TV influence was a good thing for me in these cases.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas? Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents? Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?
> 
> MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.


 
Bub... you assertation is that More TMA people started in a TMA because of TV than MMA people chose MMA because they saw it on TV... 

I'm gonna disagree... Id bet that maybe... oh hell, Ill be generous, and say that 75% of all TMA guys started TMA cuz of the movies...

But I bet that closer to 90% of all MMA guys started because of UFC or its variants.

On sheer #s you are probably right, but on % of participants, Im sure you are fooling yourself.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 30, 2006)

Of course proving the % statistics one way or another is impossible, so lets' argue about something else


----------



## Colin_Linz (Aug 30, 2006)

So that&#8217;s where we (Shorinji Kempo) went wrong, not enough movies featuring us. We will have to get the whip out on Sonny Chiba and get him to make some sequels to The Killing Machine and Sister Street Fighter.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Aug 30, 2006)

Colin_Linz said:
			
		

> So thats where we (Shorinji Kempo) went wrong, not enough movies featuring us. We will have to get the whip out on Sonny Chiba and get him to make some sequels to The Killing Machine and Sister Street Fighter.


 
Hey, I like those movies!


----------



## zDom (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> And without The Octagon and its ripoffs would there be that many ninjas?  Without Bruce Lee and the HK theatre would there be that many CMAists or JKD proponents?  Heck, without televised Judo, would there be as many judoists?
> 
> MMA gained its popularity in part by TV, but probably less so than most other popular styles.



We need a good Hapkido movie. We haven't had anything out since Billy Jack.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 30, 2006)

This is a complex topic with many variables, and most of them have been discussed at one time or another, but I would love to see more emphasis on testability. As someone that supports skeptical inquiry as a method of investigation, I've discovered much to my chagrin that entering the martial art world is very much like trying to play hop scotch on a mine field.

I suppose I'm a traditional martial artist because I've been practicing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu for a couple of years, but prior to becoming a member of the Bujinkan, I practiced Judo for a while and dabbled in a few other martial arts not worth mentioning. 

I've been lucky in that I've only been in one potentially life threatening situation, and while I was in a few fights as a child, I've managed to remain combat free for most of my twenty-six years. Needless to say, self-defense isn't my main reason for practicing martial arts. This doesn't mean that it's not important, and it's certainly higher on my priority list than competition, but my reasons for practicing MA have more to do with an underappreciated three letter world called "fun."

You now have a summary of my background and where I stand on the practice of martial arts. There are other things to consider of course, like my position on the difference between self-defense and fighting; my thoughts on training styles; and why I have an aversion to competition, but like I wrote in my first paragraph, I want to focus on testability.

More important to me than my martial art practice is something called skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry, or scientific skepticism, is a tool of critical thinking, and it has proved to be a much more reliable life saver than my ability to unleash an effective preemptive strike or head butt someone without seeing stars. 

As much as I love skeptical inquiry, it really does get in the way of my martial art practice, but I long ago made the decision to marry myself to reason. Still, it is hard to tell a respected instructor that he can't use his Ki to stop me from crushing his throat or making him squeal after I kick him in the love package (rather than the perineum). 

The MMA vs. TMA debate is a particularly difficult subject for me because I don't like the way it's framed, and when I think I'm leaning in one direction of the debate, I find myself taking the other. It really is quite frustrating, but testability is something I understand, and it's not just important to science. It has many applications, and the martial art world would certainly benefit from its adoption.

There's too much anecdotal evidence and not enough testing. Many of the Bujinkan instructors differ substantially on how things should be taught. Some taijutsu instructors have a RedMan Self Defense Instructor Suit, and make use of it regularly; some have aggression training drills, and encourage preemptive attacks; some deliberately bring in martial artists that practice a different style to play; and some do really crazy **** like have students jump out of a moving car for a belt test.

Now that I'm done with _some_, I want to talk about _most_. Most taijutsu instructors avoid full-contact training, deeming it unnecessary or dangerous; most introduce woo-woo stuff that has nothing to do with training; most know very little about the historical context of their martial art; most have a cult like fascination with Hatsumi sensei; and most like to introduce red herrings when discussing other martial arts.

I'm lucky in that I was trained by someone from the _some_ camp, but I've been around long enough to see more than my share of practitioners from the other group. I don't think this is unique to traditional martial arts, but it is currently unusual in MMA because practitioners have a more precise goal. They can't depend on esotericism when they're in the ring or on the matt with their burly training partner. They can't get away with depending on what the Grandmaster says or the anecdotal evidence shared around a campfire at a mountain retreat. 

MMA has problems too because most (there's that word again) don't practice their craft for self-defense. Most are too busy training for lucrative competitions, and they either don't have time to get in scraps at the local bar and/or they can't risk it because getting seriously hurt could end their career.

Despite MMA's myopic view of self-defense and the realities of street fighting, practitioners will go out of their way to find a way to test what they're doing. Traditional martial artists are lazy on this front. They do depend on tradition, their "feelings" about what they're doing, and what they've heard from fellow martial artists. They're pulled in by the fellowship of the dojo and all that it offers. Their instructor has a psychological advantage over them, and without being deliberately dishonest, they're more than willing to accommodate less than realistic demands. 

I have been guilty of this on occasion in other arts, allowing myself to be used for the instructor's entertainment, getting a kick out of it myself, but secretly acknowledging that if this was real life, that arm lock would not be so secure, pinching my skin would not stop me from driving my fist into my instructors groin, and gouging me in the eye will not make me run away screaming.

As far as I'm concerned, MMA and TMA both need a reality check. As the OP noted, I think it would be best if the divisiveness took a back seat to collaboration, but I doubt that will ever happen.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> This is a complex topic with many variables, and most of them have been discussed at one time or another, but I would love to see more emphasis on testability. As someone that supports skeptical inquiry as a method of investigation, I've discovered much to my chagrin that entering the martial art world is very much like trying to play hop scotch on a mine field.


 
Yes, very much so.  



> I suppose I'm a traditional martial artist because I've been practicing Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu for a couple of years, but prior to becoming a member of the Bujinkan, I practiced Judo for a while and dabbled in a few other martial arts not worth mentioning.
> 
> I've been lucky in that I've only been in one potentially life threatening situation, and while I was in a few fights as a child, I've managed to remain combat free for most of my twenty-six years. Needless to say, self-defense isn't my main reason for practicing martial arts. This doesn't mean that it's not important, and it's certainly higher on my priority list than competition, but my reasons for practicing MA have more to do with an underappreciated three letter world called "fun."


 
I do karate because I enjoy it too... I think a large minority to a small majority of MAists picked their art simply because they enjoyed it most.  



> You now have a summary of my background and where I stand on the practice of martial arts. There are other things to consider of course, like my position on the difference between self-defense and fighting; my thoughts on training styles; and why I have an aversion to competition, but like I wrote in my first paragraph, I want to focus on testability.
> 
> More important to me than my martial art practice is something called skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry, or scientific skepticism, is a tool of critical thinking, and it has proved to be a much more reliable life saver than my ability to unleash an effective preemptive strike or head butt someone without seeing stars.
> 
> As much as I love skeptical inquiry, it really does get in the way of my martial art practice, but I long ago made the decision to marry myself to reason. Still, it is hard to tell a respected instructor that he can't use his Ki to stop me from crushing his throat or making him squeal after I kick him in the love package (rather than the perineum).


 
I've found, too that most martial arts practice is based on alot of assumptions held as true because that someone said they were old.  



> The MMA vs. TMA debate is a particularly difficult subject for me because I don't like the way it's framed, and when I think I'm leaning in one direction of the debate, I find myself taking the other. It really is quite frustrating, but testability is something I understand, and it's not just important to science. It has many applications, and the martial art world would certainly benefit from its adoption.
> 
> There's too much anecdotal evidence and not enough testing. Many of the Bujinkan instructors differ substantially on how things should be taught. Some taijutsu instructors have a RedMan Self Defense Instructor Suit, and make use of it regularly; some have aggression training drills, and encourage preemptive attacks; some deliberately bring in martial artists that practice a different style to play; and some do really crazy **** like have students jump out of a moving car for a belt test.
> 
> ...


 


> MMA has problems too because most (there's that word again) don't practice their craft for self-defense. Most are too busy training for lucrative competitions, and they either don't have time to get in scraps at the local bar and/or they can't risk it because getting seriously hurt could end their career.


 
This part I don't really agree with.  Most MMA competition isn't that lucrative, and if the MMAists around you are like the ones around here, they are less than hesitant to try what they know.  While most aren't bar fighters, there are plenty of streetfighter/MMA guys and no shortage of MMAists with real life experiance.  



> Despite MMA's myopic view of self-defense and the realities of street fighting, practitioners will go out of their way to find a way to test what they're doing. Traditional martial artists are lazy on this front. They do depend on tradition, their "feelings" about what they're doing, and what they've heard from fellow martial artists. They're pulled in by the fellowship of the dojo and all that it offers. Their instructor has a psychological advantage over them, and without being deliberately dishonest, they're more than willing to accommodate less than realistic demands.
> 
> I have been guilty of this on occasion in other arts, allowing myself to be used for the instructor's entertainment, getting a kick out of it myself, but secretly acknowledging that if this was real life, that arm lock would not be so secure, pinching my skin would not stop me from driving my fist into my instructors groin, and gouging me in the eye will not make me run away screaming.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, MMA and TMA both need a reality check. As the OP noted, I think it would be best if the divisiveness took a back seat to collaboration, but I doubt that will ever happen.


 
The problem is that we have a situation where one side presents evidence and the other side tends to resort to calling them immature and intolerant (sound familiar?) rather than producing counterevidence.  Compromises are really only possible when both sides put something of value on the table.  

Good post and welcome to martialtalk!


----------



## tradrockrat (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> The problem is that we have a situation where one side presents evidence and the other side tends to resort to calling them immature and intolerant (sound familiar?) rather than producing counterevidence.  Compromises are really only possible when both sides put something of value on the table.
> 
> Good post and welcome to martialtalk!



last post for me on a dead horse subject.

I posit 2000 years of warfare in which Kung Fu, Bando, and combative styles of Muai Thai were used and used effectively in real combat.  The students of history on this thread should readily admit this history is factual and true.  They should also admit that it wasn't 2000 years of luck, I hope.

Where is MMA's real combat history?  I'm sure it exists, but where is it and how does it compare to 2000 years of historical documentation?  The burden of proof is yours.

I have now presented my evidence and put it on the table.  I have taken MMA out of the ring and octagon (where I have already conceeded that a MMA fighter will do well in an MMA fight) and put it in the world of no rules -only survival.  Please bring it to the table and sit down ready for an openminded discussion where we can all learn about the reality of ALL MA's, and maybe, just maybe, we can all check our egos at the door and learn something we didn't already know.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> last post for me on a dead horse subject.
> 
> I posit 2000 years of warfare in which Kung Fu, Bando, and combative styles of Muai Thai were used and used effectively in real combat. The students of history on this thread should readily admit this history is factual and true. They should also admit that it wasn't 2000 years of luck, I hope.


 


> Where is MMA's real combat history? I'm sure it exists, but where is it and how does it compare to 2000 years of historical documentation? The burden of proof is yours.


 
Easy.  

The wrestling contests of the greeks were based on the greco-roman throws combined with submissions.  

Wrestling contests are one of the oldest themes of pre-doric greek writing (which is written in Linear B).  Linear B writings mention organized submission wrestling contests more than 1000 years before the birth of Chirst.  It is mentioned in late pre-Doric literature including Homer's works.  

Boxing emerged somewhat later.  However, by the early doric period, boxing supplemented wrestling as both a component of military training and as a sport.  

By 684 B.C. (according to wikipedia... I had to look up the date), an Olympic game called pancration was introduced.  This was intended to answer the question of whether wrestling or boxing was better.  The point was apparently moot already, as military men trained in both.  In any case, what emerged as a winning strategy came in the form of the early powerhouse in the games, Sparta.  Spartan fighters often essentially ground and pounded their opponents, throwing them to the ground, mounting them and then finishing them with strikes.  When biting and eyegouging were banned, however, Sparta withdrew from pancration competitions.  At this point, submissions and standup fighting began to compete effectively with the spartan strategy.  Other city-states would compete to great sucess.  

At the outbreak of the Pel. war, pancrationists were often placed at the head of military training programs, and pancration at this point began to displace seperate boxing and wrestling programs.  

Alexander the Great considered pancration as one of the most important indicators of soldiers abilities, and pancration tournaments were used to fill empty command positions in his army.  His personal bodyguards were mostly pancrationists as well.   

With the coming of the roman empire, pancration became less common, as the Romans generally prefered to treat wrestling and boxing as seperate components of military training.  The Roman close range fighting was based in no small part on the submission style wrestling of the greek military, and wrestling and boxing matches were very common througout Roman history.  

With the fall of the roman empire, wrestling remained a major part of battlefield training for the military elite - knights and mercenaries.  This may have been the origin of the pin rule - a pin in practice would have symbolized an ability to control the opponent long enough to use a secondary weapon from a dominent position.  

Variations on the greco-roman submission style led to ringkampf, a german submission wrestling style that also apparently included rapid-fire punches and knifework on the ground.  Most of ringkampf has been lost, but it became the main military training component for the late Teutonic knights, as well as german knights of all stripes - it later spread into italy and may have influenced Turkish and russian wrestling as well.  Some parts of it remain because the training manuels were quoted in later works.  

The English and Dutch also created their own unique variations - which still exist today as "Catch wrestling."  

Though boxing had been in decline, it was hardly lost - as armies professionalized, boxing came back into heavier military use for less armored troops. 

The advant of the firearm changed all this.  Ringkampf was forgotten... greco-roman wrestling became far less common, and was ussually now done for a pin rather than a submission.  

Boxing was hardly dead.  In the Napoleonic wars, manuels on boxing were distributed to military commanders on all sides and it is unclear who started the idea of standardized army-wide boxing, but the manuels of the time make it clear it was expected, if not always followed up on.  It was intended as a close combat system.  

Boxing remains a part of standard military training in the western world to this day, although now it is ussually simply a part of the general military combatives program - a WWII era development.  

I take it you already know the history of BJJ and Muay Thai, the other two major MMA styles.  



> I have now presented my evidence and put it on the table. I have taken MMA out of the ring and octagon (where I have already conceeded that a MMA fighter will do well in an MMA fight) and put it in the world of no rules -only survival. Please bring it to the table and sit down ready for an openminded discussion where we can all learn about the reality of ALL MA's, and maybe, just maybe, we can all check our egos at the door and learn something we didn't already know.


 
I'll look forward to that.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 30, 2006)

No system has existed for 2000 years in tact, evolution occurs in all.  MMA traces back just as far, taking into account how one thing leads to another.  It just doesn't base it's marketing around it.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> No system has existed for 2000 years in tact, evolution occurs in all. MMA traces back just as far, taking into account how one thing leads to another. It just doesn't base it's marketing around it.


 
Hmmm.  Shui Chaio, Muay Thai, Greco-Roman wrestling, Boxing, spearthrowing and basic archery should all trace back to 2000+ years.  How changed some of these systems are is another matter.  However, I think I can group them fairly as extensions of their former selves with long roots even though things do change.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> This part I don't really agree with.  Most MMA competition isn't that lucrative, and if the MMAists around you are like the ones around here, they are less than hesitant to try what they know.  While most aren't bar fighters, there are plenty of streetfighter/MMA guys and no shortage of MMAists with real life experiance.



I'll concede that point because I've had limited exposure.



> The problem is that we have a situation where one side presents evidence and the other side tends to resort to calling them immature and intolerant (sound familiar?) rather than producing counterevidence.  Compromises are really only possible when both sides put something of value on the table.
> 
> Good post and welcome to martialtalk!



I imagine my peers in the traditional martial art community would suggest that mixed martial artists are too comfortable with the idea that the ring or octagon is an effective template for other environments. The traditional martial artist is often defensive, and finds it much easier to attack the evidence provided by the mixed martial artist.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 30, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I posit 2000 years of warfare in which Kung Fu, Bando, and combative styles of Muai Thai were used and used effectively in real combat.  The students of history on this thread should readily admit this history is factual and true.  They should also admit that it wasn't 2000 years of luck, I hope.



I think it's a mistake to judge the success of something based on its longetivity. Once again, there are too many variables: the infrequency of unarmed combat and the priority of weapons; the dynamics of battlefield combat and the special needs of civilian self-defense; the cultural history of the combatants; and the usefulness of unarmed training for purposes other than actual combat. I'd also hazard a guess that how we train today is substantially different, what with the lack of pressing doom and all of that kill or be killed _stuff_.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I think it's a mistake to judge the success of something based on its longetivity. Once again, there are too many variables: the infrequency of unarmed combat and the priority of weapons; the dynamics of battlefield combat and the special needs of civilian self-defense; the cultural history of the combatants; and the usefulness of unarmed training for purposes other than actual combat. I'd also hazard a guess that how we train today is substantially different, what with the lack of pressing doom and all of that kill or be killed _stuff_.


 
Excellent point.  JJJ was intended to be done in armor, ringkampf sometimes practiced in armor (as was the old greco-roman during the middle ages).  Anti-weapons tactics against the spear (the "emperor of weapons"), the chinese broadsword, the katana, the thrown rock, the deer-horn sword - all must be modified for use against an unarmed opponent.  The battlefield is surely like not the same as modern self-defense where the weapons, the clothing, the probable tactics and the legal ramifications are far different.


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 30, 2006)

> I take it you already know the history of BJJ and Muay Thai, the other two major MMA styles.


 
I guess ythis is where i differ in opinion, to me these arts are not mma's themselves, but parts and peices of it are incorperated in mma's.

I would never say greco wresting, western boxing, kick boxing, juijitsu or anything else is a mma art but parts are borrowed from them to make a mma's. 

to me mma's are some one training to fight and incorporating whatever is usable into their skill set to win a fight, so obviously it is a good fighting art, because thats all it is about, fighting.

a traditonal arts has more things than just fighting, a history, forms, meditation, health arts, fighting arts, weapons, and more, it is an art that encompasses many aspects of life, not just fighting.

this is no way says mma's aren't arts, but to me, in my opinion, they are one part of the arts, the fighting aspects. anyone here that has studied for a number of years probaly has studied more than one art and fights using many arts and methods they have learned. I have been studying for 30 years and hold black belt or above rank in japanese, okinawa, american, external and internal chinese arts, but i am not a mma's person.
when i teach i teach people what they want or what fits them, so my students study different things, some taichi, some bagua, some just chi gung, some just self defense, and even chinese animal boxing, I incorporate things from shorin ryu, kioshi kempo, kenpo, hun gar, toy gar, budakai juijitsu, wrestling, dragon bagua, sun bagua, xing yi, and yang tai chi. but i am still not a mma's person.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 30, 2006)

Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> I guess ythis is where i differ in opinion, to me these arts are not mma's themselves, but parts and peices of it are incorperated in mma's.
> 
> I would never say greco wresting, western boxing, kick boxing, juijitsu or anything else is a mma art but parts are borrowed from them to make a mma's.



Yes, "Mixed martial arts" is not a great name for the style, but it is the one that stuck 

Anyways, arts divide, merge, evolve, borrow from each other, forget things, remember lost things, etc.  This is true in any countries arts.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 30, 2006)

Maybe we should define what MMA and TMA are before we continue, because I'm already getting confused.


----------



## Rook (Aug 30, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> Maybe we should define what MMA and TMA are before we continue, because I'm already getting confused.


 
Ok.  

TMA = a martial art that is taught in a traditional manner.  By this, I mean an art that is taught according to set traditions established some time far enough into the past that their age or the manner in which they are embedded are the major reason why things are done the way they are.  Lineage determines much about reputation.  

Sports systems = a martial art intended to be practiced and trained against fully resistant, freeform and non-compliant partners.  Competitions determine much about reputation.  

RBSD = systems based on self defense theories that lack both a traditional basis and do not participate sucessfully or often in sports competitions.  

Now, here is where it gets complicated.  Some TMAs are also sports systems - like Shui Chaio and Judo.  Many martial arts instruct self defense concepts based on modern conditions and statistics even when they are in no way related to RBSD systems. 

MMA = the collection of techniques, priciples, concepts, training methods and practices used sucessfully and consistantly by cagefighter and participants in similar events.  MMA is ussually thought of as a blend of four styles - Western boxing, western wrestling, Muay Thai, and BJJ.  However, arts which cover the same or very similar material can be substituted - i.e. SAMBO for BJJ and wrestling, kyokushin for muay thai, San Shou for muay thai and takedowns, Judo for BJJ etc etc etc...


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 30, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> MMA = the collection of techniques, priciples, concepts, training methods and practices used sucessfully and consistantly by cagefighter and participants in similar events.  MMA is ussually thought of as a blend of four styles - Western boxing, western wrestling, Muay Thai, and BJJ.  However, arts which cover the same or very similar material can be substituted - i.e. SAMBO for BJJ and wrestling, kyokushin for muay thai, San Shou for muay thai and takedowns, Judo for BJJ etc etc etc...



Sadly, yes.  But give it a few years and we might get to be thought of as a unique entity, not a mix of others


----------



## Stan (Aug 31, 2006)

Most discussions I've seen regarding the effectiveness of Mixed Martial Arts conflate several aspects of the arts.  The two most often cited hallmarks of the MMA's are training against resistence and a heavy emphasis on ground fighting.  These two aspects are obviously not the same thing, and one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.  


Meaning, among traditional martial artists, I'd like to know some reasons why;

1) resistant training, or aliveness, is not incorporated into your art, and should not be or,

2) why ground fighting is not incorporated into or emphasized in your art, and should not be;

assuming of course, that your TMA does not incorporate these things, as many do.

Before anyone gets defensive, let me tell you that I come from two "Traditional" martial arts, Modern Arnis and Aikido.

I believe that the reasons Traditional Martial Artists, who often come from weapons based or influenced systems, do not like to emphasize ground fighting.  I would not want to study an art that uses going to the ground as a stragegy, the so-called sacrifice throw.  There are very few situations where I would willingly go to the ground.  As anyone who is familiar with the two arts I study would see, I prefer my submissions where I remain standing and the other guy is on the ground.  

However, there is a question that MMA asks that TMA seldom answers.  TMA says, "Why would I want to go to the ground?  There is terrain to worry about, additional attackers, weapons, etc?"  I believe all these concerns are valid, and that one shoud strive to avoid ground combat.  Yet what MMA has shown is that it is relatively easy to get  a fighter on the ground, even when that fighter is scared to death of the ground, and does everything in his power not to go there.  

Even if I have the skill to dominate someone on the ground, and eventually win there, rolling around with someone for even a matter of 20 to 30 seconds in a real situation is something I never want to do.  Let alone the minues locked up on the ground that MMA fights often go.  But to the TMA practitioners who will not take MMA seriously for its combat (not sporting, I know many here have conceded that) aspects, I ask, how could you avoid a ground situation if you wanted to?  Did the early UFC stand-up fighters who were taken to the ground just not try hard enough?  If they had known that there would be weapons or multiple opponents involved, then would they have been able to stay on their feet, or get back up after being taken down?  If only they had been allowed small joint manipulation, or biting, or groin shots, or what?  I for one train in a lot of small joint manipulation, and like it a great deal.  I'd like to see how it works against a ground fighter's tactics.  I'm asking honestly.  Does anyone here know of a situation of someone skilled in SJM trying to use it against a ground fighter?

I agree that the ground is not the place to fight from.  But how many of us TMA people train to make the choice of wether or not to go there ours, and not the other guys?  I'm not trying to assert anything.  I'm asking.  I'm really curious, as a traditional martial artist.

Thank you all,
Stan


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Stan said:
			
		

> 1) resistant training, or aliveness, is not incorporated into your art, and should not be or,


 
It is for me, on a regular basis.



> 2) why ground fighting is not incorporated into or emphasized in your art, and should not be;


 
I take it upon myself, to do some grappling, to have a better understanding of the ground.  There have always been grappling methods in the arts I study, again, I'm taking a bit further.




> However, there is a question that MMA asks that TMA seldom answers. TMA says, "Why would I want to go to the ground? There is terrain to worry about, additional attackers, weapons, etc?" I believe all these concerns are valid, and that one shoud strive to avoid ground combat. Yet what MMA has shown is that it is relatively easy to get a fighter on the ground, even when that fighter is scared to death of the ground, and does everything in his power not to go there.


 
Agreed, those are valid concerns.  IMHO, I feel that its a huge benefit to have some basic ground knowledge.  My goal, should I end up there, is not to keep the person there and roll around for 20 min, but instead to escape a bad position and get back to a standing position.  



> Even if I have the skill to dominate someone on the ground, and eventually win there, rolling around with someone for even a matter of 20 to 30 seconds in a real situation is something I never want to do. Let alone the minues locked up on the ground that MMA fights often go. But to the TMA practitioners who will not take MMA seriously for its combat (not sporting, I know many here have conceded that) aspects, I ask, how could you avoid a ground situation if you wanted to?


 
Get a basic understanding of the ground.  People seem to forget that yes, while there are always going to be better people out there, every situation is not going to be against a Royce Gracie skill level.




> Did the early UFC stand-up fighters who were taken to the ground just not try hard enough?


 
Not having an understanding of something is what leads to the downfall.  How can we defend against something if we don't understand it?




> If they had known that there would be weapons or multiple opponents involved, then would they have been able to stay on their feet, or get back up after being taken down?


 
God, I'd hope they'd get back up.  Dealing with the weapons, mult attackers is hard enough standing, let alone while grappling.




> If only they had been allowed small joint manipulation, or biting, or groin shots, or what? I for one train in a lot of small joint manipulation, and like it a great deal. I'd like to see how it works against a ground fighter's tactics. I'm asking honestly. Does anyone here know of a situation of someone skilled in SJM trying to use it against a ground fighter?


 
Anything is possible.  Like any lock, its something that should find us, rather than us looking for something that may never be there.  In other words, if it presents itself, take advantage of it, if it doesnt, move on to something else.



> I agree that the ground is not the place to fight from. But how many of us TMA people train to make the choice of wether or not to go there ours, and not the other guys? I'm not trying to assert anything. I'm asking. I'm really curious, as a traditional martial artist.


 
As I said, having a grappling background is going to be a big help.  

Mike


----------



## Stan (Aug 31, 2006)

Thanks, MJS, for a thoughtful response from an Arnisador.  Your responses are close to how I would answer my own questions.

Remember, everyone, my signature line, "Doch das Messer sieht man nicht".  It's a quote from Berthold Brecht in "Die Moritat von Mackie Messer" the German song from the Threepenny Opera that "Mack the Knife" is based on.  It means, "But one does not see the knife."  Besides being a Germanophile and a Brecht fan, I am always looking in my empty hand practice for ways to deploy a weapon, or ways that one may be deployed against me.  

I'm not saying that MMA doesn't do this.  We tend to talk about the tournament aspects of MMA, forgetting that the practitioners practice different variations for self-defense.  I mean that all of us, particularly those from non-weapon arts, should become more weapon aware at all times.  There is no such thing as empty hand training.  Weapons may sometimes be out of sight, but for the martial artist, they should never be out of mind.


----------



## Ybot (Aug 31, 2006)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> I posit 2000 years of warfare in which Kung Fu, Bando, and combative styles of Muai Thai were used and used effectively in real combat. The students of history on this thread should readily admit this history is factual and true. They should also admit that it wasn't 2000 years of luck, I hope.


Here's the problem I have with the history arguement...

The all martial arts techniques probably have some truth to them for exactly the point made in your arguement.  But, the thing is that styles were free to adapt and change and if you found something to be more effective for you in battle you most likely are not going to throw it out because it is not part of the dogmatic view of your style.  Now the problem comes when hand to hand combat is no longer prevelent in modern warfare.  Are you now alowed to adapt technique?  If so, how do you know your adaptation is effective?

Anyway, the more I read this thread the more I believe it is more a matter of how you train, and how closely you simulate the actual conditions you are training for.  Also I believe you should have the option of adapting or discarding the things that don't work for you.  MMA rules matches are not perfect simulations, but they arn't the worst I've seen, and they at least allow for as much adaptation as you want.  Some other MAs train like this, but there is a lot that don't.

I trained in an art that, quite honestly, didn't do the greatest job in this area, so I will admit that my oppinions are colored by my own experience in a TMA.  It wasn't the art, though, it was how we practiced.  Also, for the record, despite this, I wouldn't go back and change anything about my early training.  It wasn't a waist by any means.  My early instructor was a good man, and taught me many valuable lessons I take with me today.

I freely admit that BJJ the way I practice is not the most effective for a lot of self defense situations.  I could make it more realistic if I choose, but I'm not too keen on getting punched full contact in the face all the time.

All our training methods have weaknesses and it's good if we learn recognize them, even if we choose to continue training as is.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Aug 31, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:
			
		

> Hey, I like those movies!


I have them both, plus a few others.

Did you know that the Japanese title of The Killing Machine is Shorinji Kempo, they changed it for the American market. I like the original title.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Aug 31, 2006)

Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> to me mma's are some one training to fight and incorporating whatever is usable into their skill set to win a fight, so obviously it is a good fighting art, because thats all it is about, fighting.
> 
> a traditonal arts has more things than just fighting, a history, forms, meditation, health arts, fighting arts, weapons, and more, it is an art that encompasses many aspects of life, not just fighting.



 Im not as sure that by only incorporating what works for you makes a good system. Just because someone has not understood a technique doesnt make it a bad technique, just as if a rule set works better with certain types of techniques does not make other techniques less viable when the rule set is removed.

Ive seen a number of people that have trouble in applying some of our techniques in a free situation and others that have no difficulty at all, but what I have also noted is that when training continues everyone can use them effectively to varying degrees.

Certainly only practicing techniques that you can innately pick up or use in a particular rule set will speed up your gain of proficiency in this environment. However I think this is a separate issue to the parent styles worth as a self-defence tool.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 31, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Easy.
> 
> The wrestling contests of the greeks were based on the greco-roman throws combined with submissions.
> 
> ...


 
But these are also all individual arts, with a "traditional" back ground in their own right. Who gets to say that they're the sole excluse of the MMAtist? If someone does Muay Thai, are they doing a MMA style? Or a traditional style? The problem here is that there are many crossovers, where supposed modern, MMA actually have roots in the traditional and explaining them to be something brand new and separate depends upon the individuals POV. Perhaps the real issue here is saying that some TMA's are more effective than other TMA's in the ring? TMA that are ring tested Muay Thai, boxing, greco roman etc. As opposed to making something new (MMA) and saying that MMA is more effective than TMA....? Just a thought.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

Stan said:
			
		

> I for one train in a lot of small joint manipulation, and like it a great deal.  I'd like to see how it works against a ground fighter's tactics.  I'm asking honestly.  Does anyone here know of a situation of someone skilled in SJM trying to use it against a ground fighter?



In my experience in Judo and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, small joint manipulation does not work well with an opponent that is having an adrenaline dump. When you're on the ground, you're working, so it's difficult to actually grab a hold of someone long enough to use SJM, and it doesn't cause as much pain as you'd think it would.

I find that Judo and BJJ practitioners tend to put themselves in compromising positions when they're on the ground, so biting, pulling the clavicle, fish-hooking, and biting can be effective, but I wouldn't depend on either of them in a real altercation.


----------



## Brother John (Aug 31, 2006)

How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
   How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
 How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
  How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
   How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
.............................
...................................
...........................................
...........................................................
.........................................................................
...

Traditional MA Vs. MMA

I see lots of valid points in both sides, but really it boils down..as Andrew Said, to personal preference. BOTH can be very effective.

..so no matter what you do:
1. TRAIN HARD
2. TRAIN OFTEN
3. ENJOY.....

Your Brother
John


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> RBSD = systems based on self defense theories that lack both a traditional basis and do not participate sucessfully or often in sports competitions.


 
Why should they engage in sports competitions?  That is not what they're geared for.  The effectiveness of something should not be based on whether or not they enter the UFC.  




> MMA = the collection of techniques, priciples, concepts, training methods and practices used sucessfully and consistantly by cagefighter and participants in similar events. MMA is ussually thought of as a blend of four styles - Western boxing, western wrestling, Muay Thai, and BJJ. However, arts which cover the same or very similar material can be substituted - i.e. SAMBO for BJJ and wrestling, kyokushin for muay thai, San Shou for muay thai and takedowns, Judo for BJJ etc etc etc...


 
In addition to the above, it should be noted that it is a collection of techniques that work best in the ring, under the rules and preset conditions that are in place.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
> How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
> How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
> How many times is this ONE theme going to be Re-peated...
> ...


 
Thank you and I agree wholeheartedly!!  I said it before in a few of the countless threads of this nature...both can benefit from one another.  Everyone trains for their own reasons.  

Mike


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

> In addition to the above, it should be noted that it is a collection of techniques that work best in the ring, under the rules and preset conditions that are in place.
> Mike



How is that different than the dojo? The dojo does not reflect real life any better than the ring does.


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> How is that different than the dojo? The dojo does not reflect real life any better than the ring does.


 
Unless you've seen how every MA school in the world trains their students, I think thats a pretty broad assumption.  The majority of it is going to come down to how we gear our training.  Someone, in a recent post, made a similar comment.  I replied that just a week ago, my Kenpo instructor and I worked quite a bit from the clinch.  Geared up, I threw a number of elbows to the head, knees to the body, groin and legs.  With a little imagination, its amazing what you can come up with in training. 

Mike


----------



## Brother John (Aug 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Unless you've seen how every MA school in the world trains their students, I think thats a pretty broad assumption. The majority of it is going to come down to how we gear our training. Someone, in a recent post, made a similar comment. I replied that just a week ago, my Kenpo instructor and I worked quite a bit from the clinch. Geared up, I threw a number of elbows to the head, knees to the body, groin and legs. With a little imagination, its amazing what you can come up with in training.
> 
> Mike


Good for you Mike!!
Really......
MORE peolpe should not only THINK outside the box...
but roll and tumble there too!!!


Your Bro.
John


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Unless you've seen how every MA school in the world trains their students, I think thats a pretty broad assumption.  The majority of it is going to come down to how we gear our training.  Someone, in a recent post, made a similar comment.  I replied that just a week ago, my Kenpo instructor and I worked quite a bit from the clinch.  Geared up, I threw a number of elbows to the head, knees to the body, groin and legs.  With a little imagination, its amazing what you can come up with in training.
> 
> Mike



It's a generalization, but not an uneducated one, and do you think that working a bit from the clinch in your dojo reflects real life?


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> It's a generalization, but not an uneducated one, and do you think that working a bit from the clinch in your dojo reflects real life?


 
Obviously you're missing the point.  Perhaps, if your training is lacking, you should find out why.  Not sure how long you've been training, but by your comments, it seems to me that your dojo is not giving you what you want.

All of my training, be it Kenpo, Arnis or BJJ, is geared towards that famous word "Aliveness."  When my training partners are punching me, if I don't move, I'm getting hit!  They give resistance in the initial attack as well as during my defense.  

Again, your comments are based on broad assumptions, so unless you know how everyone out there trains, it is a pointless statement!

Mike


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Obviously you're missing the point.  Perhaps, if your training is lacking, you should find out why.  Not sure how long you've been training, but by your comments, it seems to me that your dojo is not giving you what you want.



I don't think any training environment currently offers me what I want to be perfectly honest. 



> All of my training, be it Kenpo, Arnis or BJJ, is geared towards that famous word "Aliveness."  When my training partners are punching me, if I don't move, I'm getting hit!  They give resistance in the initial attack as well as during my defense.



You're not answering my question though. Do you think your training reflects real life? In you reply to Rook's definition of MMA, you wrote "it should be noted that it is a collection of techniques that work best in the ring, under the rules and preset conditions that are in place." What is different about what you do in your dojo? 



> Again, your comments are based on broad assumptions, so unless you know how everyone out there trains, it is a pointless statement!
> 
> Mike



Are you suggesting that unless I have every last bit of evidence concerning a subject that I shouldn't make any assumptions? Are you that consistent in your own life?


----------



## Kensai (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I don't think any training environment currently offers me what I want to be perfectly honest.


 
I'm genuinely interested to know, not trying to be funny, but what do you think you are looking for? Are you getting tired of what it is you do?


----------



## MJS (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I don't think any training environment currently offers me what I want to be perfectly honest.


 
I notice in your profile it states that you train in BBT. If I may ask, how long have you been training in that art? What is it that you look for in your training? 





> You're not answering my question though. Do you think your training reflects real life? In you reply to Rook's definition of MMA, you wrote "it should be noted that it is a collection of techniques that work best in the ring, under the rules and preset conditions that are in place." What is different about what you do in your dojo?


 
In training, scenario drills are used to simulate real life, as close as we can get it. Someone could use a real blade to train a knife disarm, but what happens if you make a mistake? On the other hand, we could use a marker, or a blade with something such as paint or lipstick on the 'blade' part, to show the cuts. No-Lie blades are great for this. We can train a dedicated attack and while we stand the chance of getting 'cut', we're not going to die. The idea is to put yourself in the proper mindset, so we 'feel' as if this is a real attack. Peyton Quinn does this. When I'm running through techniques, may partners are trying to hit me. They're not stopping their punches 5 inches away from my face, but instead trying to hit me. If I don't move, block, defend, etc., I get hit, plain and simple. In my Arnis class, when running through the disarms, my partner doesn't give me the disarm, he makes me work for it. We'll stick spar to give us a more real feeling of what its going to be like if someone is swinging a stick. Certainly gives a different feel when someone is swinging alot faster, trying to hit us, while at the same time, we try to work our techniques. When I grapple, my partner does not lay there, letting me put that lock on, but instead, offers resistance.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that MMA represents real life? Where is the weapon work? Where are the mult. attacker drills? The training is geared towards the ring. Are they training for a streetfight? No, they're training for a ring fight. 





> Are you suggesting that unless I have every last bit of evidence concerning a subject that I shouldn't make any assumptions? Are you that consistent in your own life?


 
Well, you know what they say about assumptions right!  As for myself, let me share something with you. When I first joined this forum, I was getting into a number of debates with other Kenpoists on here. I was running around saying that grappling is lacking in the Kenpo system. Pretty much everyone told me the same thing I said to you. I talk regularly with a Kenpo inst. who used to be a member here. He is always going out, working with grapplers, getting a better understanding of the ground. So, for someone (me) who said that grappling isn't in Kenpo..well, I guess I was wrong when it came to this person. 

Mike


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> I'm genuinely interested to know, not trying to be funny, but what do you think you are looking for? Are you getting tired of what it is you do?



1. Non-competitive environment that addresses contemporary self-defense issues. 
2. Pressure testing.
3. Pre-fight and post-assault management.
4. Scenario based adrenal stress training against armed and unarmed attackers. 
5. Pre-emptive strikes.
6. The psychological and behavioral characteristics that make up a confrontation, including, but not limited to posturing and verbal dissuasion.
7. Absence of woo-woo.

To answer your second question, no I'm not tired of taijutsu.


----------



## kingkong89 (Aug 31, 2006)

hello there

in the debate of which is better, traditional or mma, neither they are a matter of what the person puts into it such as tech. but lest we forget that mma is based on all traditional martial arts:ultracool


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 31, 2006)

The's always the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] 	Clouseau:/Kato training method...
[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Shrewsbury (Aug 31, 2006)

the thing is there is no way to determine what is better, for each persons veiw on what is better differs.

any way of training can be scrutinized and weaknesses pointed out. many seem to think that real training means some one is trying to hit you, sure it's better than if they punch to the side or pull there blows short, but still we can scrutinize this way of training by saying, who is throwing the strikes? how are they being thrown? most street thugs do not train and strike in some strange manners. also what about the intent, you partner does not wish to hurt you, no matter how hard he throws the punch, his intention is to be your partner, not to rob, rape, or kill you. again factor in mental illness, drugs, and adreniline and we have another mess on our hands.

I know people were upset when I reffered to this as the "my dad is bigger than your dad syndrome", but it truly is, well atleast most often. the only thing I care about in "your" training is what you can offer me, whether your style is better or you can beat me up is irrelevent, but what might i learn from you is important.

this is just the net and i will never get to see most of you or what you do, but by your words i can still learn more about myself, why i do what i do, and perhaps a little about you.


----------



## Rook (Aug 31, 2006)

Shrewsbury said:
			
		

> the thing is there is no way to determine what is better, for each persons veiw on what is better differs.
> 
> any way of training can be scrutinized and weaknesses pointed out. many seem to think that real training means some one is trying to hit you, sure it's better than if they punch to the side or pull there blows short, but still we can scrutinize this way of training by saying, who is throwing the strikes? how are they being thrown? most street thugs do not train and strike in some strange manners. also what about the intent, you partner does not wish to hurt you, no matter how hard he throws the punch, his intention is to be your partner, not to rob, rape, or kill you. again factor in mental illness, drugs, and adreniline and we have another mess on our hands.
> 
> ...


 
I guess, even though I don't compete, that I will lay out the case for competitive fighting as a part of training.  

The thing that I see most when I see the net-videos of people talking about street attacks and their defenses is that the attackers ussually fire off only one strike, that that strike is either a wild haymaker or a strike from the martial art in question, and that the attacker ussually has some weird expression.  A streetfighter, like a trained fighter opposing you in a cage or a ring, is honestly trying to hurt you as much as possible.  The attack is continous, the strikes come in combonations, chained sets, or just a wild sucession - the attacker may clinch, try to push or pull you over or tackle you - not uncommon at all.  The attacker will reset when he has a chance - he won't passively go down.  

The problem with the self-defense drills I see so often on the net or described in martial arts texts is that they are predicated on the assumption of dealing with one attack or a prearranged series of attacks and then countering.  When faced with freeform, these ideas translate to some extent, but not as well.  

There is alot more to intent than throwing wild haymakers with fake angry look on your face and then standing there while your partener counters.  There is more to self defense fighting than this.


----------



## Brother John (Aug 31, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I guess, even though I don't compete, that I will lay out the case for competitive fighting as a part of training.
> .



I don't think that's the main issue at stake here:
It's not "Should competitive fighting be a part of ones training"
But IS MMA better or worse than TMA...and why.

It's not about competitive fighting being a 'part' of ones training...because that can encompas either side of the argument.
....it's "IS competitive fighting THE way of training"
.not just a part.

Your Bro
John


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

I should probably note that when I referred to my desire for a non-competitive environment, I meant an environment where students aren't pressured to take part in tournaments. I'm all for randori.


----------



## Kensai (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> 1. Non-competitive environment that addresses contemporary self-defense issues.
> 2. Pressure testing.
> 3. Pre-fight and post-assault management.
> 4. Scenario based adrenal stress training against armed and unarmed attackers.
> ...



Cool. I was a little confused by point no 7 though. What is "woo-woo"? Whatever it is, I like the sound of it. :boing2:


----------



## Rook (Aug 31, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> I should probably note that when I referred to my desire for a non-competitive environment, I meant an environment where students aren't pressured to take part in tournaments. I'm all for randori.


 
Thats what I figured.  

Say, have you considered SAMBO?  They tend to spend alot of time on mass attacks and modern weapon defenses, they do alot of fully resistant work with both striking and grappling (though probably more of the latter), and the training, from the people I have talked to, seems to lack the one-ups-manship edge of BJJ and the like.  There won't be the same sort of kow-towing as is seen in alot of traditionals arts, but you'll still get a bit of cultural stuff about Russia.


----------



## Floating Egg (Aug 31, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Cool. I was a little confused by point no 7 though. What is "woo-woo"? Whatever it is, I like the sound of it.



woo-woo adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Thats what I figured.
> 
> Say, have you considered SAMBO?  They tend to spend alot of time on mass attacks and modern weapon defenses, they do alot of fully resistant work with both striking and grappling (though probably more of the latter), and the training, from the people I have talked to, seems to lack the one-ups-manship edge of BJJ and the like.  There won't be the same sort of kow-towing as is seen in alot of traditionals arts, but you'll still get a bit of cultural stuff about Russia.



The only familiarity I have with Sambo is Andrei Arlovski, but from what I've been able to find on Wikipedia it looks interesting. It's unfortunate that I don't have many options where I'm currently located.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 31, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Of course proving the % statistics one way or another is impossible, so lets' argue about something else


 
You're right... shouldnt state unprovable_ opinion_... OOPs... why'd this thread start then?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 31, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You're right... shouldnt state unprovable_ opinion_... OOPs... why'd this thread start then?


 
I am truly sorry and I honestly mean no disrespect to MMA or TMA but the above quote deserves the following.

 :lfao:


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 31, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You're right... shouldnt state unprovable_ opinion_... OOPs... why'd this thread start then?



Well, once arbitrary statistics (90% / 75%) etc start getting introduced, whatever discussion could be happening gets lost in arguing over the statistics.  Which everyone is bound to disagree on and have absolutely no basis.  You claim more people are into MMA because of TV then traditional arts, I think that is nonsense.  Seems we are stuck there...

But, the pros and cons of each can be discussed quite reasonably, without the injection of completely arbitrary numbers to back a point.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 31, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> You claim more people are into MMA because of TV then traditional arts



No I don't.

I said I think percentagewise More people were introduced to MMA by UFC bradcasts than TMA people were introduced to their arts by Movies. I admitted that based on sheer numbers, its probably the other way around.

So tell me... If _most_ MMA fighters didnt learn about MMA from Televised events, where did they?  Oh, yeah accidentally stumbling into those mma schools that are prevalant in every stripmall...

Yeah... you gettin my point?


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 31, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> .
> 
> So tell me... If _most_ MMA fighters didnt learn about MMA from Televised events, where did they?  Oh, yeah accidentally stumbling into those mma schools that are prevalant in every stripmall...
> 
> Yeah... you gettin my point?



In fact, can you explain the history and evolution of MMA out of the arts it evolved from, if it wasn't a result of the desire to win those aforementioned Events?  Its my understanding that particular "art" developed as a DRIECT RESULT of UFC type fights... if so, Id be so bold as to say 100% of the people who study MMA do it because of the UFCesuqe broadcasts.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 31, 2006)

People where fighting this way before the UFC even got started.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 1, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> People where fighting this way before the UFC even got started.



Uh... ok?  So *MMA* as an art existed *before* UFC? I don't mean like BJJ, or Muai Thai, or a Muai Thai guy who did a little BJJ... Im talking MMA.

Can you enlighten me to the history?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Can you enlighten me to the history?


 
Actually I am working on that. I am looking into the history of the MMA and as soon as I have it down I will be posting. 

So far it appears that its origins are form Japanese Shootfighting 

shootfighting
http://www.answers.com/topic/shootfighting


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 1, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> So far it appears that its origins are form Japanese Shootfighting
> 
> shootfighting
> http://www.answers.com/topic/shootfighting



Right with a Blend of BJJ, MT, etc...

None of those by themselves were "MMA"


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 1, 2006)

I guess an argument could be made that JKD was an MMA.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Right with a Blend of BJJ, MT, etc...
> 
> None of those by themselves were "MMA"


 
True, so far it appears Shootfighting first combines with BJJ, but I am not yet certain of this. I am researching it however and will post more later.


----------



## Odin (Sep 1, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Uh... ok? So *MMA* as an art existed *before* UFC? I don't mean like BJJ, or Muai Thai, or a Muai Thai guy who did a little BJJ... Im talking MMA.
> 
> Can you enlighten me to the history?


 
OKay......from wikipedia ( incase you didnt beleive me)

*History of MMA*

One of the earliest forms of widespread unarmed combat sports with minimal rules was Greek pankration, which was introduced into the Olympic games in 648 B.C.[1] Some no-holds-barred events reportedly took place in the late 1800s when wrestlers representing a huge range of fighting styles including various catch wrestling styles, Greco-Roman wrestling and many others met in tournaments and music-hall challenge matches throughout Europe[_citation needed_]. The first major encounter between a boxer and a wrestler in modern times took place in 1887 when John L. Sullivan, then heavyweight boxing champion of the world, entered the ring with his trainer, the Greco-Roman wrestling champion, William Muldoon and was slammed to the mat in two minutes. The next publicized encounter occurred in the late 1890s when future heavyweight boxing champion, Bob Fitzsimmons took on European Greco-Roman wrestling champion, Ernest Roeber. Reportedly, Roeber suffered a fractured cheekbone in this bout, but was able to get Fitzsimmons down on the mat, where he applied an arm lock and made the boxer submit. In 1936, heavyweight boxing contender, Kingfish Levinsky and the veteran professional wrestler, Ray Steele competed in a mixed match; which Steele won in 35 seconds. In all three of these 'mixed-matches', the wrestler won.[2]


 


Pankration was an ancient form of unarmed hand to hand combat resembling the mixed martial arts of today.


The vogue for professional wrestling died out after the First World War, only to be reborn in two major streams: "shoot", in which the fighters actually competed, and "show" which became increasingly dependent on staged combat and evolved into modern professional wrestling. Some authorities credit an ex-football player turned wrestler, Gus Sonnenberg, by using flying tackles and billy-goat butting, with ushering in the new style of sports entertainment wrestling.[3]
Modern mixed martial arts are rooted in two interconnected movements. First were the vale tudo events in Brazil, followed by the Japanese shoot wrestling shows. Vale tudo (meaning 'anything goes') began in the 1920s with the famous "Gracie challenge" issued by Carlos Gracie and Hélio Gracie and upheld later on by descendents of the gracie family.[1] In Japan in the 1970s, a series of mixed martial arts matches were hosted by Antonio Inoki, inspiring the shoot-style movement in Japanese professional wrestling, which eventually led to the formation of the first mixed martial arts organizations such as Shooto, formed in 1985.[4]
Moreover, the emergence of Bruce Lee in the late 1960's and early 1970's paved the way for further studies of hybrid fighting through his theories on Jeet Kune Do. Lee believed that traditional martial arts were limited to fixed positions from which to strike; a "fancy mess" that strongly inhibited many fighters/practitioners. Lee borrowed facets of wing chun, western boxing, fencing, muay thai, Filipino Martial Arts, and even wrestling in order to come up with a fighting style that allowed relaxed movement and effective blows.
Mixed martial arts gained real international exposure and widespread publicity in the U.S in 1993, when Royce Gracie won the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, sparking a revolution in the martial arts.[5] In 1994, Frederico Lapenda became the first non-Japanese to promote a mixed martial arts event in Japan, the Vale Tudo Championship.[1] In Japan in 1997, the continued interest in the sport eventually resulted in the creation of the PRIDE Fighting Championships.[6]


----------



## zDom (Sep 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> I guess an argument could be made that JKD was an MMA.



The same argument could be made for Hapkido


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> OKay......from wikipedia ( incase you didnt beleive me)
> *History of MMA*


 
What he said and what I have found so far

A quick and rough outline of the History of MMA, so far

- Starts with the Greeks in 648 BC as pankration

- Declines with the decline of the Greek empire and the rise of the Roman Empire

- Mixed fighting matches appear between Greco-Roman Wrestlers and Boxers in the 1800s and early 1930s, the wrestlers win every time

- Brazil 1920s Gastao Gracie becomes friends with  Mitsuyo Maeda who is a Judo Champion from Japan

- Mitsuyo Maeda trains Gastao Gracie's Son George for 6 years

- George trains his brothers Helio ,Jorge, Osvaldo, and Gastao Jr. 

- Carlos and Heloi opened a Jujitsu academy in Rio de Janeiro

- The &#8220;Gracie Challenge&#8217; Began and a revival of Mixed Martial Arts. Called valo-tudo (anything goes) fighting. This was basically Gracie Style Jujitsu taking on all comes from any Martial Art. They did successfully defeat all comers. 

- Second the was a series of mixed martial arts matches in Japan hosted by Antonio Inoki which brought about a shoot-style movement in Japanese professional wrestling

- In the early 1990s Wrestlers, BJJ and Shoot wrestling practitioners were effective on MMA

- Later Rorion Gracie, Art Davies and Bob Meyrowitz established the &#8220;Ultimate fighting Championship&#8221; 

*Also* I found 2 things, so far, that surprised me 

1) There are also 2 versions of MMA Sport and Street, many of the Street practitioners come from JKD. Street tends to train more for weapons awareness than does sport but they are both similar the only real difference appears to be the strategy. 

2) The Gracie family comes from Scotland &#8211; George Gracie emigrated from Scotland and is the Grandfather of Gastao


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 1, 2006)

Odin said:
			
		

> OKay......from wikipedia ( incase you didnt beleive me)
> 
> History of MMA
> 
> One of the earliest forms of widespread unarmed combat sports with minimal rules was Greek pankration,


 
Oh, well, hell, if thats the case, I have to admit I am wrong.  MMA is quite older than most other Martial arts.  Most of the MMAers ive heard talk about it had talked about how it evolved after seeing how poorly other arts performed in matches like UFC.  I was wrong, Im sorry.

My apologys to the MMAers.

I think, knowing now that MMA is actually Pankration makes a lot of sense, Having read a bit about greek wrestling, how it was done, and what occured between the contestants before and after matches, I think I understand the situation better.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Oh, well, hell, if thats the case, I have to admit I am wrong. MMA is quite older than most other Martial arts. Most of the MMAers ive heard talk about it had talked about how it evolved after seeing how poorly other arts performed in matches like UFC. I was wrong, Im sorry.
> 
> My apologys to the MMAers.
> 
> I think, knowing now that MMA is actually Pankration makes a lot of sense, Having read a bit about greek wrestling, how it was done, and what occured between the contestants before and after matches, I think I understand the situation better.


 
I'm not sure you can actually say it comes directly from ancient Greece and Pankration (http://www.answers.com/topic/pankration). 

I see nothing that proves a direct lineage so far. But you can say it shares some of the qualities of Pankration. Much the same way Shuaijiao and Prankration share some qualities or Shuaijiao and Judo share qualities, they are similar yes but there is no direct lineage per say.

However Pankration in all of Greece, except Sparta, had only 2 rules no eye gouging and no biting. In Sparta that was allowed.

I still believe that MMA in its current form is more related to Gracie BJJ and Shootfighting. But Gracie BJJ has its roots in Judo so that too would be somewhat of an influence here as well.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 1, 2006)

MMA has basically always been around, at different times pulling from different specialized arts.  Shootfighting, In Japan had nothing to do with BJJ for quite some time.  It was Catch wresting based in terms of the grappling.

But throughout history MMA has been there, under different names, and in different places.  It's really not that unique of a concept.  Yes, BJJ is what did the recent push, and they like to take full credit.  But they where not the only ones, or the first ones.

I've also seen a few books on unarmed fighting from Medival / Renniassance Europe that demonstrate what would today be called "MMA".


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> MMA has basically always been around, at different times pulling from different specialized arts. Shootfighting, In Japan had nothing to do with BJJ for quite some time. It was Catch wresting based in terms of the grappling.
> 
> But throughout history MMA has been there, under different names, and in different places. It's really not that unique of a concept. Yes, BJJ is what did the recent push, and they like to take full credit. But they where not the only ones, or the first ones.
> 
> I've also seen a few books on unarmed fighting from Medival / Renniassance Europe that demonstrate what would today be called "MMA".


 
And, so far anyway, from what I am reading shootfighting was, at least in Japan considered MMA. I believe any other relation to it came in the form of the Gracie Challenge of BJJ.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 1, 2006)

It's interesting basically how long this argument has been going on.  Here it is in 1599:

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html

The old vs. the new.  And both had points.  This is just one side of the argument back then.

Jeff


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 1, 2006)

I am not so sure that you can tie current MMA all the way back to Pankration.  That seems a little far fetched to me.  Current MMA can basically be tied to Jiujitsu, Judo, Shooto, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Greco-Roman Wrestling.  That is how I kind've see it.  Now having said that these disciplines have a long and storied history and MMA in it's current form is very fun to not only watch but also to practice. :ultracool 

It would be neat though to travel back and see with what and how the ancient greeks and romans trained. :shrug:

The lineage is much easier on the Japanese side because techniques have been carried on and taught in a systematized manner.  Therefore we have a very good idea how they trained.  Whereas Modern Greco-Roman wrestling I am sure is far, far, far differant from what Pankaration was.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> I guess an argument could be made that JKD was an MMA.


 
Actually from what I have researched, and this is very early in researching MMA, there is a street version, non-sport and many of those do actually come out of or a related to JKD in some way.



			
				Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> I am not so sure that you can tie current MMA all the way back to Pankration. That seems a little far fetched to me. Current MMA can basically be tied to Jiujitsu, Judo, Shooto, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Greco-Roman Wrestling. That is how I kind've see it. Now having said that these disciplines have a long and storied history and MMA in it's current form is very fun to not only watch but also to practice.



Very true I see no direct lineage to pankration and it is much more related to what you have listed





			
				Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> It would be neat though to travel back and see with what and how the ancient greeks and romans trained.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pankration was vicious by today&#8217;s standards you won by knockout, submission or death.

As I said 2 rules no eye gouging no biting unless it was Spartan than there were no rules


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 1, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> I am not so sure that you can tie current MMA all the way back to Pankration.  That seems a little far fetched to me.



As a historical chain I would absolutely agree, very far fetched.

But as the beginning of showing that the style of fighting is nothing new, has always been around to some degree, and is not simply the pdoduct of a Televised event, it's part of the story.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 1, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> As a historical chain I would absolutely agree, very far fetched.
> 
> But as the beginning of showing that the style of fighting is nothing new, has always been around to some degree, and is not simply the pdoduct of a Televised event, it's part of the story.


 
Hey Andrew,

I always like your posts! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 However, I do not think that MMA needs to be linked to Pankration. Plus I do not think that it can be done. The origional Pankration may have actually looked alot like boxing or kickboxing or wrestling or Muay Thai or Jiujitsu or Chinese Kung Fu. We really do not absolutely know. (I wish we did) What we do know for sure is that the current MMA guys have a lineage to Jiujitsu through Judo to Shooto and BJJ then definately to Muay Thai and Boxing add in some Greco-Roman wrestling and you have today's modern MMA. Is it effective : sure. It is brutally effective in the ring. (that is why everyone is doing it) Can it be effective out of the ring : *absolutely*! Are there areas outside of the ring that it is weak in : *Yep*! However, anybody who does MMA and also studies some FMA or Budo Taijutsu or Defensive Tactics, CQC and most importantly firearms is going to be a pretty tough guy to deal with. (if they have the spirit and skills that is)


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 1, 2006)

I don't try to draw a lineage at all, too messy   Just that No rules / Limited rules matches have almost always been around, as far back as sporting competition goes.

And I imagine Pankration looked fairly similar to MMA.  Why?  because of the rules.  Same reason TKD, Karate and Kung fu all looks basically the same if they all spar under the same rules in the same tournaments.  

There are certain things that work and certain things that don't under any given ruleset.  Given time everyone will end up at basically the same place.


----------



## Odin (Sep 2, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> I am not so sure that you can tie current MMA all the way back to Pankration. That seems a little far fetched to me.
> 
> The lineage is much easier on the Japanese side because techniques have been carried on and taught in a systematized manner. Therefore we have a very good idea how they trained. Whereas Modern Greco-Roman wrestling I am sure is far, far, far differant from what Pankaration was.
> Just my opinion.


 
I dont i think you can or at least its not far fetched to beleive that two seperate cultures and different points in history thought of the same princibles...im mean leoardo De vinci drew the first concepts behind bycicles yet he didnt invent them,some other dude did a couple years later without ever looking at his work (theres a name for what that is called but since its 8 in the morning here in England i cant remember what it was!lol)

check this out....agian from wikipedia

*Etymology*

The term comes from the Ancient Greek words "pan" (meaning "all") and "kratos" (meaning "strength" or "power") or in other words, no holds barred. The term is also used to describe the sport's modern varieties.
[edit]

*Origins*

In Greek mythology it was said that the heroes Hercules and Theseus invented the pankration as a result of using both wrestling and boxing, were the two co-founders of _panmahia_, unarmed combate. The term "panmahia" would later become disused in favor of the term pankration. The ropolo (club) and lion skin armor would also become symbolic among Hellenic warriors due to the famed feats of Hercules. It had numerious forms such as _kato pankration_, in which the athletes could fall to the ground and continue the match, and _ano pankration_, in which athletes had to remain standing throughout the match. The competitors could use moves like the *gastrizein*, (_stomach trick_), which was a kick to the gut, as well as the *apopternizein*, (_heel trick_), where a foot was grabbed to throw an opponent off balance. Also one opponent could hold another and punch him during a match. Pankration was more than just an Olympic event, it formed the basis for all combat training for Greek soldiers - including the famous Spartan Hoplite warriors and Alexander The Greats Macedonian Phalanxs. The techniques varied just as in the oriental martial arts according to style. Pankration systems were taught within families and many times from master teachers (_Thaskalos_) to students (_Pankratist_). The features found were common with the oriental arts such as: _Forms_ or _Kata's_ were known as *Pyrrics* and single blow challenges as *Klimax*; internal energy was developed through breathing exercises, the equivalent of Chi in Chinese arts, were known as *Pneuma*. Pneuma primarily denotes _the wind_ (derived from the Greek word *pneo* which means _to breathe, blow_); also 'breath'; then, especially _the spirit_. They also used punching bags and wooded posts for striking and the hardening of the body and limbs, through striking and herbal medicines.
[edit]

*Elements*

Pankration, as practiced in the ancient world, combined elements of both boxing (pygme/pygmachia) and wrestling (pale) to create broad fighting sport similar to today's mixed martial arts. A match was won by submission of the opponent or if the opponent was incapacitated. A contestant could signal submission by raising his hand, but sometimes the only form of submission was unconsciousness or death. Joint locks and choke holds were common techniques of accomplishing this. In fact, there were only two rules: contestants were not allowed to gouge eyes or to bite. Grave, even permanent injuries were common, as an accepted means of disabling the adversary: mainly breaking limbs, fingers or even the neck. Pankration bouts were quite brutal and sometimes life-threatening to the competitors. There were no weight divisions and no time limits. The fighting arena or "ring" was no more than twelve to fourteen-feet square to encourage close-quarter action. Referees were armed with stout rods or switches to enforce the rules against biting and gouging. The rules, however, were often broken by some participants who, realizing they were outclassed by a heavier and stronger foe, would resort to such measures to escape being seriously maimed. The contest itself continued uninterrupted until one of the combatants either surrendered, suffered unconsciousness, or, of course, was killed. Although knockouts were common, most pankration battles were decided on the ground where both striking and submission techniques would freely come into play. Pankratiasts were highly-skilled grapplers and were extremely effective in applying a variety of takedowns, chokes, and punishing joint locks. Strangulation was most feared during ground combat, and was the leading cause of death in matches. A fighter would immediately raise his arm in defeat once his opponent's forearm had secured a firm grip across the windpipe or carotid artery.
If there was no winner by sunset, the judges would declare Climax and the fighters would start taking alternating undefended blows until one was defeated.


 


A bronze smaller reproduction in Munich of a Roman marble after a 3rd c.BC Greek depiction of pankratists grappling and striking


Ancient sculptures and pottery paintings depicting naked pankration fighters show blade-like hands and crouches reminiscent of modern fighting systems.
The feats of the ancient pankratiasts became legendary in the annals of Greek athletics. Stories abound of past champions and masters who were considered invincible beings. Arrichion, Dioxippus and Polydamas are among the most highly-recognized names, their accomplishments defying the odds by besting multiple armed opponents in life-and-death combat.
Among pankration fighters, Dioxippus was the most famous. He won several Olympic games as no one dared challenge him, became friends with Alexander the Great and was challenged by one of Alexander's soldiers named Coragus who fought with weapons and full armour, but was still defeated by the almost unarmed Dioxippus, whose only weapon was a club. Later, the ashamed Macedonians framed Dioxippus for theft, after having introduced a golden cup under his pillow, which led him to commit suicide.

In the lead-up to the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, a modern version of pankration (not naked, usually wearing only shorts or a type of loin cloth, sometimes also T-shirts) was tipped as being a new sport in the Olympiad, especially due to its being an event in the ancient games. However, its application (along with that of inline skating) was not approved. Rumours were that it was rejected due to its inherently violent nature, even though the modern version is significantly less violent than the original, and like boxing and wrestling also ancient Olympic sports, there is an international set of humane rules governing the modern sport.
[edit]

*Influence*

Because of Alexander the Great's impact on the Middle East and India, there is belief by some that cultural exchange may have occurred in these civilisations. It has been suggested that the fighting systems of India were influenced by the invasions of Alexander, but this has not been substantiated by firm scientific evidence. It is very likely that the Indians already had their own systems of fighting like Silambam Nillaikalakki and Kalarippayattu. It is still unknown what cultural influence he may have had on India. A thorough anthropological study of this history would be required.
Pankration's influence on modern culture is still debatable as the modern version of Pankration is not the original form as practiced by the ancient Greeks. The original ancient Greek form of Pankration was not fully transmitted to later generations due to the fall of the Greek and Roman civilisations and the subsequent Dark Ages of western Europe. Most modern versions of Pankration are influenced by western boxing, catch and freestyle wrestling, ancient Greek artifacts(i.e. pottery, vases, sculptures, writings), as well as East Asian martial arts like karate, kung-fu, jujitsu, and muay thai.
Advocates for the sport have formed a US Pankration Team, and it is possible that a modern version of the sport could be re-introduced into the Olympics in the future.
Some modern pankration groups are seeking to re-introduce classical Hellenistic culture into contemporary martial arts (sport, athleticism, philosophy, ethics and all round personal development). One such system of "contemporary" Pankration, known as "Gonis Pankration," was founded by Boston attorney George Gonis in the mid-twentieth century.
There is a novel titled _Pankration_ by Dyan Blacklock, which focuses on the Sport. Another detailed and historically accurate novel that focuses on the Pankration and the Ancient Greeks is "PATRIDA" by Peter Katsionis. Patrida: A Novel of the Pankration


----------



## Adept (Sep 2, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> As I said 2 rules no eye gouging no biting unless it was Spartan than there were no rules



Well, of course there were other rules. Like; Only two people per fight. No weapons (I assume). Limited to the fighting arena, etc.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, of course there were other rules. Like; Only two people per fight. No weapons (I assume). Limited to the fighting arena, etc.


 
Yes it was fought in an arena and yes there where no weapons. These are rules much the same as any match today. But during the match the only 2 things that were not allowed in all but Sparta were biting and eye gouging. Everything else was ok including kicks to the groin or anywhere else as well as joint locks basically anyrhing goes except those 2 items.

Note on lineage to Pankration, doubtful. 

And the current MMA by far has more rules


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 2, 2006)

I do not think we know actually how close pankration in Greece was to modern day MMA. Rules may and probably were different, hand postures, fists, etc may have been different. (I seem to recall a spear hand to an armpit in one match that killed an opponent), we do not even know how the grappling looked.

Just take for instance todays systems : Japanese Jujitsu is definately differant than Brazilian Jiujitsu. Judo is different then both of these systems. (yet still some similarities) Shooto is different than all of the above. Boxing is different than shall we say Muay Thai and on an on.
We do not know exactly how the Greeks fought in Pankration matches. We possibly do know from the historians that they fought one on one and that sometimes death did happen. After that well as to how they moved we do not know.


----------



## Slihn (Sep 2, 2006)

Hello guys. I am the starter of this thread and I just wanted to say that I did not intend for there to be this much arguement about the subject.*My apologies to out to anyone who was offened in any way by any post made in this thread*.
               I think that perhaps I titled this thread wrong, instead I should have put, "What are the advantages of Modern/MMA and TMA.(and when I say Mordern I am not just talking about MMA,what I mean by mordern is a school that teaches how to apply its methods in a mordern day setting,against mordern day fighters)" Having Traditional and Mordern ideals clash was not my intention,my intention where to discuss what we can learn from both methods.

I personally think that both Modern/MMA have many things that we can learn from,but I would rather us share to make improve each of or own individual skills and not fight over whose method is superior over the other.

-Good Training


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> I do not think we know actually how close pankration in Greece was to modern day MMA. Rules may and probably were different, hand postures, fists, etc may have been different. (I seem to recall a spear hand to an armpit in one match that killed an opponent), we do not even know how the grappling looked.
> 
> Just take for instance todays systems : Japanese Jujitsu is definately differant than Brazilian Jiujitsu. Judo is different then both of these systems. (yet still some similarities) Shooto is different than all of the above. Boxing is different than shall we say Muay Thai and on an on.
> We do not know exactly how the Greeks fought in Pankration matches. We possibly do know from the historians that they fought one on one and that sometimes death did happen. After that well as to how they moved we do not know.


 
Very true. 

We only have limited historical records to go by. And as far as history knows some of the matches did end in death. It actually sounds more like hand-to-hand combat than a sporting event from what I am reading. 

And BJJ comes from Judo and it looks very little like it's historical lineage Judo or its historical name Jujitsu. But in this case the history is a little easier to check out and there are still people around practicing all 3. As for Pankration, it is all speculation based on what little historical record we have of it.


----------



## zDom (Sep 2, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> - Brazil 1920s Gastao Gracie becomes friends with  Mitsuyo Maeda who is a *Judo* Champion from Japan
> 
> - Mitsuyo Maeda trains Gastao Gracie's Son George for 6 years
> 
> - George trains his brothers Helio ,Jorge, Osvaldo, and Gastao Jr.



And yet, they insist on calling in jiu-jitsu...




			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> The &#8220;Gracie Challenge&#8217; Began and a revival of Mixed Martial Arts. Called valo-tudo (anything goes) fighting. This was basically Gracie Style Jujitsu taking on all comes from any Martial Art. They did successfully defeat all comers.



Um...didn't Kimura win?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2006)

zDom said:
			
		

> Um...didn't Kimura win?


 
Of that I am not certain, what I was reading did not mention any victors, but I would not be surprised if there were a few that did.

And I have never understood why it was called Jujitsu. Nothing against BJJ, I just never understood the name.


----------



## Brother John (Sep 2, 2006)

MMA is *not* "Pankration"...
it just bears a striking similarity (for all that we know)


Your Brother
John


----------



## zDom (Sep 2, 2006)

Something I wrote on this subject not too long ago:

http://news.mywebpal.com:80/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpid=865&show=archivedetails&ArchiveID=1209054&om=1


----------



## lll000000lll (Sep 2, 2006)

"I'd say it is purely a matter of personal prefrence." - the always wise Andrew Green.


But as far as MMA vs MA it will always depend. anything can happen in a fight. but MMA guys train to be ready for any situation ground, stand up, take down , takedown defense, submissions blah blah blah, the list goes on and on. for instance what would a EPAK guy or a muay thai guy do if they were brought to the ground? with a decent MMA guy, they would probably Tap or get choked out or even get pounded.

but like i stated b4 anything can happen in a fight. there is a good chance that the EPAK or MT guy would just take them out b4 it went to the ground. but like i said b4 what would they do on there backs.

the only main difference is that MMA fighters are exactly that; Mixed Martial Arts fighters, FIGHTERS that train to Fight. and Martial Artists Train in the art or style.

for the record MMA would not be here today if it was not for a few styles that are highly effective. (styles, you know which ones you are.)

i think that some a good Jun Fan/JKD guy could probably take a decent MMA guy. only because IMHO JKD is one of the best mixed martial arts styles. it being a hybrid of many styles. but i guess it would all depend on the JF/JKD fighter. b/c not every JKD guy trains the same. some guys like myself, i only take what works for me out of whatever styles i wish. call me, or it what you will. i just do what works for me. but it works and like a charm.

i also train in MMA techniques that are barrowed from wrestling, JJ, BJJ, muay thai, Grappling, JKD, Western Boxing and a few others.

but IMHO MMA is the superior way to train for any situation.

except for the following:

1.   Eye gouging  
2.   Biting. 
3.   Hair pulling. 
4.   Fish hooking. 
5.   Small joint manipulation. 
6.   Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 2, 2006)

You know, there was an absolutely hilarious post on the differences between a martial ART and a martial SPORT made by Dale Seago some time ago. Some knuckle-dragger was berating him about "aliveness", "situational preparedness", and some other such nonsense when he replied "Right now, as I sit at my desk, I have 2 guns, 3 knives, and am up for a little "Anything Goes" whenever you are". What a priceless response!!!

The great thing about the real guys like Dale Seago, who've been in the military, work in a security field, and who practice a survival art vs a self-gratifying sport, is that they don't accept the rules of martial sportists. I remember the knuckle-dragger's response to his reply was something like "Oh yeah...big guy with the GUNS and KNIVES......but you wouldn't be so tough WITHOUT them!!!". Hilarious!!!

That's something the martial sportists don't get. They always want to challenge the entire TMA community to a fight when traditional martial arts are about military conflict. With the advance in modern weaponry, a real "fight" between an MMA vs. a TMA would be either the MMA attacking the TMA, being thrown in jail, sued, and ruining their life, therefore "losing" the match and being "submitted" by society, or the TMA (true MARTIAL artist) would set up a meeting in a field somewhere, setting up the MMA favorite, a ring, then rigging it with explosives and a remote detonator.

At that point, when the MMA guy pops into the ring and is parading around, flaunting their hairless physique in front of their friends and admirers, they get blown to smitherines. That's martial. There are no trophies, just dead bodies. There are people who deal with that reality everyday in the military. 

Here is MMA's greatest weakness: they need the TMA community to survive and to be validated. If the TMA crowd decided they would not train martial sportists anymore, MMA would be a mix of what? Nothing. So, in short, why not be a little more respectful towards the arts who make it possible for MMA to compete and play "war" games in the ring? The real martial arts exist on the battlefield just as they always have. Instead of insulting the entire TMA community, why not go and play for trophies on a battlefield and prove how tough you are once and for all? I'm sure that modern day enemies wouldn't think any differently of killing a hairless wonder than they would a true soldier.

Just a thought........

As for me, I don't need to be tough. My personal philosophy is that life will beat the crap out of you until it makes an honest man out of you. My philosophy doesn't require Nair. It's a wonderful thing!!!


Fu Bag


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 2, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:
			
		

> The great thing about the real guys like Dale Seago, who've been in the military, work in a security field, and who practice a survival art vs a self-gratifying sport, is that they don't accept the rules of martial sportists. I remember the knuckle-dragger's response to his reply was something like "Oh yeah...big guy with the GUNS and KNIVES......but you wouldn't be so tough WITHOUT them!!!". Hilarious!!!



What makes you think that martial sportists follow the rules when they're in a self-defense situation? 



> That's something the martial sportists don't get. They always want to challenge the entire TMA community to a fight when traditional martial arts are about military conflict.



How many traditional martial artists do you think are training appropriately for the kind threat that would benefit from their art's military lineage? How often will a modern soldier engage in unarmed combat? 



> With the advance in modern weaponry, a real "fight" between an MMA vs. a
> TMA would be either the MMA attacking the TMA, being thrown in jail, sued, and ruining their life, therefore "losing" the match and being "submitted" by society, or the TMA (true MARTIAL artist) would set up a meeting in a field somewhere, setting up the MMA favorite, a ring, then rigging it with explosives and a remote detonator.



I think it's a mistake to conclude that traditional martial artists are better prepared for the the realities of combat than mixed martial artists. 



> At that point, when the MMA guy pops into the ring and is parading around, flaunting their hairless physique in front of their friends and admirers, they get blown to smitherines. That's martial. There are no trophies, just dead bodies. There are people who deal with that reality everyday in the military.



Yes, and they confront that reality with modern weapons and technology.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg,

Thanks for the reply. 

********* "What makes you think that martial sportists follow the rules when they're in a self-defense situation?"

Self defense situations involve the real threat of death. The ring has done its best to eliminate that threat. MMA practitioners who go into it with the intention of protecting themselves and their loved ones are of a completely different mindset than the ones who go into it for bragging rights. I have no problems with the first group of people, and their motivations, and believe that they are truly well prepared. The second group, however, are the ones who attempt to bring society down to their level for the sake of validating themselves and their bloodlust. There's a big difference there. I believe that it was a representative from the second group who was messing with Dale Seago. The first group aren't the ones who cause the problems.


***************"How many traditional martial artists do you think are training appropriately for the kind threat that would benefit from their art's military lineage? How often will a modern soldier engage in unarmed combat?"


It would depend on the reason that they chose their art to begin with. If they truly need it to protect themselves and their loved ones, then they will practice appropriately and find an instructor that can train them at that level. It really comes down to the individual student and their need and will to survive. The whole point of military training is to utilize the most effective means of neutralizing the target, is it not? With the weaponry and technology that exists today, unarmed fighting ability is necessary but is a long way from being the most effective means to neutralize an opposing force.


*******************"I think it's a mistake to conclude that traditional martial artists are better prepared for the the realities of combat than mixed martial artists."


I agree and that's not my conclusion. My point is that there are no "ultimate fighters" on the battlefield. It is a coordinated effort by a group of people, armed with conventional equipment, and working together toward surviving the battle and eliminating the enemy. How effective would it be for a sniper to jump up on the roof after eliminating a target and start roaring like some kind of beast, revealing their position, and endangering themselves and their crew because they feel that they are now "the ultimate killing machine"? So, in that respect, someone who has been trained to be composed, calm, and disciplined would probably be a lot more qualified than someone conditioned to be a raging beast with respects to being a soldier on a modern battlefield. MMA who train to be warriors would have no problem. MMA who seek glory and fame as fighters probably wouldn't make it through basic training.


****************"Yes, and they confront that reality with modern weapons and technology."

My point exactly. When is the last time those weapons and technology were allowed in the ring? The combination of those modern weapons and technology is "submission" fighting. Unarmed techniques aren't going to do much against a tank, an air strike, or artillery fire. Taking that into consideration, what are the glory seekers really trying to prove?

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. The whole TMA vs MMA thing just really gets old after awhile. I really do apologize if my last post was over the top. I have no problems with whatever art people want to study. My problems with people come when they threaten students from other arts who aren't necessarily involved in martial arts for the same reasons. That's bigotry of a sort and I don't think that it should be encouraged.

Have a nice night,

Fu Bag


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> What makes you think that martial sportists follow the rules when they're in a self-defense situation?



Because if you train that way under stress, that is what you will do under pressure. It is not a concious decision.

A friend of mine in Japan delt with Kokushin guys coming in to train with him. Kyokushinkai is  avery brutal Japanese art that has tournaments every year that keep ambulances busy during them. The only rule is no punches to the head.

My friend met and went at it with several Kyokushinkai guys who knew that the rules against blasting them in the head were not relevant. Despite that, they regularly got knocked out by punches to the head. They knew the rules were not the same, but the way they trained year after year under stresss conditioned them to ignore the possibility of punches to the head. Thus, when faced with it, their old conditioning overcame their conscious thought and left them open to something that led to them being knocked out.

So when people say that they will do things differently in real life, I do not think they know what they are talking about. And none of the major sports competitions I see have people going against weapons like you will encounter on the street. What they do is geared toward that reality, like Kyokushinkai is geared toward no punches to the head. And the resluts probably will be the same with a lot more deadly effect should it happen.


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

I think both of you, Fu Bag and Don Roley, have presented excellent arguments. I agree with you, but is that enough?

Don, your Kyokushinkai story is persuasive, but it's anecdotal. Bas Rutten, former Ultimate Fighting Championship Heavyweight Champion, and 3rd Degree Black Belt in Kyokushin used to work as a bouncer for a few years before getting involved in MMA. You don't work a door for long if you're unable to face reality. 

These kinds of discussions tend to turn into a game of pong, with each of us trading a different anecdote until one of us gets tired or loses interest in the argument. We can't depend on anecdotes and suppositions about how things work on the street to frame our arguments

Taijutsu practitioners like us spend a lot of time rolling around and throwing slow lunging punches. As we progress, the pressure increases, but to a mixed martial artist it still looks like a ballet. We defend ourselves by talking about Takamatsu Toshitsugu and his fights. The mixed martial artist snickers at us and envisions kneeing us into unconsciousness, and if we somehow end up on the ground, he laughs as we try to apply an arm lock that's never been tested on someone that spends four hours out of every day wiggling out of submissions. When the mixed martial artist imagines mounting, he shrugs off our pinching, poking, and awkward attempts to reach his groin as he repeatedly elbows our already smashed face. 

Of course, the mixed martial artists doesn't have to imagine any of this, because unlike our fantasies of miraculously stepping out of the way of our attacker and reaching inside our jacket for a kusari-fundo, the mixed martial artist trains hard against resisting opponents on a regular basis. Hes an athlete with conditioning far superior to ours, and he knows what it feels like to have his arm pop out of place, fight with blood streaming down his face, and not tap in time to avoid being strangled by a rear naked choke. In the street, he doesnt have to take the fight to the ground because his punches have knock out power, and he can do everything he needs from the clinch. If for some reason he does go to the ground, hes not going to be there long, and if someone does try to kick him, he can deal with that threat too because hes been kicked harder in training.

I wrote all of this to illustrate that the mixed martial artists also has a persuasive argument, and he doesnt need any more evidence to tell him that his practice is more effective than ours. All he has to do is point us in the direction of the numerous videos that are on the internet cataloguing his confrontations with traditional martial artists. What do we have? Is what we practice simply a house of cards, ready to collapse at any moment? I dont know the answer to that question, but its something to ponder when were training.


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

MMA "The Validity"

The martial arts are inherently martial, meaning warlike. There is a tremendous amount of martial technique that deals in lethal force. From art to art and from country to country the amount of lethal techniques vary but are ever present. For many the value of any given art has been based upon the number of lethal techniques involved. There are some who do not think an art has merit unless the focus of the art is attacking potentially lethal or highly vulnerable targets on the body. These areas include the head, throat, neck, eyes, groin and ear. The primary goal of self preservation dictates that these targets be a part of the total package. The problem created by including lethal technique is training and developing it. It will be pretend for the most part. There is no way to pad up the neck and deliver repeated, full power throat strikes. You cannot gouge the eyes of your sparring partner and you cannot execute a hard core neck twist on someone in routine training. There are practical and methodical ways to train lethal technique as to make it understood by the practitioner and develop a mind muscle connection. However, it is not so practical to functionalize. In other words, it&#8217;s difficult at best to create a training environment where routine training gives you the ability to apply these techniques against a fully resisting opponent who is focused on applying them on you as well. 

*More Than A Delivery System.*

Mixed martial arts combines conditioning, footwork, striking, clinch and groundfighting but excludes all lethal techniques. The various rules involved are a point of contention for those who advocate the use of lethal techniques. These rules normally have the eyes and groin off limits. In some events you may not stomp or kick a grounded opponent and in others they may not allow the use of elbow strikes. It is extremely aggressive and adversarial in nature yet executed in a very sportsmanlike manner. Mixed martial arts events have proven to be serious battles of very worthy competitors. The successful execution of numerous potentially crippling techniques against fully committed and resisting opponents has, without a doubt, validated the tactics and training methods of mixed martial arts. Because of this many from the martial arts community have looked to mixed martial arts in an attempt to extract training methods which they feel could be used as a delivery system for the more lethal techniques. This is a progressive approach and one that has proved to be of some use. I feel that this is flawed thinking however. If mixed martial arts has been shown to be functional it would make more sense to include mixed martial arts in it&#8217;s totality rather than just using it&#8217;s training methods. I say include rather than replace. They can both exist in the same space. 

From the get go, it is of extreme importance to be in fighting shape. If Bruce Lee did anything for the martial arts he exemplified strength and conditioning, and that was more than thirty years ago. Mixed martial arts fighters are well versed in combat athletics. When it comes to landing a shot on an opponent, or avoiding one yourself, footwork is the real crux of the matter. This is a large area of focus for the mixed martial arts fighter. Striking effectively is an overlooked given. Many still think that if you just randomly girate your appendages in the direction of your opponent you will eventually hit something. This is silly at best, but common. Understanding boxing and kicking combinations and the use of a tight defensive structure is crucial in interpersonal combat. The clinch is a critical area of training. Being able to close on an opponent and stop him from effectively punching and kick you is of extreme value. Learning to counter and execute takedowns, use control ties ups and close quarter striking is standard practice in MMA. Groundfighting is a big part of the MMA game as well. The ability to force the ground game on an opponent and use arm locks, leg locks and chokes or ground and pound strategies is vital. Stopping these techniques from being used against you is huge as well. 

A basic understanding of this material should be standard fare for a realistic self preservation programs. It truly can be used as a delivery system for other martial ideologies but is of great value independently. Mixed martial arts training prepares one to utilize its tactics and training against real people who are seriously fighting back. Whereas other arts or structures that focus on a more lethal approach have you training predominately against cooperative opponents. Many in the traditional martial arts community and also some in the reality fighting world discount MMA as being a valid form of fight because of the rules involved. Often overheard are observations like &#8220;There are no rules in the street&#8221; or &#8220;I don&#8217;t play by the rules, I cheat&#8221; or the ever popular &#8220;I&#8217;ll just bite and eye gouge&#8221;. In my opinion these types of statements are a lighting rod for criticism. Those usually saying them have never had a training mechanism to develop the bite or eye gouge and they are giving too much weight to their effectiveness. The rules of MMA create an environment where personal attributes and fighting strategy can develop with injury being a well managed risk. Still, in my experience choke outs, knockouts and even torn ligaments and broken bones have been a part of the training. 

*The Fatal Flaw*

In the totality of Self Preservation training (as opposed to unarmed interpersonal combat) MMA falls short of being complete in a number of areas. Its combatants know when they are going to fight, who they are going to fight and why they are going to fight. This negates training for pre fight setups, verbal de-escalation and verbal redirection. Pre fight setups would include recognition of one or more persons coordinating a plan of attack against you. Verbal de-escalation is attempting to verbally calm a would be attacker verbally. There are a number of approaches to this including simply backing down and away from the altercation. Verbal redirection comes into play when you have made a decision to attack preemptively and you want to distract you opponents thought processes for a split second before you do. This can slow down his reaction time giving you great probability of landing your attack. An example of this could be if your opponent says he&#8217;s going to &#8220;bounce your head off the sidewalk&#8221; you could say &#8220;I don&#8217;t have any money&#8221;. As his brain stutters and he says &#8220;I didn&#8217;t ask you for money&#8221;, you nail him on a word fragment. These tactics may or may not be appropriate for any given situation but they are not addressed in MMA. 

Another area not covered is multiple opponents. This area should not be approached with a win, lose or draw mentality but as a survival situation. It is common for criminals to work together in assaults and muggings as they are not looking for a fight or even a conflict. They are looking for effect. Likewise, weapons are of extreme importance in the big picture. weapons include, pepper spray, impact weapons, bladed weapons and improvised weapons. Combatants must know how to fight weapon vs weapon and empty hands vs various weapons. Weapon characteristics dictate the potential offensive and defensive responses so being intimately familiar with weapons is important. Firearms for home defense and concealed carry are are not even afterthoughts for MMA. They have no place in the training. 

I acknowledge that in an MMA competition you know ahead of time why you are fighting and who you are fighting. There will be no weapons involved and no multiple attackers. There is a referee to make sure the fighters don&#8217;t get hurt and a doctor standing by in case one does. Your corner can throw in the towel or you can quit at anytime. The benefit is that this framework has allowed for tremendous growth and development. 

As I see it, the idea that martial arts are for health and spirituality is a huge distraction from the primary purpose of self preservation. In the final analysis I think it is also a mistake confine your training to a lethal force platform of unarmed techniques you cannot train athletically and functionally. You should also avoid adopting the tactical error of simply agreeing to exchange blows with larger, stronger, multiple or armed opponents. Training to use pre fight deceptive dialog, high probability unarmed tactics and weapons is a must. But depending on your arsenal of deadly techniques, too deadly to even train, is suicidal at best.​


----------



## FearlessFreep (Sep 3, 2006)

If competitions like UFC, Pride, etc...are the culmination of "MMA"...the goal or the purpose, then I would agree with Floating Egg  that there are a lot of..shortcomings, I would think in th edifference between MMA as a sport competition and useful self-defense.  This holds for most sport competitions such as WTF Taekwondo sparring

If competitions like UFC, etc..are just another method of training for the larger goal of personal self preservation, then for all practical purposes  they are just another TMA anyway


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:
			
		

> You know, there was an absolutely hilarious post on the differences between a martial ART and a martial SPORT made by Dale Seago some time ago. Some knuckle-dragger was berating him about "aliveness", "situational preparedness", and some other such nonsense when he replied "Right now, as I sit at my desk, I have 2 guns, 3 knives, and am up for a little "Anything Goes" whenever you are". What a priceless response!!!


 
Ok. This is basically the equivalent of saying "I live in the suburbs so I don't need hand to hand."  He basically admitted his hand to hand is behind, and so has tried to change the subject.  This isn't necessarily a problem, as a great many MMAists are lawenforcement officers and military people and are likely just as capable with weapons.  There are military competitions for weapons too... 



> The great thing about the real guys like Dale Seago, who've been in the military, work in a security field, and who practice a survival art vs a self-gratifying sport, is that they don't accept the rules of martial sportists. I remember the knuckle-dragger's response to his reply was something like "Oh yeah...big guy with the GUNS and KNIVES......but you wouldn't be so tough WITHOUT them!!!". Hilarious!!!


 
He's actually right on.  Mr. Seago is skirting the issue of his hand to hand training by essentially saying he doesn't need it.  Ok.  



> That's something the martial sportists don't get. They always want to challenge the entire TMA community to a fight when traditional martial arts are about military conflict.


 
Which is, of course, why BJJ founds the basis for the American army and marine corps hand to hand combat.  SAMBO forms the basis for the Russian military hand to hand combat.  The newer British combatives are mostly based on BJJ as well.  



> With the advance in modern weaponry, a real "fight" between an MMA vs. a TMA would be either the MMA attacking the TMA, being thrown in jail, sued, and ruining their life, therefore "losing" the match and being "submitted" by society, or the TMA (true MARTIAL artist) would set up a meeting in a field somewhere, setting up the MMA favorite, a ring, then rigging it with explosives and a remote detonator.


 
When has this ever actually happened?  



> At that point, when the MMA guy pops into the ring and is parading around, flaunting their hairless physique in front of their friends and admirers, they get blown to smitherines. That's martial. There are no trophies, just dead bodies. There are people who deal with that reality everyday in the military.


 
...Which is why their hand to hand isn't based on ninja tricks.  See above.  



> Here is MMA's greatest weakness: they need the TMA community to survive and to be validated. If the TMA crowd decided they would not train martial sportists anymore, MMA would be a mix of what? Nothing.


 
What the heck are you talking about? 



> So, in short, why not be a little more respectful towards the arts who make it possible for MMA to compete and play "war" games in the ring? The real martial arts exist on the battlefield just as they always have. Instead of insulting the entire TMA community, why not go and play for trophies on a battlefield and prove how tough you are once and for all? I'm sure that modern day enemies wouldn't think any differently of killing a hairless wonder than they would a true soldier.
> 
> Just a thought........
> 
> ...


 
Ok then...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 3, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> as a great many MMAists are lawenforcement officers and military people and are likely just as capable with weapons. There are military competitions for weapons too...


 

I'm not disputing that but you do of course realize that the same can be said for TMA as well.




			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Which is, of course, why BJJ founds the basis for the American army and marine corps hand to hand combat. SAMBO forms the basis for the Russian military hand to hand combat. The newer British combatives are mostly based on BJJ as well.


 
You forgot the Chinese Military and Sanshou aka Qinna Gedou


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 3, 2006)

North Korean Military uses hardcore ITF

South Korean Military has multiple Korean based systems

Indonesian Military uses Silat to the best of my knowledge

Filipino Military has multiple FMA influences in the curriculum with lots of Pekiti Terisia

and so on.

Even the United States Military Curriculum has been changed time and time again over the years and not all of our military CQC is based off BJJ.  Even the BJJ modeled one has other aspects dating back to the previous system.  

Also the Current Army military combatives program says clearly in their training that the one who wins in CQC on the ground is the one whose friends show up first. 

This argument or debate is getting old!  I like both ways of training and really feel that the individual has to find what is best for *them*.  It does in the end come down the individual after all, not the system.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 3, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This argument or debate is getting old!




Amen brother!  This debate has been reincarnated at least a million times on here.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 3, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Amen brother! This debate has been reincarnated at least a million times on here.


 

Maybe more! :rofl:


----------



## zDom (Sep 3, 2006)

What I don't understand is, why are certain elements of the MMA crowd SO bent on convincing TMA'ists that we are wasting our time?

The fact is, SOME people ARE practicing TMA in ways that are ineffective -- but that doesn't mean ALL of us are.

I'm confident my curriculum is viable because it's worked for me in the past. You can argue till you are blue in the face -- but I know what I am learning and how I am training are effective. Period.

You can laugh and ridicule anecdotal evidence, too -- but an anecdote from a reliable source is, to me, as convincing as videotape of cage matches are to you.

Likewise, "MMA" is not some magical set of all-powerful techniques. Believing it is so doesn't make it so.

The octagon is entertaining, but it is not the only place where martial arts are tested.

Confidence is good, overconfidence can get you in a world of hurt.

And the more people that think that what I'm doing is "ineffective," the more people there are out there that are completely unprepared for what I can do. It makes defending myself even easier.

I respect the ability of BJJ on the ground, I respect the ability of a well-trained MMA to be proficient in a number of fighting ranges.

I train hard. Those who do NOT respect my abilities do so at their own peril. 

*shrug* Ya'll have fun beating this dead horse into a pile of glue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 3, 2006)

Rook said:


> Which is, of course, why BJJ founds the basis for the American army and marine corps hand to hand combat.



Really?

Cuz MCMAP, the current Marine Corp H2H program is based on a COMBINATION of Arts and was IMSC created in combination with Ken Shamrock AND Bujinkan Shidoshi and former marine Jack Hoban.

BJJ isnt the "basis" for it. Its an element IN it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 3, 2006)

Rook said:


> ...Which is why their hand to hand isn't based on ninja tricks.  See above.



No, just the actual fighting techniques.  See above.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> Of course, the mixed martial artists doesn't have to imagine any of this, because unlike our fantasies of miraculously stepping out of the way of our attacker and reaching inside our jacket for a kusari-fundo, the mixed martial artist trains hard against resisting opponents on a regular basis. Hes an athlete with conditioning far superior to ours, and he knows what it feels like to have his arm pop out of place, fight with blood streaming down his face, and not tap in time to avoid being strangled by a rear naked choke. In the street, he doesnt have to take the fight to the ground because his punches have knock out power, and he can do everything he needs from the clinch. If for some reason he does go to the ground, hes not going to be there long, and if someone does try to kick him, he can deal with that threat too because hes been kicked harder in training.
> 
> I wrote all of this to illustrate that the mixed martial artists also has a persuasive argument, and he doesnt need any more evidence to tell him that his practice is more effective than ours. All he has to do is point us in the direction of the numerous videos that are on the internet cataloguing his confrontations with traditional martial artists. What do we have? Is what we practice simply a house of cards, ready to collapse at any moment? I dont know the answer to that question, but its something to ponder when were training.


 Its true; MMA practitioners have had a lot of success against others in competion. After all the rulsets are based around what they do, this is quite an advantage. Remember the Ali and Inoki fight, both very good at what they did and both very confident individuals; however neither one was going to meet the other outside of their normal fighting environment.

Im sure that in a self defence situation where there are no rules a TMA practitioner who had trained hard would fare well. Would he be better than a MMA guy? I dont know.

Regarding the anecdotal evidence of Dons. Some years ago one of our younger students wanted to go in a Kyokushinkai tournament. Normally in Shorinji Kempo we dont compete, our randori is just for learning how to apply techniques realistically not to make a winner. Anyway the instructor eventually allowed him to compete because he was so determined to do so. His fight lasted only a few seconds, as his opponent came at him our guy punched him in the head and knocked him down. He of course was immediately disqualified, but it did highlight trained responses. Our guy who knew he was not allowed to punch to the head did so anyway. All it took was a little stress and seeing an opening, he then reacted the way he was trained to.


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

zDom said:


> What I don't understand is, why are certain elements of the MMA crowd SO bent on convincing TMA'ists that we are wasting our time?
> 
> The fact is, SOME people ARE practicing TMA in ways that are ineffective -- but that doesn't mean ALL of us are.



The truth is we don't know how many are. We don't even know how to define ineffective. Remember, I'm a traditional martial artist, not a mixed martial artist. 



> I'm confident my curriculum is viable because it's worked for me in the past. You can argue till you are blue in the face -- but I know what I am learning and how I am training are effective. Period.



Yeah, everybody's curriculum has worked for them in the past.



> You can laugh and ridicule anecdotal evidence, too -- but an anecdote from a reliable source is, to me, as convincing as videotape of cage matches are to you.



An anecdote from a reliable source is still just an anecdote, and if you're convinced, well there's not much I can say about that. I could give you a long lecture, but what would that accomplish? 



> Likewise, "MMA" is not some magical set of all-powerful techniques. Believing it is so doesn't make it so.
> 
> The octagon is entertaining, but it is not the only place where martial arts are tested.
> 
> Confidence is good, overconfidence can get you in a world of hurt.



Sure, I recognize that.



> And the more people that think that what I'm doing is "ineffective," the more people there are out there that are completely unprepared for what I can do. It makes defending myself even easier.



What if you're unprepared?


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg,

Thank you for putting so much into your reply. I really don't want this to turn into a Pong game so I'll see if I can try a different approach. 

All MMA are actually TMA even if they refuse to admit it. The fact that they train in a certain way doesn't mean they are no longer TMA. The arts they train in are TMA and that will never change. That said, however, sports have nothing to do with the application of martial techniques, tactics, strategy, or victory. Sports may be challenging on many levels but, seriously, unless sportists go into the ring intending to either die, or to kill the other person, they're not applying, or engaging in, anything martial. They are playing "who has the bigger weiner" for trophies. Some people can be happy winning prizes in an arcade, others need to do it violently. In the end, though, the result is the same. To me, the one who found that they could win a prize using only a quarter is the one who would be more likely survive on a battlefield. 

There's a big difference in a coach, or a fight promoter, saying "Get out there and BEAT THIS GUY!!!", and a drill seargent saying "Gentlemen, you're here to learn how to die like men and to neutralize the enemy by any means necessary.". One is martial, the other is sport. When someone undergoes true MARTIAL training for the sake of SURVIVING any conflict, it doesn't matter what you do to them, they're not going to stop trying to kill, or survive, until either they are dead, or their enemy is. Submitting or tapping out isn't an option. That's the difference between MARTIAL and SPORT. That doesn't mean someone won't get killed quickly by someone who is better trained, however.

Someone is going to have a hard time convincing me that a soldier, or even an untrained civilian for that matter, who is fighting for their life so that they can go home to their family, is inferior in mindset, pain tolerance, commitment, and survival instinct to someone who plays for trophies professionally. They're not going to care what you do to them and they're not going to stop trying to kill their attacker until they are able to get to go home to their family. Once again, big difference between real fighting and trophy playing.

Tough is "I'm going home, you're not", not "HA HA HA!!! I whoopped your *** GOOD!!!". Like I said before, MMA who could care less about trophy playing have the first mindset, not the second. The only way you're going to pressure test that is to constantly endanger people's loved ones. Fortunately, there are laws against that type of nonsense. There are plenty of TMA, not to mention untrained civilians, who have the first mindset also. So what if some diseased, animalistic sociopath can overcome someone in that mindset? At that point they have just committed pre-meditated murder, not to mention stalking, and they will spend the rest of their life in a cage, where they belong, until they are treated to the death penalty.

If what you're saying is that there is a high degree of likelihood that any criminal I might encounter is going to be a highly trained MMA ring fighter, then something needs to be done to address that situation from within the MMA community. My understanding of criminal attacks is that

1. They don't pre-arrange the attack with you at a certain place, on a certain date, and at a certain time
2. They don't attack until they know they can kill you without being harmed themselves
3. They don't show you their weapon so that it's easier to use it on you
4. They oftentimes use diversionary tactics
5. They have friends
6. If you aren't thinking about these types of things, and addressing them in your training, you might be their next victim

That's where MARTIAL techniques, strategies, and concepts come into play. Bye bye sport, hello reality. The criminal utilizes battlefield strategy, information gathering, pre-attack planning, and post-attack escape. How often is this stressed in training for ring fighting? If you want to say that the MMA crowd have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that TMA is fully combat functional, then I agree since TMA is what MMAists train in anyway. 

Some of the taijutsu that I've either seen, or heard of, involves snapping the guys neck when they rush in for the tackle, drawing your weapon, taking out their friend, then them, then any other friends that they might have nearby. Shinai drills aren't for nothing. Neither is sensitivity training. It's not a matter of getting attacked, then trying to find your weapon while you're being pounded. It's a matter of situational awareness, danger avoidance, and pre-emptive action. Just like with Dale Seago's post. He dissuaded his potential aggressor by informing the knuckle-dragger that their death may be on the horizon if they could not help but to behave as a diseased, animalistic sociopath. It worked.

Is that a "ninja trick"? No, but it is martial. The sportist wanted to engage in their masturbatory fantasies with him and, when given the choice to engage in real MARTIAL arts outside of the ring, the sportist quickly made excuses as to why they didn't want to engage in real martial arts. Upping the training intensity of TMA, making it into a sport, and calling it "martial", while discarding everything martial for the sake of the sport, doesn't make it martial. It just makes it a very demanding TMA-based sport which plays for trophies. 

I have no problems respecting MMAists who are actually warriors, who protect life, instead of attacking it, and who have chosen the MMA approach because it suits them best. I just wish that they would be the ones making the biggest impressions on internet forums and in showing the public that their art isn't made up of a bunch of trophy playing, antagonistic, fight seeking brawlers, but instead, of people who train it as a MARTIAL art instead of a self-gratifying sport.  Threatening other styles' students doesn't suddenly transform a sport into a martial art, it just shows the sociopathic nature of those who have to prove something through violently forcing their will upon another human being.  To me, that just makes them criminals in training.

SPORT is :

"Let's find out who has the biggest weiner afterall!!!"

MARTIAL is:

"That's fine. I'll do the comparison once * BAM * BAM * BAM * BAM * BAM * I've killed you...... Wow. I guess you really DID have a big weiner. Too bad you won't be using it anymore."


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

Colin_Linz said:


> I&#8217;m sure that in a self defence situation where there are no rules a TMA practitioner who had trained hard would fare well. Would he be better than a MMA guy? *I don&#8217;t know.* (emphasis added)



You hit the nail on the head with "I don't know." I don't know either, and that's the problem. There are a lot of opinions floating around, but not much else, and I don't know how we could test something like what you're referring to without rules. Would it be fair to include weapons? What can we do while remaining within the law? Do we let people tap out or do we wait for unconsciousness? Do we stop the fight if someone is bleeding into their eyes and can't see? Do we stop the fight if someone breaks their arm, but still wants to continue? If someone bites off their opponent's nose, is that an automatic win?



> Regarding the anecdotal evidence of Don&#8217;s. Some years ago one of our younger students wanted to go in a Kyokushinkai tournament. Normally in Shorinji Kempo we don&#8217;t compete, our randori is just for learning how to apply techniques realistically not to make a winner. Anyway the instructor eventually allowed him to compete because he was so determined to do so. His fight lasted only a few seconds, as his opponent came at him our guy punched him in the head and knocked him down. He of course was immediately disqualified, but it did highlight trained responses. Our guy who knew he was not allowed to punch to the head did so anyway. All it took was a little stress and seeing an opening, he then reacted the way he was trained to.



Great story, but refer to my previous point about pong.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 3, 2006)

Colin_Linz said:


> After all the rulsets are based around what they do, this is quite an advantage.




Can you give a ruleset that doesn't?

Basically we base what we do around fighting one on one with no rules, or as few rules as possible.  In a sense, allowing everything from all rulesets.  Which was the initial idea, let everyone in, let them all do everything there rules normally allow and see who comes out on top.

I really don't see what else could be included and still have a fair and safe sporting event...?


----------



## zDom (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> The truth is we don't know how many are. We don't even know how to define ineffective. Remember, I'm a traditional martial artist, not a mixed martial artist.



You SOUND like a mixed martial artist though  "I find your lack of faith disturbing" 

But in addition to being a TMA, I am a professional wordsmith, so I'm pretty confident of my ability to define ineffective even without grabbing a dictionary.

How about, "doesn't work"?




Floating Egg said:


> Yeah, everybody's curriculum has worked for them in the past.



Not true. Saying so doesn't make it so. The great majority, I'm willing to believe, have never been forced to test their ability (it probably has something to do with TMA building character.)

We could to a quick poll here if you like. I'd find it interesting.

(I wasn't able to find the poll feature last time I tried. Maybe I'll give it another shot.)





Floating Egg said:


> An anecdote from a reliable source is still just an anecdote, and if you're convinced, well there's not much I can say about that. I could give you a long lecture, but what would that accomplish?



We need a "pong" smiley around here, don't we? 




Floating Egg said:


> What if you're unprepared?



So far, so good. I continue to train hard, so God willing, I will be prepared for the next time, if there ever is a next time 

I'm not worried -- but then, I'm not overconfident either. I just keep pushing hard and hoping for the best.

And as I won't willingly be stepping into any cages for a martial art contest, I find it unlikely I will be attacked by a skilled opponent in the near future. But I sure do enjoy watching those who have something to prove beat each other up. Lot to learn by watching. And it doesn't bother me if those types end up with career-ending injuries that make it difficult to defend themselves in the future. 

Better than them trying to prove themselves against innocent, unwilling participants, after all 

Cheers!


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

Fu_Bag, 

I agree with most of what you've written, so I'm just going to highlight the points that I think need clarification.



> Someone is going to have a hard time convincing me that a soldier, or even an untrained civilian for that matter, who is fighting for their life so that they can go home to their family, is inferior in mindset, pain tolerance, commitment, and survival instinct to someone who plays for trophies professionally.



What if the professional fighter is fighting for his or her life? 



> They're not going to care what you do to them and they're not going to stop trying to kill their attacker until they are able to get to go home to their family. Once again, big difference between real fighting and trophy playing.



We have a pretty decadent civilization here, and a lot of us have been killed or assaulted without even raising a hand. 



> Tough is "I'm going home, you're not", not "HA HA HA!!! I whoopped your *** GOOD!!!". Like I said before, MMA who could care less about trophy playing have the first mindset, not the second. The only way you're going to pressure test that is to constantly endanger people's loved ones.



You don't think that a safe test could be devised? Has anyone tried?


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg,

Once again, great points!!

************"What if the professional fighter is fighting for his or her life?" 

What did they do to end up in that situation in the first place? Did they bring it on themselves through their behavior or lifestyle? A fair answer is that a professional fighter, fighting for their life or, especially, for the lives of their loved ones, isn't someone I'd want to mess with. Of course, I'm also not a criminal who is intent on achieving their goal without being harmed. 


*****************"We have a pretty decadent civilization here, and a lot of us have been killed or assaulted without even raising a hand."


Agreed, and that's why training the danger sense to operate naturally is so critical. Danger avoidance is the most primal of self-preservation strategies. Training under the premise of becoming an invincible, unbeatable, ultimate fighter seems like a deadly mistake to me. In my opinion, if there was only one thing that all martial arts should develop in their students, it should be the natural danger avoidance, self-preservation sense. That is about as close to a perfect technique as I can think of and it doesn't boost an unhealthy false confidence in the practitioner.


****************"You don't think that a safe test could be devised? Has anyone tried?"


I think that would be a really bad idea. If you put one person who is 1000% comitted to killing their opponent against a person who is 1000% commited to proving that they can't be killed by said person, nothing good is going to come of it. If people want to test it, let them take it with them to the battlefield. If they actually use it for unarmed combat, great. Personally, if I had to go to war, the last person I'd want watching my back is someone who has something to prove.

Great conversation, Floating Egg. 


Fu Bag


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

> Agreed, and that's why training the danger sense to operate naturally is so critical. Danger avoidance is the most primal of self-preservation strategies. Training under the premise of becoming an invincible, unbeatable, ultimate fighter seems like a deadly mistake to me. In my opinion, if there was only one thing that all martial arts should develop in their students, it should be the natural danger avoidance, self-preservation sense. That is about as close to a perfect technique as I can think of and it doesn't boost an unhealthy false confidence in the practitioner.



We don't need a martial art to teach us those skills, and I'm not confident that the majority of martial arts instill the awareness and avoidance that you describe.



> I think that would be a really bad idea. If you put one person who is 1000% comitted to killing their opponent against a person who is 1000% commited to proving that they can't be killed by said person, nothing good is going to come of it. If people want to test it, let them take it with them to the battlefield. If they actually use it for unarmed combat, great. Personally, if I had to go to war, the last person I'd want watching my back is someone who has something to prove.



I should have explained myself better. I'm thinking of Grossman's field of interest, like the physiology of combat, though with more scientific scrutity. On his website Killology, you can read some publications that might interest you. He refers to the work of Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall and his observations of low firing rates among soldiers. I think the same kind of rigorous study can be applied to the martial arts that we practice.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg,

Thank you for the articles link.    I'll definitely be checking them out.  Good point about danger avoidance.

Take care,


Fu Bag


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> What if the professional fighter is fighting for his or her life?



Doesn't a professional fighter train and hone their skills and techniques that are "Within" the scope of the "fighting" rules, while intentionally disregarding those skills and techniques that fall outside the scope of the rules of competition?

Analogy....



> *[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whatever is drilled in during training comes out the other end in combat--no more, no less[/FONT]*
> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"Whatever you would make habitual, practise it; and if you would not make a thing habitual, do not practise                         it, but habituate yourself to something else."
> - Epictetus (1st century A.D.)
> How the Semblances of Things are to be Combated
> ...


Source: http://www.killology.com/on_combat_ch2.htm


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> I don't know how we could test something like what you're referring to without rules. Would it be fair to include weapons?



Fair no, real, yes.



> What can we do while remaining within the law?



UFC, PRIDE, Etc... but Probably not test the reality of a street confontation, since most of them occur outside the law in the first place.



> Do we let people tap out or do we wait for unconsciousness? Do we stop the fight if someone is bleeding into their eyes and can't see? Do we stop the fight if someone breaks their arm, but still wants to continue? If someone bites off their opponent's nose, is that an automatic win?



Stopping the fight in any of those circumstances is safe and fair, but again, unrealistic if you are going to talk about survivability in a street encounter.


Basically I agree with what you say, there isnt a safe way to test this theory.  You cant know you will beat an armed guy, (and this goes for both TMA and MMA) until you take him down before he gets a gun or knife drawn and goes to town on you with it, and you dont live, or wind up in surgery fighting for your life a second time, or you dispatch him.  That cant be tested in a "safe" environment.  I give props to the TMA AND MMA guys who at least address these ideas in their regular training, and think that anyone who doesnt train *with and against *them but thinks they are "street lethal fighters" are just as fantasy prone as any TMA guy they might think of that way because of their "less than ring ready" approach to training.


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 3, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> Doesn't a professional fighter train and hone their skills and techniques that are "Within" the scope of the "fighting" rules, while intentionally disregarding those skills and techniques that fall outside the scope of the rules of competition?



Probably, but there's a bit of a gray area with professional fighters because what they use in the ring often does work in the street. 



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Basically I agree with what you say, there isnt a safe way to test this theory. You cant know you will beat an armed guy, (and this goes for both TMA and MMA) until you take him down before he gets a gun or knife drawn and goes to town on you with it, and you dont live, or wind up in surgery fighting for your life a second time, or you dispatch him. That cant be tested in a "safe" environment.



I don't think we can be certain, but we can do better. Take scenario based adrenal stress training for example: most of us aren't used to having someone in our face yelling at us about how much they want to kill us. We can simulate these kinds of behaviours in the dojo because of the way our brains work. It's very easy to piss someone off or scare them in a controlled environment even if they know what you're doing. We can also drop the training that isn't applicable to modern self-defense situations.


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> I'm not disputing that but you do of course realize that the same can be said for TMA as well.


 
Absolutely.  Fu Bag tries to make it sound as though the only people who carry weapons and are skilled in there use are traditional martial artists.  In point of fact, I doubt very much there is any association between the carrying or use of weapons and any martial style.  



> You forgot the Chinese Military and Sanshou aka Qinna Gedou


 
A modern sports style.


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Technopunk said:


> Really?
> 
> Cuz MCMAP, the current Marine Corp H2H program is based on a COMBINATION of Arts and was IMSC created in combination with Ken Shamrock AND Bujinkan Shidoshi and former marine Jack Hoban.
> 
> BJJ isnt the "basis" for it. Its an element IN it.


 
Look at the stuff in the basic hand to hand taught in training.  It is BJJ with bits and pieces of previous systems.  The MCMAP, which is a seperate program, is supposed to inculate fighting spirit, and is based on a combination of several arts, including BJJ.


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Colin_Linz said:


> Its true; MMA practitioners have had a lot of success against others in competion. After all the rulsets are based around what they do, this is quite an advantage. Remember the Ali and Inoki fight, both very good at what they did and both very confident individuals; however neither one was going to meet the other outside of their normal fighting environment.
> 
> Im sure that in a self defence situation where there are no rules a TMA practitioner who had trained hard would fare well. Would he be better than a MMA guy? I dont know.
> 
> Regarding the anecdotal evidence of Dons. Some years ago one of our younger students wanted to go in a Kyokushinkai tournament. Normally in Shorinji Kempo we dont compete, our randori is just for learning how to apply techniques realistically not to make a winner. Anyway the instructor eventually allowed him to compete because he was so determined to do so. His fight lasted only a few seconds, as his opponent came at him our guy punched him in the head and knocked him down. He of course was immediately disqualified, but it did highlight trained responses. Our guy who knew he was not allowed to punch to the head did so anyway. All it took was a little stress and seeing an opening, he then reacted the way he was trained to.


 

Have you considered no-rules challenge matches as a comparison tool?


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> Floating Egg,
> 
> All MMA are actually TMA even if they refuse to admit it. The fact that they train in a certain way doesn't mean they are no longer TMA. The arts they train in are TMA and that will never change.


 
What the heck are you talking about?  All four of the primary arts, wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai and boxing are sports styles, not traditional styles.  



> That said, however, sports have nothing to do with the application of martial techniques, tactics, strategy, or victory. Sports may be challenging on many levels but, seriously, unless sportists go into the ring intending to either die, or to kill the other person, they're not applying, or engaging in, anything martial.


 
You do realize that people have gone into the ring fully intending to kill the other person, and with the intention of disregarding the rules?  They don't generally do well...  Heck, just watch the SAFSA guy try to eyegouge repreatedly in the UFC and then find his interviews... he's not exactly the only one.  



> They are playing "who has the bigger weiner" for trophies. Some people can be happy winning prizes in an arcade, others need to do it violently. In the end, though, the result is the same. To me, the one who found that they could win a prize using only a quarter is the one who would be more likely survive on a battlefield.
> 
> There's a big difference in a coach, or a fight promoter, saying "Get out there and BEAT THIS GUY!!!", and a drill seargent saying "Gentlemen, you're here to learn how to die like men and to neutralize the enemy by any means necessary.". One is martial, the other is sport. When someone undergoes true MARTIAL training for the sake of SURVIVING any conflict, it doesn't matter what you do to them, they're not going to stop trying to kill, or survive, until either they are dead, or their enemy is. Submitting or tapping out isn't an option. That's the difference between MARTIAL and SPORT. That doesn't mean someone won't get killed quickly by someone who is better trained, however.
> 
> Someone is going to have a hard time convincing me that a soldier, or even an untrained civilian for that matter, who is fighting for their life so that they can go home to their family, is inferior in mindset, pain tolerance, commitment, and survival instinct to someone who plays for trophies professionally. They're not going to care what you do to them and they're not going to stop trying to kill their attacker until they are able to get to go home to their family. Once again, big difference between real fighting and trophy playing.


 
And I suppose this is why the much of the world's militaries have sports-based combative systems?  



> Tough is "I'm going home, you're not", not "HA HA HA!!! I whoopped your *** GOOD!!!". Like I said before, MMA who could care less about trophy playing have the first mindset, not the second. The only way you're going to pressure test that is to constantly endanger people's loved ones. Fortunately, there are laws against that type of nonsense. There are plenty of TMA, not to mention untrained civilians, who have the first mindset also. So what if some diseased, animalistic sociopath can overcome someone in that mindset? At that point they have just committed pre-meditated murder, not to mention stalking, and they will spend the rest of their life in a cage, where they belong, until they are treated to the death penalty.


 
This is just more RBSD nonsense.  If "killer mindset" solved all our problems, we wouldn't need martial arts or weapons, just screaming hysteria.  It just doesn't work like that.  



> If what you're saying is that there is a high degree of likelihood that any criminal I might encounter is going to be a highly trained MMA ring fighter, then something needs to be done to address that situation from within the MMA community. My understanding of criminal attacks is that
> 
> 1. They don't pre-arrange the attack with you at a certain place, on a certain date, and at a certain time
> 2. They don't attack until they know they can kill you without being harmed themselves
> ...


 
So if you know your opponent in advance, have time to prepare for him, and are only faced with a single opponent you will lose, yet you can face down multiple armed attackers that you aren't prepared for?  If you can't even face one unarmed man that you are ready for, what in the world makes you think you think you can fight multiple armed opponents who take you by suprise?  



> That's where MARTIAL techniques, strategies, and concepts come into play. Bye bye sport, hello reality. The criminal utilizes battlefield strategy, information gathering, pre-attack planning, and post-attack escape. How often is this stressed in training for ring fighting? If you want to say that the MMA crowd have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that TMA is fully combat functional, then I agree since TMA is what MMAists train in anyway.


 
See above.  



> Some of the taijutsu that I've either seen, or heard of, involves snapping the guys neck when they rush in for the tackle,


 
This is exactly the sort of BS that allowed MMA its swift rise.  Have you every tried to actually do this on any half-way quasi-competent wrestler shooting in?  



> drawing your weapon, taking out their friend, then them, then any other friends that they might have nearby. Shinai drills aren't for nothing. Neither is sensitivity training. It's not a matter of getting attacked, then trying to find your weapon while you're being pounded. It's a matter of situational awareness, danger avoidance, and pre-emptive action. Just like with Dale Seago's post. He dissuaded his potential aggressor by informing the knuckle-dragger that their death may be on the horizon if they could not help but to behave as a diseased, animalistic sociopath. It worked.
> 
> Is that a "ninja trick"? No, but it is martial. The sportist wanted to engage in their masturbatory fantasies with him and, when given the choice to engage in real MARTIAL arts outside of the ring, the sportist quickly made excuses as to why they didn't want to engage in real martial arts. Upping the training intensity of TMA, making it into a sport, and calling it "martial", while discarding everything martial for the sake of the sport, doesn't make it martial. It just makes it a very demanding TMA-based sport which plays for trophies.
> 
> ...


 
Uh huh...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 3, 2006)

Rook said:


> Absolutely. Fu Bag tries to make it sound as though the only people who carry weapons and are skilled in there use are traditional martial artists. In point of fact, I doubt very much there is any association between the carrying or use of weapons and any martial style.


 
And I think what Fu Bag is referring to is the fact that many TMA train for weapons defense and some even train the use of weapons. Although I do not believe the training for weapons in most TMA today is much more than form (most NOT all) where the majority of those that train the sports version do not train for weapons defense such as Sanhou which is actually a very good example of the difference between sport MA and non-sport MA, see below post. 



Rook said:


> A modern sports style.


 
Well not exactly, the military version, or the first version of sanda/sanshou aka Qinna Gedou (whihc is still taught) is not a modern sports style. It is for hand-to-hand combat style and it is very much involved with weapons defense and killing to be honest. The modern sports style you are referring to is not the same and came later. 

I have done a brief explanation of the differences here
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38089


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 3, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> Take scenario based adrenal stress training for example: most of us aren't used to having someone in our face yelling at us about how much they want to kill us. We can simulate these kinds of behaviours in the dojo because of the way our brains work. It's very easy to piss someone off or scare them in a controlled environment even if they know what you're doing.



Hmm, I guess I take that for granted because its how we train... it seems the "norm" for me, but thinking back to other schools I attended, it wasnt, so yeah...


----------



## Rook (Sep 3, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> And I think what Fu Bag is referring to is the fact that many TMA train for weapons defense and some even train the use of weapons. Although I do not believe the training for weapons in most TMA today is much more than form (most NOT all) where the majority of those that train the sports version do not train for weapons defense such as Sanhou which is actually a very good example of the difference between sport MA and non-sport MA, see below post.


 
I think we've touched on this before, but many sports martial arts DO have extensive weapons defense training.  It is a huge part of the SAMBO curriculum, and not exactly a small part of BJJ either.  I would say the majority of MMA gyms that I am aware of train weapons defense in some form, whether based on BJJ, Bas Rutten's rather popular system, or other weapons defenses available through law enforcement or the like.  The equation of TMA= has weapons defenses and MMA/sport = no weapons defense is just plain wrong.  I am aware of TMA schools that do not run weapons defenses, and most MMA schools DO have weapons defenses.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Sep 4, 2006)

Andrew Green said:


> Can you give a ruleset that doesn't?





Andrew Green said:


> Basically we base what we do around fighting one on one with no rules, or as few rules as possible.  In a sense, allowing everything from all rulesets.  Which was the initial idea, let everyone in, let them all do everything there rules normally allow and see who comes out on top.
> 
> I really don't see what else could be included and still have a fair and safe sporting event...?



 No I cant, that was my point. You cant judge effectiveness in an uncontrolled situation by measuring it against a controlled situation. All you can say is that in a particular environment one system may work better than another.

As for the necessity of rules I agree. We used to practice randori with no protective gear at full contact and no banned targets. We did this until around the early eighties, as it was a good alternative to practicing with protection as people behave differently when fighting if they know they are protected. Unfortunately it also proved too dangerous, we suffered a number of deaths at some of the more enthusiastic University shibus.  This caused WSKO (World Shorinji Kempo Organisation) to bring in randori guidelines and produce a policy of using protective gear. These days we have a number of different forms of randori designed to concentrate on the different skills needed when fighting.

The best way I know of training is to break down skill sets, find ways to tie them together and simulate a range of scenarios that address realistic concerns. If breaking down training into specific skill sets works for elite athletes and simulated scenarios work for the military I think that they can work for martial artists.

I think that any measure of superiority of one martial art over another is more related to training methodology and commitment to training by the individual not style as such.

It is a bit ironic that people practice a martial art for self-defence, then allow the very act of training to injure or incapacitate them.


----------



## Colin_Linz (Sep 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> Have you considered no-rules challenge matches as a comparison tool?


I have done so in the past. These days I am more considerate of risks as I have had too many injuries and Im getting too old and decrepit. The number of injuries I have received, how they affected my life and the work I needed to do to get back to training have forced me to look for other effective training methods. After all what is the benefit of studying self-defence if the very act causes injury or death.


----------



## zDom (Sep 4, 2006)

Colin_Linz said:


> It is a bit ironic that people practice a martial art for self-defence, then allow the very act of training to injure or incapacitate them.



Exactly. There comes a point when training becomes more likely to cause you injury than a self-defense situation.


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> What makes you think that martial sportists follow the rules when they're in a self-defense situation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Looking at these replies, I think you missed my post a few pages back, talking about some of these very issues.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> I think we've touched on this before, but many sports martial arts DO have extensive weapons defense training. It is a huge part of the SAMBO curriculum, and not exactly a small part of BJJ either. I would say the majority of MMA gyms that I am aware of train weapons defense in some form, whether based on BJJ, Bas Rutten's rather popular system, or other weapons defenses available through law enforcement or the like. The equation of TMA= has weapons defenses and MMA/sport = no weapons defense is just plain wrong. I am aware of TMA schools that do not run weapons defenses, and most MMA schools DO have weapons defenses.


 
I'll play devils advocate here for a moment.  In past posts, you and I have had discussions regarding proof, either by a written record, tape, etc.  I havent seen any BJJ weapon defenses on tape.  Why is it they're putting every possible mount, side mount, guard pass, north/south, position, on tape, but no weapon defense??  If its superior, don't you think they'd market a tape?

Mike


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 4, 2006)

MJS said:


> I'll play devils advocate here for a moment. In past posts, you and I have had discussions regarding proof, either by a written record, tape, etc. I havent seen any BJJ weapon defenses on tape. Why is it they're putting every possible mount, side mount, guard pass, north/south, position, on tape, but no weapon defense?? If its superior, don't you think they'd market a tape?
> 
> Mike


 
Mike they do have several self defense books out there.  Royce's self defense book does show defenses versus a club,knife or gun.  However, to say that they spend much time training these techniques is not quite true.  I have been in many a BJJ school were I would say 95% of the time is spent on technique designed for rolling and rolling itself.  The 5% of time spent on self defense techniques seems to be closer to the norm.  Even then they are not teaching how to use a tool but rather how to disarm one.

This argument seems to be continually popping up here in one form or another.  Enjoy your training but understand that there are no *absolutes* in a violent encounter.  If you study MMA or TMA that is great but neither of them guarantee you success in a violent encounter.  Train hard and enjoy what you do and if you are ever attacked hopefully you will be able to get away (or save your loved ones) to live another day.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 4, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> Probably, but there's a bit of a gray area with professional fighters because what they use in the ring often does work in the street.



I disagree to some extent.   Fear of death changes the scope of everything.  Because of this fear, there will be techniques that are used in the ring, that won't seem so useful anymore, because of the risk of death.  This has the same effect on the other side as well, but the person who consistently trains in a manner that is not confined by rules, I believe will have the advantage.  Additionally, the purpose for the training makes a large impact on the outcome.  If one is training for the sole purpose of winning in the ring and scoring points, they are not training with the idea that they are fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones.  In fact, the reality of death is far from their minds as they train.  This too, impacts what they do on the street when their lives are on the line.

Sure on the street there will be elements that are familiar to them, but I believe they will find real self defense or fighting for their life rather unfamiliar.  

When I talk about on the street self defense, I am not talking about someone's ego getting bruised in the club so he starts swinging, or someone grabbed his girlfriend's ***.  I am talking a legitimate surprise life and death situation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> I think we've touched on this before, but many sports martial arts DO have extensive weapons defense training. It is a huge part of the SAMBO curriculum, and not exactly a small part of BJJ either. I would say the majority of MMA gyms that I am aware of train weapons defense in some form, whether based on BJJ, Bas Rutten's rather popular system, or other weapons defenses available through law enforcement or the like. The equation of TMA= has weapons defenses and MMA/sport = no weapons defense is just plain wrong. I am aware of TMA schools that do not run weapons defenses, and most MMA schools DO have weapons defenses.


 
Actually I dont think we have touched on this before, but I am not disputing this. 

I have no experience with Sambo so I cannot comment on the training. I do have a little, very little, with MMA which was basically Muay Thai and BJJ and I will admit although I never got to that point (see "very little" comment) I do believe you are correct there, weapons defense was part of the curriculum. 

As a side note the class was filled with LEO as well as most of the local swat team.

However as I stated, as far as I know, the sports version of Sanshou does not. But once again I did not train the sports version only the police version.

The following statement is not directed specifically to Rook, but to everyone here. There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA? 

And you know, I may just make this a separate post


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Mike they do have several self defense books out there. Royce's self defense book does show defenses versus a club,knife or gun. However, to say that they spend much time training these techniques is not quite true. I have been in many a BJJ school were I would say 95% of the time is spent on technique designed for rolling and rolling itself. The 5% of time spent on self defense techniques seems to be closer to the norm. Even then they are not teaching how to use a tool but rather how to disarm one.


 
Hey Brian,

Yes, I have the book in question, and you're absolutely correct, the majority of time is spent rolling.  Its been a while since I've gone to my BJJ class, but last time I was there, we were not working on weapon defense.  From my experience with stick and blade disarms, the ones contained in this book were extemely basic.  IMHO, if you really want to understand a weapon, you need to train in a weapon based art.  



> This argument seems to be continually popping up here in one form or another. Enjoy your training but understand that there are no *absolutes* in a violent encounter. If you study MMA or TMA that is great but neither of them guarantee you success in a violent encounter. Train hard and enjoy what you do and if you are ever attacked hopefully you will be able to get away (or save your loved ones) to live another day.


 
Agreed again!   I've said it before, and I'll say it again...both MMA and TMA can learn from each other.  They both have things in them that can make the student of either one, much better.  I credit BJJ for giving me a better understanding of the ground, as well as exploring potential weaknesses in my stand up techniques.  

In closing, I'll say that its all good, we should realize that people train for their own reasons, and IMHO, arguments like this have been dragged on and are really getting old.

Mike


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 4, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA?



I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that not all martial arts are created equal, and that some are more suitable for certain environments than others. It's important for me to discuss these issues critically because that's how I learn, and so far I think this argument has been productive.


----------



## Odin (Sep 4, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:


> . There is something that I am just not getting here why are we trying to prove superiority of TMA over MMA or MMA over TMA?


 
erm...because the name of the thread is traditional vs mma?


----------



## Rook (Sep 4, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> This has the same effect on the other side as well, but the person who consistently trains in a manner that is not confined by rules, I believe will have the advantage.


 
Do you continually train in a full contact, freeform manner, or rather do you have rules require that strikes be less than full power and/or that a pattern be followed?  Rules aren't just prohibited target areas.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> Do you continually train in a full contact, freeform manner, or rather do you have rules require that strikes be less than full power and/or that a pattern be followed?  Rules aren't just prohibited target areas.



We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner.  Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students.   There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.  

The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training.  Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong.  Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed. 

Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work.   If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 4, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner. Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students. There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.
> 
> The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training. Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong. Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed.
> 
> Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work. If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.


 
Hey Dave,

That is a very nice post!  Breaking down and working at slower speeds is essential to make sure that you are not using to much muscle and instead that you are using proper skeletal alignment.


----------



## Rook (Sep 4, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> We train enough (maybe 10% max of our training) in a full contact free form manner. Full power is pointless, but since you seem intrigued by full power I will say we maybe go about 70% or so, with the more experienced students. There is no set pattern and no target is off limits, we only control the speed.
> 
> The reason I believe training "full power" is pointless is that if something is a true technique, it will work slow or fast, the speed component isn't really relavent to the training. Sure, one should be able to do the *same* thing at speed as they do slowly and should be practiced that way (no more than about 10% of their training time), if not, they are doing something wrong. Yes, people should ramp up the speed and so forth, I don't disagree, but I wouldn't put alot of focus on the speed over doing it correctly at any speed.
> 
> Simply put, the speed test can be quite misleading to people, especially if they rely on that speed to make techniques work. If this were the case, I would suggest they review what they are doing as they are likely to find it breaks down at slower speeds, therefore not a universal principle or true technique.


 
I have done slow speed training too.  While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent.  This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them.  I have noticed that people who do alot of slow motion sparing often vastly overestimate their blocking/redirecting/evading ability, and that this quickly becomes apparent when they go full speed.  I have no way of knowing how much this applies to you, but I have my concerns about this as a major focus of training.


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 4, 2006)

Rook said:


> I have done slow speed training too.  While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent.  This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them.



That is because someone isn't moving at the right time. They will never learn it at full speed, even though it shows up at full speed.  That is why I say start slow, when you think you have it, speed it up.  If it breaks down, you didn't have it, go back and work on it.  

Both uke and tori need to be honest with themselves and each other, go slow, and communicate when the other isn't doing something right.  Uke knows when uke is committed and can show tori when they moved too soon or too late while going SLOWLY.  This is how tori learns.  Uke also has to know the mechanics of a good punch or kick and does it perfectly SLOWLY and with intent, not just thrusting it out there.  Doing this the tori can pick up on when the mind and body is committed to the punch and move appropriately.  This can be pushed faster later.  If tori feels like they are having to rush out of the way (too late), if uke can change targets (too soon), if uke can't change targets and tori feels like he/she casually stepped and things worked, the timing was good.

There is a fine line between doing it right and doing it wrong, it is paper thin.  On one side is life and the other is death.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 4, 2006)

Floating Egg said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that not all martial arts are created equal, and that some are more suitable for certain environments than others. It's important for me to discuss these issues critically because that's how I learn, and so far I think this argument has been productive.


 
"some are more suitable for certain environments than others"

I agree with this, to a point, and it is important to always learn in MA. As I have posted previously, Equally skilled martial artists such as Wing Chun verses Long fist in the closed in streets of Hong Kong could give the Wing Chun person an advantage while Wing Chun vs. Long Fist in the open spaces of Beijing may give the Long fist person the advantage. But that does not make either superior or one better than the other. 



Odin said:


> erm...because the name of the thread is traditional vs mma?


 
But why have the argument at all? Both are very good for what they are. 

Why TMA vs. MMA at all. To discuss the advantages and disadvantage of both is a good thing that is bound to better both sides of the discussion but this "MMA is better" "no its not TMA is better" argument is pointless and at best circular. But for the most part it is arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 4, 2006)

Speed and strength are awesome, until your turn 50 and lose them.​


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 4, 2006)

what I think both sides have confused is that about 80% of the MA taught at least in this country are not that given MA's true incarnation anymore but fallen to McDojo style training geared less toward serious students and more towards children, soccer moms and soft middle class people who don't like to get hit. In such an environment the training is usually severely lacking in quality of technical depth( i.e. a lot of form or movement practiced with no idea why it is practiced or to what purpose), the promise of "self discipline" appears to send the message to soccer moms that a martial arts school, at some point, became synonymous with a babysitting service. This is not to say kids don't benefit, but it does change the whole tone, and so adult material( i.e. techniques or issues relating to deadly force, weaponry or true self defense) cannot be taught "as is" with children in attendance, and there is an implied guarantee that you will recieve your "black belt" or equivalent rank simply because you paid for it, irrespective of whether or not you can step on the mat and defend it.)

FWIW this pisses of true TMAists just as much as MMAists and this, i think, is where the biggest disconnect between the two exists. The MMAists primarily see the McDojo atmosphere( since this is the one most prolific and thus most commonly encountered at least Stateside) and understandably get the impression that this is all there is to TMA because they use TMA names, and more often than not the style is (TMA Name here) in name only. 

The natural reaction, of course, is one of defensiveness--people who feel attacked stop being receptive, and this , at least in part, I'm sure must fuel the "it's just a sport" counterargument to MMA.

So you see why I say the McDojo craze isn't helping anyone and only serves to hurt the arts as a whole. XMA, Final Fu and other shows of their ilk are frankly no help at all to rectify this either.

For my own part, i have no problems with the concept or format of MMA training, having occasional sparring sessions in a similar format, etc. What I DON'T like is the image the UFC reality show and the advertising campaign for MMA events sends to the general public with the trash talk( Ortiz-Shamrock anyone? No? Me either), and this over -fixation on being caught up in the need to "win" to the point an individual's personal conduct suffers. When I was coming up these were personality traits MA training was supposed to EXPUNGE, not promulgate, and to see it in this state sickens me, and this is one way it could be said I was put off not by the Style but its practitioners. 

It probably also doesn't help I take a dim view of professional fighting at all---I have no problem with training in such a way if the purpose is self improvement, self defense or helping each other get sronger in and of itself, but ( and I realize this is purely a personal opinion and nothing more then that) I have problems on the personal level with people so eager to agree to commit violence on someone just for money. 

Now it isn't for me to tell them how to live, it may be the only way they can make money, and I ain't gonna make some crusade over it--professional fighting was here before I was born, it will still be here after my bones are dust, and I'm not gonna lie and say I *never* watch it. But for whatever reason that's how I feel about it and my opinion's worth exactly what you paid for it *shrug*


Anyway back to the point, you can see whay I'm of the view that the subject is not quite so cut and dry.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 4, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> For my own part, i have no problems with the concept or format of MMA training, having occasional sparring sessions in a similar format, etc. What I DON'T like is the image the UFC reality show and the advertising campaign for MMA events sends to the general public with the trash talk( Ortiz-Shamrock anyone? No? Me either), and this over -fixation on being caught up in the need to "win" to the point an individual's personal conduct suffers. When I was coming up these were personality traits MA training was supposed to EXPUNGE, not promulgate, and to see it in this state sickens me, and this is one way it could be said I was put off not by the Style but its practitioners.



Andy... this is right on the money.  Very close to what I said Way back in the beginning when I said that MMA teniques were good, but the practitioners attitudes suck.  You just said it better than me.


----------



## Floating Egg (Sep 4, 2006)

Great post Andy, and something else for me to think about.


----------



## MJS (Sep 5, 2006)

Rook said:


> I have done slow speed training too. While it is useful for developing technique, I find it problematic in that reaction time becomes far less relavent. This makes it possible to see techniques coming early and intercept them when in reality, they are often halfway there before I would be aware of them. I have noticed that people who do alot of slow motion sparing often vastly overestimate their blocking/redirecting/evading ability, and that this quickly becomes apparent when they go full speed. I have no way of knowing how much this applies to you, but I have my concerns about this as a major focus of training.


 
IMHO, there should be an equal balance of slow, med., and fast pace workouts.  Slow speed obviously has its benefits. 

Mike


----------



## Colin_Linz (Sep 5, 2006)

As I stated earlier, we use a number of different forms of randori for different reasons. We do a half speed randori where the emphasis is on a relaxed and playful feeling. The reasoning behind this is to allow the participants to experiment and try to incorporate a range of techniques. This just wont happen in the high tension environment of full contact, where people will just fall back to natural and previously trained responses. Of course there is still a need for full contact as well as other forms of randori to work on the full skill sets that are needed.


----------



## Rook (Sep 15, 2006)

Technopunk said:


> Speed and strength are awesome, until your turn 50 and lose them.​


 
And I suppose that fine motor coodination doesn't decline with age either.  As to the age 50 comment, Dan Severn is 53 and still competing in pro level MMA.  As for self-defense, Jack Dempsy (a boxer) knocked out two people while sitting down in a taxi cab with one punch apiece at age 80 - an incident corroborated by more than two dozen witnesses and listed a police report, testified to in court, and reported in the papers.  I doubt most people of any age could do any better.


----------



## Rook (Sep 15, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I disagree to some extent. Fear of death changes the scope of everything. Because of this fear, there will be techniques that are used in the ring, that won't seem so useful anymore, because of the risk of death. This has the same effect on the other side as well, but the person who consistently trains in a manner that is not confined by rules, I believe will have the advantage. Additionally, the purpose for the training makes a large impact on the outcome. If one is training for the sole purpose of winning in the ring and scoring points, they are not training with the idea that they are fighting for their life or the lives of their loved ones. In fact, the reality of death is far from their minds as they train. This too, impacts what they do on the street when their lives are on the line.
> 
> Sure on the street there will be elements that are familiar to them, but I believe they will find real self defense or fighting for their life rather unfamiliar.
> 
> When I talk about on the street self defense, I am not talking about someone's ego getting bruised in the club so he starts swinging, or someone grabbed his girlfriend's ***. I am talking a legitimate surprise life and death situation.


 
Well, who does train with a genuine fear of death?  In order not to have the fear disappear from training, there would presumably have to be a pretty near percieved threat of death maintained constantly through training.


----------

