# Opinions on XMA



## BrandonLucas (Oct 8, 2008)

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to get some responses and see what the general concensus is in regards to XMA. I really don't have any real reason for asking...just curious, really, and I'm sure it's been asked before, but I havent' seen a thread on it lately.

I was watching ESPN a while back, and they were showing some of the competitions in which there were blackbelts performing katas with flips and handstands and stuff. I doubt very seriously that this is any kind of traditional art, so I guess my questions are going to have a couple of layers here:

1) Are the people who practice XMA actually martial artists that have a background in some form of TMA, or are they gymnasts who figured out how to kick and punch like they do in the movies?

2) If the poeple who practice XMA are not based in TMA's, is XMA still considered a martial art?
A) If this is answered yes, then how is it considered martial?
B) What name would be applied to the art? Would it be a traditional 
style name like karate, or would it be still blanketed under the term
XMA?

3) If XMA is going to be considered a martail art, then why don't the XMA stylists enter any of the sparring competitions?

4) Even though most tournements seperate the XMA stylists from the traditional stylists in Kata competition, how is it legit that XMA stylists are allowed to compete in the same forum as the traditionalists? Even if the competitions are judged on different criteria, the addition of XMA into the tournement is going to overshadow the traditional competition, so how is this fair to the traditionalists?

No offense intended to anyone on here who practices XMA...in fact, it would be great to hear from someone who has done XMA in the past or is practicing it currently.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 8, 2008)

My 0.02....

XMA is a modern performance martial art....

Wushu is also performance based, but it is still a martial art. I hold martial arts have 3 basic aspects: self-defense, sport, and performance. The last aspect being the most broad because it is the most subject to interpretation. 

All MA contain these three aspects, but the focus on which aspect varies per style. XMA simply focuses on the performance side the most. 

Give them credit. It takes a lot of skill and athleticism to do what they do and it's a great marketing strategy to bring youth into your dojo. 

Would the flips and handstands be practical for self-defense? ....probably not, but it is what it is and I respect it and appreciate the attention it brings to the world of martial arts.


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 8, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I just wanted to get some responses and see what the general concensus is in regards to XMA. I really don't have any real reason for asking...just curious, really, and I'm sure it's been asked before, but I havent' seen a thread on it lately.
> 
> ...


 
\1) Both.

2) XMA is an outgrowth pf martial theater (such as Peking Opera)...it depicts martial-like activities but is in itself not a martial art in my opinion.  It is challenging...lord knows I don't have the skill and athleticism to do half of what those guys do...but it sure ain't fighting.

3) They don't spar...it's all about choreography...it's not a martial art in that sense...it is martial theater.

4) Life ain't fair.  If having an xma division is going ot put butts in the seats, then that'll be the big thing.  traditional martial arts isn't about spectacle and entertainment...it's about fighting.  Real fighting is ugly, spectacle is beautiful...msot folks can't see the beauty in the ugly and we don't see the practical in the beautiful.

I personally don't have a probalem with XMA.  It doesn't change how I practice or what I do.  I admire the obevious skill of XMA guys.  Some of them are legit martial artists with serious fighting skills, some are gymnasts.  If a school has an XMA program then it is meeting a market demand and keeping its doors open..that's not necessarily a bad thing.  I really don't care what the general populace thinks about MA or how things like XMA will impact on their perceptions...inmy experience, the general populace has NEVER undestood what MA is about and probably never will.  It doesn;t change how I train or what I get from my training so I really can't sweat it.

Peace,
Erik
Peace,
Erik


----------



## Cirdan (Oct 8, 2008)

If XMA is a martial art then my four year old cousins playing cowboy and indians are doing MA too


----------



## dancingalone (Oct 8, 2008)

The only issue I have with XMA is the winning champions I see on ESPN never display any real understanding of what a good, powerful punch is.  They're just flailing their arms in the arm for maximum speed.  As stated above, these guys and gals are obviously athletic and could be very good at traditional martial arts slanted towards another goal like self-defense.

Meh.  I'm not a fan.  I'd suggest playing wide receiver in American football or shooting guard in basketball instead.  At least you have the potential to make some money, if you're really good at it.


----------



## zDom (Oct 8, 2008)

I don't like XMA.

To me it seems to be nothing more than half-assed gymnastics in an unholy marriage with sloppy martial art techniques.

I think they would be better off dedicating their time to REAL gymnastics or REAL martial arts.

But hey, that's just my opinion (as requested in the thread title ). 

If they like it, they should stick with it I guess (shrug).


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 8, 2008)

The more I see it the less I like it. Has about as much to do with real martial arts as a Jackie Chan film.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 8, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> 1) Are the people who practice XMA actually martial artists that have a background in some form of TMA, or are they gymnasts who figured out how to kick and punch like they do in the movies?



A little of both I imagine, but I suspect a good portion start in XMA without a background in either.



> 2) If the poeple who practice XMA are not based in TMA's, is XMA still considered a martial art?



Yes, why not?

Not all martial arts are combative, even the traditional ones.



> A) If this is answered yes, then how is it considered martial?



Common usage of the word?



> B) What name would be applied to the art? Would it be a traditional
> style name like karate, or would it be still blanketed under the term
> XMA?



Does it really make a difference?  before "XMA" was termed "Sport Karate" seemed to be the most common.



> 3) If XMA is going to be considered a martail art, then why don't the XMA stylists enter any of the sparring competitions?



Or Wushu, or Tai Chi, kenjitsu, or countless other styles that don't spar for that matter?



> 4) Even though most tournements seperate the XMA stylists from the traditional stylists in Kata competition, how is it legit that XMA stylists are allowed to compete in the same forum as the traditionalists? Even if the competitions are judged on different criteria, the addition of XMA into the tournement is going to overshadow the traditional competition, so how is this fair to the traditionalists?



You're right, XMA forms definitely put traditional ones to shame when it comes to performance value.  I'm not really sure why people insist on competing using traditional forms, which most people seem to agree are for training not show.

XMA forms are done for show, having a judged competion of them seems to make far more sense then a judged traditional form, which are supposedly meant not for show, but for passing on techniques.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 8, 2008)

I haven't seen enough XMA to have an opinion beyond that the practitioners are very athletic and seem to be doing what I call martial gymnastics.

I generally take with a grain of salt anything that has an 'X' acronym; its a marketing ploy to catch those who are into 'X'treme sports or who just get into anything 'X'treme.  Most of the time, such 'X' themed things don't last, such as the XFL.  Sometimes they do last, such as the X-Games or the XBox, but I tend to see most things so themed as fads.

Daniel


----------



## KickFest (Oct 8, 2008)

I find it ironic that XMA is termed a martial art, but TKD is generally labelled a sport :mst:

I don't have any first-hand experience of XMA but I don't think it's a bad thing. They clearly put the effort in to achieve those results and aren't selling it as the Ultimate Combat System(tm). I just don't want to see backflips-to-splits moves start appearing on TMA gradings  This may very well be a great way to get kids into martial arts without having to churn out kiddy black belts.

<geek mode> Oh, and CT the XBox doesn't count because the X is a shortening of DirectX, not Xtreme :wink1: </geek mode>


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 8, 2008)

KickFest said:


> <geek mode> Oh, and CT the XBox doesn't count because the X is a shortening of DirectX, not Xtreme :wink1: </geek mode>


Interesting.  I did not know that.

Daniel


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 8, 2008)

...well...apparently they consider themselves martial *artists.*



> *Xtreme Martial Arts* or XMA, is a mixed sport of acrobatics, gymnastics and martial arts. XMA also sets an X-games kind of pace to weapons drills as well. It is a combination of techniques, methods of movements and philosophies from all martial arts styles. It is a mixture of virtually all martial arts styles blended together with high-flying acrobatics and gymnastics.




I don't do it, teach it, or understand it completely....but I do think it is simply another facet of martial arts. If you'd like to hear more of their actual opinion then you can read more here -> http://www.xmarevolution.com/

...holy crap! I was looking at some profiles and one team member credits Jamie Seabrook as one of her trainers! Jamie is an excellent kenpoist and quite knowledgeable. If she's had training from him then she is definately a martial artist IMHO. 

Look through their profiles....you may recognize a name or two yourself.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 8, 2008)

....also....

when browsing schools it looks like there are quite a few ATA schools affiliated with it.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 8, 2008)

Why do they all look so angry and/or in pain?? Oh right... they're fierce.

Craptacular... 

Great athletic ability... good thing they're all mostly still cartiledge.


----------



## zDom (Oct 8, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> The more I see it the less I like it. Has about as much to do with real martial arts as a Jackie Chan film.



Whoa whoa whoa: HOLD the PHONE! You disrespectin' my man, Jackie Chan??

:angry:

Three words for you, Youngman, when it comes to Jackie Chan:

Best. Martialartmoviestar. Ever.

/nuffsaid
/endthreadhighjack


----------



## tko4u (Oct 8, 2008)

zDom said:


> I don't like XMA.
> 
> To me it seems to be nothing more than half-assed gymnastics in an unholy marriage with sloppy martial art techniques.
> 
> ...


 

im with zdom here, couldnt have said it better


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 8, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I'm not really sure why people insist on competing using traditional forms, which most people seem to agree are for training not show.
> 
> XMA forms are done for show, having a judged competion of them seems to make far more sense then a judged traditional form, which are supposedly meant not for show, but for passing on techniques.


 
It's true that traditional forms are meant for passing on technique, and in a traditional tournament, that is what the forms should be judged on, rather than how well it pleases the crowd.  The problem is, this assumes that the judges themselves are knowledgeable and skilled with the very same forms that are being used in the competition.  The judges ought to have the skills and knowledge to recognize if the form is done well and properly, or not.  This is often not the case, however.  Many times, the panel of judges have no real knowledge of your particular art and forms, so they look for general things like strong stances and power and such.  But in reality, if you screw up the form, they wouldn't know.

So yes, often the reality is that forms are done as performance art, even in the traditional tournaments.  But that's not what it's supposed to be.  Even if the form is ugly and boring, you SHOULD win if you execute it perfectly.  But that is seldom the case.


----------



## exile (Oct 8, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> Even if the form is ugly and boring, you SHOULD win if you execute it perfectly.  But that is seldom the case.



I want to second FC's statements here with a perfect example. My instructor has won many state and regional forms championships; watching him do forms is like watching Nureyev in his prime dance _Swan Lake_the ultra of ultras in the graceful, flowing projection of devastating power (well, maybe not devasting in Nureyev's case, but you know what I mean...) He tells me that a lot of his victories were with Palgwe Chil Jang. This is a lovely hyung, with elegant sequences of side kicks, double knife hand blocks and reverse puncheswonderful choreography and some great lethal apps concealed within. He also tells me that when he was competing, he sometimes did the last of the Palgwes, Pal Jangand never once won. Compared with Chil Jang, Pal Jang is just brute force. It's an encyclopædia of elbow strikes, really, showing just how important elbows were as components of hard-combat TKD even in the post-Kwan era when 'international TKD' was already in the air. It's choppy, hard, abrupt and somewhat idiosyncratic. But I've seen him do it; if anyone can make Palgwe Pal Jang look fluent, it's Allen Shirley. Nonetheless, he never won with it, everand this at a time in his life when he would win or place second in every tournament he entered, no matter how many competitors there were. I've asked him why not, and his constant reply is, 'The judges just don't like it'. Exactly as FC says...


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 9, 2008)

In my opinion, I could really do without XMA. I realize that they are a performance art, and I can respect that, but it has no place in a traditional tournement. It is also my opinion that things like XMA are what ruins the traditional tournement experience.

When I go to a traditional open tournement, I expect to see examples of many different SD martial arts. Even in forms competition, the forms should be graded on the principal of SD application, even if the judges aren't familier with the particular art.

You can't take a TKD blackbelt and have them perform Choong-Moo right after somebody from XMA has just gotten off the floor from flipping around like Yoda on Redbull. It doesn't matter how deep the TKD'ists stances are, or how perfect the kicks and punches are, the flipping is going to be more appealing to a judge, and the XMA competitor will win.

Now, this does bring up the point of going into a tournement with a freestyle form, but even then, we don't train to do handstand-splits, so no matter what type of form I put together, unless I'm flying through the air, I'm not going to place.

If the tournement is supposed to be a traditional style tournement, then why are the XMA guys allowed to compete? In other words, I certainly wouldn't try to go to the Olympics and compete in the gymnastics floor competition with Hwa-Rang...that form would have no place there, and I feel that this relates to the other side of that coin.

And besides, I know there are other arts out there that resemble performance arts...the difference is that I actually have sparred a Tai Chi practitioner before in a tournement. Sure, their forms look cool, but the thing is that they understand the SD aspect of their forms. These XMA guys show no concept of SD at all...and most of the time, they're just throwing arms and legs out like they know what they're doing, but all they're really doing is basic gymnastics.

It's not that I don't appreciate what these guys do...I certainly couldn't do what they do...but XMA has its place, and, in my honest opinion, it shouldn't be with TMA's.

And in regards to the description of XMA, I fail to see how it's even close to having all the martial arts rolled into one, as the description implies. I don't see anything that could resemble a single martial art, let alone multiple arts....the only thing they can use to consider as being a part of a martial art is the fact that they stick their hands and feet in the air and call it punching and kicking.

And KickFest hit the nail on the head for me: How is it that XMA gets to be called a martial art, but TKD is considered a sport?

Now, I'm not trying to rip on XMA, I'm really not. But like I said before, it has its place. And much respect to those guys who actually can do the flipping and acrobatics. It does take a lot of hard work and dedication, but that doesn't make it a martial art.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 9, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> And KickFest hit the nail on the head for me: How is it that XMA gets to be called a martial art, but TKD is considered a sport?


Because I'd gather that the XMA guys all have some sort of traditional martial arts background and simply consider what they do to be an extension of that, while the WTF and many who practice sport taekwondo are very adamant that it (sport tkd) _isn't_ a martial art.  

Since most of the big commercial schools and the Olympics are what people see of taekwondo, and since WTF sparring definitely looks a lot more like a sport than martial arts, taekwondo is called a sport.  Lets not forget that the WTF has worked very hard to cultivate it as a sport.  And in the mind of the uneducated, the WTF is taekwondo.  The WTF says that it is a sport.  It looks like a sport.  The competitors behave like its a sport.  So people simply assume that its a sport.

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 9, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Because I'd gather that the XMA guys all have some sort of traditional martial arts background and simply consider what they do to be an extension of that, while the WTF and many who practice sport taekwondo are very adamant that it (sport tkd) _isn't_ a martial art.
> 
> Since most of the big commercial schools and the Olympics are what people see of taekwondo, and since WTF sparring definitely looks a lot more like a sport than martial arts, taekwondo is called a sport. Lets not forget that the WTF has worked very hard to cultivate it as a sport. And in the mind of the uneducated, the WTF is taekwondo. The WTF says that it is a sport. It looks like a sport. The competitors behave like its a sport. So people simply assume that its a sport.
> 
> Daniel


 
I see your point and I agree...but XMA is just as much of a sport as Olympic style sparring is.  The same argument is applicable for XMA and Olympic style:  many of the practitioners have a background in traditional martial arts, and consider what they do an extension of that.

The only difference that I can see is that WTF openly admits and markets the Olympic style as a sport, while XMA compete regularly in traditional tournements, making it hard for traditionalists to compete in their own tournement.

The way I see it, XMA should market itself the same way that the WTF does.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 9, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I see your point and I agree...but XMA is just as much of a sport as Olympic style sparring is. The same argument is applicable for XMA and Olympic style: many of the practitioners have a background in traditional martial arts, and consider what they do an extension of that.


I don't know.  The top level competitors apparently don't if the Lopezes are any indication.  The one very enthusiastic promoter of sport tkd on this board has suggested that the name be changed and that it isn't a martial art.  All of the terminology used in sport tkd and articles about sport tkd is lifted directly from the sports world: players, athletes, and game.  The popular and effective techniques are only popular and effective because of the rules.  In an actual fight, the entire dynamic of a sport tkd player would be worthless.  Please note that I am not saying that a sport tkdist can't fight or defend themselves; they simply wouldn't do so with the techniques that they use to win matches.



BrandonLucas said:


> The only difference that I can see is that WTF openly admits and markets the Olympic style as a sport, while XMA compete regularly in traditional tournements, making it hard for traditionalists to compete in their own tournement.


Absolutely agree with you here, though I see the kata/poomsae tournament advantage as more a function of uninformed judging.  I have no doubt that if the judges switched gears and favored the more traditional flavor that the XMA practitioners could easily adapt, whereas placing Mark Lopez in the ring against Jason Frank would likely result in Lopez' rapid hospitalization.  



BrandonLucas said:


> The way I see it, XMA should market itself the same way that the WTF does.


Don't know.  Not familiar enough with XMA to have an opinion.

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 9, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I
> 
> I have no doubt that if the judges switched gears and favored the more traditional flavor that the XMA practitioners could easily adapt, whereas placing Mark Lopez in the ring against Jason Frank would likely result in Lopez' rapid hospitalization.
> 
> ...


 
This is the greatest comparison ever!  Gotta love the Green Ranger.


----------



## exile (Oct 9, 2008)

The problem I have with XMAs in traditional MA tournaments is that the ultra-flash factor they mostly consist of puts pressure on competitors to move more and more in that direction, even if they're competing under the rubric of traditional MA. A vivid example of this is that awful Discovery Channel special on Matthew Mullins that came out on DVD a couple of years ago. If you look at the tournament, the US karate nationals, you can see it's not a dedicated XMA venue; but you can also see how it's going to get that way after a while as a result of the 'sizzle', 'flash', 'excitement' and other crap that the breathless-cheerleader narration keeps going into ecstacy about. You can see in the video how the blatant showboating of some of the weapons performers and substitution of loudness for precision in technique execution has changed judging standards even in, say, traditional kata competition. The special blathers on about tradition, and a firm foundation in the basics, and similar lip service to the obvious, but some of the baton-twirling that you see in the weapons forms, the back-flips and similar crap, has precisely zip to do with either the content or the execution-style of traditional karate; Mullins' own topless kata performance, preceded by his trademark spewing out a mouthful of water in the general direction of the audience just before he goes on, is if anything even more louche. Just as extremists in political organizations often push the  center further and further toward the exteme, the 'X' in XMA pressures competitors who feel that classic performance and execution will not stand out against the background of triple-toe-loop style kata/hyung presentations that the DVD coverage was full of. 

Get one table in a quiet restaurant talking loudly, and it's amazing how fast the general noise level goes up&#8212;what choice do you have, if you want to get heard over the background, except to raise your own voice accordingly? That I think is the real problem with mixing TMA/XMA competitions at the same event...


----------



## Kwanjang (Oct 9, 2008)

exile said:


> Get one table in a quiet restaurant talking loudly, and it's amazing how fast the general noise level goes upwhat choice do you have, if you want to get heard over the background, except to raise your own voice accordingly? That I think is the real problem with mixing TMA/XMA competitions at the same event...


 
Very nice analogy Exile!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2008)

I'll relate a couple experiences of mine that aren't specifically XMA issues, but I think they are related.

First, I compete about once a year in a local tournament here specifically for Chinese stylists.  I compete strictly in traditional forms competition, and I've managed to do fairly well over the years. My sifu does coach modern wushu as well as teach traditional wushu, and from the first day I began training with him, I made it clear that I am only interested in traditional methods.  I have no interest in training or competing in Modern Wushu.  In fact I'm not really interested in competition at all, but the local tournament at UC Berkeley is organized by my sifu, as he is the coach of the UC Berkelely Modern Wushu team.  So I play nice and mainly compete to support him, at his tournament.

So at any rate, this tournament does have both Modern and Traditional wushu competitions, but they are kept separate from each other.  A traditionalist will not find himself needing to compete against a flashy, flying, flipping modern wushu guy.

However, sometimes guys will try to compete in the traditional venue, when they really ought to be in the modern section.  Maybe they have enhanced their traditional forms with some modern flash or something, but it's readily apparent when it happens because they look completely out of place.  And I've seen the judges tell the competitors that they will deduct points from their score if they feel that the competitor should be with the Modern competition.

Specifically, I remember a tourney a couple years back when one particular competitor in my division was doing several forms (empty-hand and weapons), and he seemed to have a very strong Modern flavor.  The judges noticed it too.  At any rate, the competitor came into the ring to do his third competition or so, in the Long Weapons division.  He came in with a waxwood staff that was clearly a Modern wushu type staff because it was very thin and whippy, which makes it fast but gives it little substance.  As his performance began, I actually saw one judge lean over and whisper something to another judge, and they both chuckled for a moment.  So it turns out this guy is doing a Drunken Staff form, which required him to lean backwards while propping himself up with the staff.  In the middle of the form while doing this, his staff broke and he fell on his butt.  I looked over at the judges, and the two who had the earlier whispered exchange were openly laughing and giving a "high-five".  Clearly they knew what was up and I think they had a private bet going to see if something like this might happen.

Another little story: years ago my kenpo instructor judged at a kenpo tournament.  Apparently the rules were structured so that scores would not be given below a certain minimum, depending on the level of the competitor.  Example: an intermediate level competitor would be scored between say, 6.0 and 8.0, while those competing in the advanced division would be scored from 8.0 to 10.0.  Something like that.  

So a young woman enters the ring to compete, and states that she will do Kenpo kata Long One, which is one of our more basic kata.  It consists mainly of basic stepping, blocking, and punching.  Nothing fancy.  I believe she was competing at an intermediate level.  Anyway, in the middle of the form, she starts doing cartwheels.  She finishes up, and the judges give their scores.  My instructor gave her a two, when he was supposed to score her between 6.0 and 8.0.  He was never invited back to judge again, and he just laughs about it.

Sometimes it can all be pretty funny.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 9, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> Specifically, I remember a tourney a couple years back when one particular competitor in my division was doing several forms (empty-hand and weapons), and he seemed to have a very strong Modern flavor.  The judges noticed it too.  At any rate, the competitor came into the ring to do his third competition or so, in the Long Weapons division.  He came in with a waxwood staff that was clearly a Modern wushu type staff because it was very thin and whippy, which makes it fast but gives it little substance.  As his performance began, I actually saw one judge lean over and whisper something to another judge, and they both chuckled for a moment.  So it turns out this guy is doing a Drunken Staff form, which required him to lean backwards while propping himself up with the staff.  In the middle of the form while doing this, his staff broke and he fell on his butt.  I looked over at the judges, and the two who had the earlier whispered exchange were openly laughing and giving a "high-five".  Clearly they knew what was up and I think they had a private bet going to see if something like this might happen.



I'm suprised they let him compete with it. At the CMA tournies I've seen & been to, I've seen the judges take a weapon in the traditional rings & prop the weapon up with a finger to make sure it can stand under it's own weight. If a blade folds or a staff bends or quivers with little or no applied motion, I've seen them sit the competitor down until they can get a heavier weight weapon or not allow them to compete.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 9, 2008)

clfsean said:


> I'm suprised they let him compete with it. At the CMA tournies I've seen & been to, I've seen the judges take a weapon in the traditional rings & prop the weapon up with a finger to make sure it can stand under it's own weight. If a blade folds or a staff bends or quivers with little or no applied motion, I've seen them sit the competitor down until they can get a heavier weight weapon or not allow them to compete.


 
Yeah, I hear a lot about that kind of thing, but it doesn't seem like I see it actually happens too often.  Judges around here seem to be a bit lenient on that issue.

Personally, I wish they would be more strict about it to level the playing field a bit.  I use monster weapons, solid heavy stuff, and it makes me slower than the guys with the light wushu crap.  I tend to win anyway, and the judges drool over my weapons, so I guess it doesn't really matter.  They definitely respect it.


----------



## Mimir (Oct 9, 2008)

Like most everyone else, it doesn't bother me that XMA is out there and I certainly respect the athleticism that the practitioners have.  I do think it is only fair to seperate the XMA forms from the traditional forms at tournaments.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Oct 9, 2008)

At the NASKA and NBL tournaments, the extreme (XMA) competitors are given their own seperate divisions. In open/creative forms, competitors are not allowed to have a rotation above 360 degrees and their is no inverted (upside down) aeriel maneuvers allowed. Actually, NBL will allow a little more, but they are limited to (iirc) two aeriel maneuvers and the rest of the form (and the majority of the scoring) comes from the quality of the technique, especailly the basics. As far as the trad. divisions go, they are limited to the principles of a particular systems forms, if not the traditional kata/poomse itself. It's only in the Grands that these will ever go up against each other, so I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. None of these events are closed "traditional" tournaments, this is "sport karate" and like it or not, this is a part of this athletic sport/event. Personally, I vastly prefer full contact (and MMA)over point sparring, but I respect the fact that the point guys have their place too.

P.S.-Exile, I always preferred Pal. 7 for trad. forms as well.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't even consider XMA to be martial arts because there's nothing martial about it. Try using it to defend yourself and see what happens.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I don't even consider XMA to be martial arts because there's nothing martial about it. Try using it to defend yourself and see what happens.



Well the base techniques are there, just like in PRC Wushu, but the players don't practice them as such. It's performance art, as opposed to fighting arts.

But in all I agree with you


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I don't even consider XMA to be martial arts because there's nothing martial about it. Try using it to defend yourself and see what happens.


 
By that logic there would be quite a few other "martial arts" that would not qualify. 

My point is that simply because you do not practice it, do not agree with the methodology, do not see the logic in it, etc....does not necessarily disqualify it as a martial art. 

Put simply, if everyone agreed on focus, methodology, results, and curriculum then there'd only be one form of martial art. 

You'll never see my big, old, decrepid carcass flipping around in the air like those XMA folks... and personally I prefer the more practical art forms, but I can also recognize that there are other perspectives and just because they differ from my onw does not mean that disqualifies them as martial artist.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I don't even consider XMA to be martial arts because there's nothing martial about it. Try using it to defend yourself and see what happens.




How is this different from countless other "martial arts" that don't really train against much resistance, or even any resistance?

But regardless, they might surprise you.  One thing about XMA is they are in very good shape, they are very fast and they are quite strong.  This is more then can be said for many "martial artists."

I honestly think the biggest problem people have with XMA comes from the fact that they are often competing in the same tournaments, and lets be honest, the XMA people put on a better "show", that is what they train to do.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 10, 2008)

...also....even though I pointed it out earlier in the thread it seems necessary to point it out once more as some seem to have missed it...

Those on the XMA team actually train in a base style. If you check the site (I posted their link earlier) you'll see that many of them are ATA students and one was actually a student in Amercian Kenpo. 

It's just a glorified demo team to appeal to those with the Power Ranger Mentality. It's a great marketing strategy and brings more people to the martial arts who may have never had the opportunity to benefit from martial arts otherwise. 

Stop drinking your Hater-aid and give these folks some props for cryin' out loud.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't know.  I was checking out some of these so called extreme martial arts, and I just don't find it all that extreme.  Gymnasts do much of these things and nobody calls them extreme.  But worry not!  I have the answer!

To remedy this, I believe that kata's while skydiving, sparring while bungie jumping, and sparring on skate boards while working the half pipe.  For the truly extreme, sparring while surfing or doing kata on the roof of a Subaru WRX or Mitsubishi Evo while the car is being piloted in the Baja by an experienced rally driver.

Daniel


----------



## zDom (Oct 10, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Stop drinking your Hater-aid and give these folks some props for cryin' out loud.



Well, I firmly believe that "flash without solid basics is trash."

I would give them props IF they took the time and showed the dedication to train a basic punch, a basic kick, a basic chamber and THEN built on that with the flashy XMA stuff.

But from I've seen they never bother  they skip over the "do it right" phase in their basics and go right after the backflips and 720 degree kicks.

I'll never fully respect a "martial artist" who doesn't care enough to do their basics correctly. My response is always "what a shame; they could have been SO good!"

That's just how I'm wired. :shrug:


----------



## exile (Oct 10, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I don't know.  I was checking out some of these so called extreme martial arts, and I just don't find it all that extreme.  Gymnasts do much of these things and nobody calls them extreme.  But worry not!  I have the answer!
> 
> To remedy this, I believe that kata's while skydiving, sparring while bungie jumping, and sparring on skate boards while working the half pipe.  For the truly extreme, sparring while surfing or doing kata on the roof of a Subaru WRX or Mitsubishi Evo while the car is being piloted in the Baja by an experienced rally driver.
> 
> Daniel



:lol:


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 10, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> How is this different from countless other "martial arts" that don't really train against much resistance, or even any resistance?
> 
> But regardless, they might surprise you. One thing about XMA is they are in very good shape, they are very fast and they are quite strong. This is more then can be said for many "martial artists."
> 
> I honestly think the biggest problem people have with XMA comes from the fact that they are often competing in the same tournaments, and lets be honest, the XMA people put on a better "show", that is what they train to do.


 
The following is the Wiki defination for "martial arts":

*Martial arts* are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to spiritual or religious beliefs/philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others have their own spiritual or non-spiritual code of honour. Many arts are also practised competitively most commonly as combat sports, but may also be in the form of dance.

It also goes on to state:

The word 'martial' derives from the name of Mars, the Roman god of war. The term 'martial arts' literally means arts of war. This term comes from 15th century Europeans who were referring to their own fighting arts that are today known as Historical European martial arts. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a _martial artist_.

Now, I realize that it is saying that martial arts can be a form of dance, but for a martial art to actually be *martial*, then the particular art is designed for *combat*.

The ancient martial arts were designed for practical combat.  I don't know all the history behind all of the martial arts, but I can tell you that they did not involve the jumping in the air and performing a 540 jump spinning bicycle Liu Kang kick.

Whether they compete in tournements or not, I still do not and will not consider XMA a martial art.  To me, it doesn't matter whether a person has a traditional background or not.  Turning ridiculous flips with shiny, flimsy, Wal-Mart halloween-aisle style weapons is not an acurate representation of any martial art.

XMA should be changed to XPA, or Xtreme Performance Arts.


----------



## Sylo (Oct 10, 2008)

YoungMan said:


> I don't even consider XMA to be martial arts because there's nothing martial about it. Try using it to defend yourself and see what happens.


 

This pretty much sums it up.

Xtreme Performance Art is what it should be called.

not a thing martial about it.

its athletic. Its pretty, and you have to be in shape to do it.. but would you defend yourself with it? NO..


Its "based" on movie martial arts more than traditional martial arts. You are more or less learning how to be a hollywood stuntman.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 10, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> ...also....even though I pointed it out earlier in the thread it seems necessary to point it out once more as some seem to have missed it...
> 
> Those on the XMA team actually train in a base style. If you check the site (I posted their link earlier) you'll see that many of them are ATA students and one was actually a student in Amercian Kenpo.
> 
> ...


 

I will give these guys props on the fact that they can actually do this stuff, and that they are in that kind of shape.

Put them in the ring and let them turn their 720 flips.  If they win the match using those techniques, then I'll give them props there as well.

Otherwise, no hater-ade here.  I can't turn flips, and I admire those that do.  But I also don't consider them to be *martial artists* in the same sense of the other traditional martial artists I spar with in tournements, whether they're full contact or point sparring.

I would say leave the gymnastics for the gymnasts.


----------



## Sylo (Oct 10, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I will give these guys props on the fact that they can actually do this stuff, and that they are in that kind of shape.
> 
> Put them in the ring and let them turn their 720 flips. If they win the match using those techniques, then I'll give them props there as well.
> 
> ...


 

On that note..

I don't think Mike Chat should be able to take credit for creating XMA... In my eyes.. the creation of XMA started back in the 80s.. by a man known only as Kurt Thomas.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

Sylo said:


> On that note..
> 
> I don't think Mike Chat should be able to take credit for creating XMA... In my eyes.. the creation of XMA started back in the 80s.. by a man known only as Kurt Thomas.




MMMMMMMMM......... channels ......... GYMKATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Sylo said:


> On that note..
> 
> I don't think Mike Chat should be able to take credit for creating XMA... In my eyes.. the creation of XMA started back in the 80s.. by a man known only as Kurt Thomas.


 
What about Peking opera?  Surely that predates Gymkata?

Peace,
Erik


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 10, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> What about Peking opera? Surely that predates Gymkata?
> 
> Peace,
> Erik


 

Peking opera predates Gymkata, yes, but it is nowhere near as awesome.


----------



## zDom (Oct 10, 2008)

bluekey88 said:


> What about Peking opera?  Surely that predates Gymkata?
> 
> Peace,
> Erik



A very many techniques I've seen onscreen by those with Peking opera background  including but not limited to Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung  have all the proper form to be valid, effective techniques.

Just because these guys never have used them to strike somebody doesn't mean if they adjusted that extra inch closer they wouldn't be devastating strikes.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

zDom said:


> A very many techniques I've seen onscreen by those with Peking opera background  including but not limited to Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung  have all the proper form to be valid, effective techniques.
> 
> Just because these guys never have used them to strike somebody doesn't mean if they adjusted that extra inch closer they wouldn't be devastating strikes.



Also too... Jackie, Smmo, Yuen Biao, etc... all studied a TMA as well.

BUT... Peking/Hong Kong opera all started initially with real TCMA techniques, just dumbed down & flashed up for performance. Quite true for your statement.

Also remember that during the anti-Qing Dynasty rebellions, many rebels in Southern China used the Opera "Red Boats" to hide so they were using their TMAs in their performances, again just dumbed down & flashed up.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 10, 2008)

clfsean said:


> Also too... Jackie, Smmo, Yuen Biao, etc... all studied a TMA as well.
> 
> BUT... Peking/Hong Kong opera all started initially with real TCMA techniques, just dumbed down & flashed up for performance. Quite true for your statement.
> 
> Also remember that during the anti-Qing Dynasty rebellions, many rebels in Southern China used the Opera "Red Boats" to hide so they were using their TMAs in their performances, again just dumbed down & flashed up.


 

The problem is that people who studied in the Peking Opera, as you stated, were grouned in TMA's, and the moves *revolve around *TMA's...the moves in XMA are 100% flash and sizzle, with no true application, even if the XMA practioner is grounded in TMA's.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 10, 2008)

clfsean said:


> Also remember that during the anti-Qing Dynasty rebellions, many rebels in Southern China used the Opera "Red Boats" to hide so they were using their TMAs in their performances, again just dumbed down & flashed up.


This was a major part of the Chen Kwan Tai move, Executioner from Shaolin.

Daniel


----------



## Sylo (Oct 10, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Peking opera predates Gymkata, yes, but it is nowhere near as awesome.


 

The fact that I have no idea what that even is.. but I am a die hard Gymkata fan proves this point..

just take a look at the title lines...

The skill of gymnastics, the kill of karate


I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> The problem is that people who studied in the Peking Opera, as you stated, were grouned in TMA's, and the moves *revolve around *TMA's...the moves in XMA are 100% flash and sizzle, with no true application, even if the XMA practioner is grounded in TMA's.



Don't disagree at all... not one bit.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> This was a major part of the Chen Kwan Tai move, Executioner from Shaolin.
> 
> Daniel



That's a major part of lots of Hong Kong cinema. 

If I'm thinking of the right movie, he was playing the legendary (if spiced up for cinema) Hung Hei Goon... founder of Hung Kuen aka Hung Ga.

But the boats were also a major part of Southern Chinese history too... both for the rebellions & existance.


----------



## zDom (Oct 10, 2008)

clfsean said:


> Also too... Jackie, Smmo, Yuen Biao, etc... all studied a TMA as well.



I knew that about Jackie, didn't about the others although I figured it might be true. 

But they all STARTED in Peking Opera as little kids, if I am correct, and LATER trained in TMAs  right?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 10, 2008)

zDom said:


> A very many techniques I've seen onscreen by those with Peking opera background  including but not limited to Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung  have all the proper form to be valid, effective techniques.
> 
> Just because these guys never have used them to strike somebody doesn't mean if they adjusted that extra inch closer they wouldn't be devastating strikes.


 
I do know that Jackie has used his skills, I saw an interview with him from quite a while ago and he talked about the fights he used to get into in the streets.  I believe this was when he was rather young and he may not have trained outside the Peking Opera school yet.

In this same interview, he talked about filming with Benny the Jet Urquidez, in one of his films (I can't remember the title, but it had some serious kick-*** fight scenes).  Anyway, Jackie's comment about Benny was something like: "Benny is really good, I'm not sure who would win if I had to actually fight him for real".


----------



## Kwan Jang (Oct 10, 2008)

I'd give 50 to 1 odds in favor of Benny.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 10, 2008)

Kwan Jang said:


> I'd give 50 to 1 odds in favor of Benny.


 
it's pure speculation.  we'll never know either way.  They are both getting old now and certainly it will never happen.


----------



## clfsean (Oct 10, 2008)

zDom said:


> I knew that about Jackie, didn't about the others although I figured it might be true.
> 
> But they all STARTED in Peking Opera as little kids, if I am correct, and LATER trained in TMAs  right?



Yep... they all started TMAs while in the Opera, but that was after reaching the level to perform... which meant phenominal skill and at least mid to late teenaged.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 10, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> it's pure speculation. we'll never know either way. They are both getting old now and certainly it will never happen.


 

I don't know...I would think something could be arranged.....


----------



## Kwan Jang (Oct 11, 2008)

I didn't think anyone would even question this one and just bringing it up was so obvious that it would be humerous. Let's see, a performer like Chan with virtually no fight experience against one of the best pound for pound fighters in kickboxing history. Even Benny's "no contests" (re: losses) were considered such because they were way out of his weight class. This is exactly like someone saying a fight between a welter weight XMA tricker and GSP would be in doubt. Probably worst because many of the XMA guys actually do have a fighting background and "trick" as a fun supplement to their training.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 11, 2008)

zDom said:


> Well, I firmly believe that "flash without solid basics is trash."
> 
> I would give them props IF they took the time and showed the dedication to train a basic punch, a basic kick, a basic chamber and THEN built on that with the flashy XMA stuff.
> 
> ...


 


BrandonLucas said:


> I will give these guys props on the fact that they can actually do this stuff, and that they are in that kind of shape.
> 
> Put them in the ring and let them turn their 720 flips. If they win the match using those techniques, then I'll give them props there as well.
> 
> ...


 


BrandonLucas said:


> The problem is that people who studied in the Peking Opera, as you stated, were grouned in TMA's, and the moves *revolve around *TMA's...the moves in XMA are 100% flash and sizzle, with no true application, even if the XMA practioner is grounded in TMA's.


 
For the third time, the folks on the XMA teams have traditional training in various recognized martial arts. I made it easy for you to learn more about them (as I did) and posted the link earlier in the thread....do I have to click on it for you as well?

XMA is no doubt intended to entertain through flash, and I've yet to hear anyone claim that the "tricks" they do are practical self defense maneuvers. In that same vein, many of the tactics used in the sport application of many martial arts would get you killed in a street fight.....does that disqualify them as martial arts as well? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a meat & potatos martial artist, but I think it's good to keep an open mind and give credit where credit is due. Martial arts are multi-faceted and because one form seems alien to what I practice doesn't mean that disqualifies it as a martial art. But then, I don't claim to have any authority over the classification of a style either. LOL


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2008)

As is usually the case, the problem is not with the activity itself, but the way the marketers market it. Thinking back again to that horrendous Discovery Channel special, I remember the useless narrator assuring us in at least two different places that some student or other of Matt Mullins, who subsequently has become a core member of MM's Sideswipe performance team&#8212;their description; I didn't make it up&#8212;is 'the future of karate'. _The_ future of karate. Just the one. Media marketing strategies do this all the time: fix on the televisable aspect of some broad-spectrum activity and actively promote it, leading to the widespread assumption that that's all there is. The result is that people who are drawn to that sort of thing go into it, those who want something else avoid it, and we wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not Matt Mullins' fault; it's the fault of broadcast media's one-dimensional take on virtually everything they touch. TKD people are going to be especially aware of this sort of thing, but it's going to affect every MA practiced. After all, how much audience attention would head-to-head competing bunkai interpretations under extreme pressure-testing conditions get, compared to what we see in standard XMA performances? And that's what guides the way MAs are presented to the public.

This whole business is of concern to me because I want people coming into TKD who understand that the art is built around a solid core of very practical self-defense applicability. I want them to realize that that's what they can get from it, and to train it with that in mind, in case they ever need it&#8212;because if they do need it for that, they'll _really_ need it. I don't want to see the culture of TKD presented in a way which totally eclipses its survival-combat essence. Between Olympic-sparring and XMA forms performance, though, that's getting to be something very much like wishful thinking, I'm afraid....


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 11, 2008)

Flash no Bang!


----------



## exile (Oct 11, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Flash no Bang!



:lol: ... _something_ like that, for sure!


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> For the third time, the folks on the XMA teams have traditional training in various recognized martial arts. I made it easy for you to learn more about them (as I did) and posted the link earlier in the thread....do I have to click on it for you as well?
> 
> XMA is no doubt intended to entertain through flash, and I've yet to hear anyone claim that the "tricks" they do are practical self defense maneuvers. In that same vein, many of the tactics used in the sport application of many martial arts would get you killed in a street fight.....does that disqualify them as martial arts as well?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a meat & potatos martial artist, but I think it's good to keep an open mind and give credit where credit is due. Martial arts are multi-faceted and because one form seems alien to what I practice doesn't mean that disqualifies it as a martial art. But then, I don't claim to have any authority over the classification of a style either. LOL


 
Ok...

First, I also like to keep an open mind for all things.  I strive to do this in all aspects of life, not just as it relates to martial arts.

With that said, I do give huge props to the XMA practitioners...what they do is something I could only dream of doing.  I do also realize that many of them have at least some sort of TMA core.

Now, the thing is, I don't think that it's fair that they participate in a competition that is for TMA practitioners where the competitors are judged on how well a form is performed and how good it looks.  It's much the same as bringing a gun to a knife fight...it's one-sided.

I also understand that the competitions are seperated in some of the tournements for XMA competitors, but not all of the tournements are this way.  I fail to see the logic that says that if a form is performed well enough by someone from TMA, that it should be able to stand up against the "flash" and "sizzle" of an XMA form.

It is my opinion that XMA should be termed XPA, or Xtreme Performance Arts, as I have yet to see anything *martial *about it...and I listed several definations for *martial *arts in one of my previous posts.

To me, the issue is not so much that these guys are not good at what they do; that's certainly not the case.  But I do think that what they do is not relevant to a *martial* arts tournement setting, and I don't think it's fair when they compete in one.  

It's an apples/oranges scenerio.  How can you compare judging someone on precise technique, deep stances, power and flow to judging someone on how high they can jump while turning the max number of flips, and land using an obscure kick?  Just the fact that the person is able to jump and flip will outweigh the "look" of the other form to the point that there just is no comparison.  

To me, that's what this is about.  Even when the XMA guys are based in a core TMA, they aren't using what they were taught in that TMA, unless I missed something, and 720 degree flips and spins are taught in Karate somewhere.  I do realize that they are trained in a core art, but they're not using that core art to compete...they're using a "cheat".


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 13, 2008)

exile said:


> As is usually the case, the problem is not with the activity itself, but the way the marketers market it. Thinking back again to that horrendous Discovery Channel special, I remember the useless narrator assuring us in at least two different places that some student or other of Matt Mullins, who subsequently has become a core member of MM's Sideswipe performance teamtheir description; I didn't make it upis 'the future of karate'. _The_ future of karate. Just the one. Media marketing strategies do this all the time: fix on the televisable aspect of some broad-spectrum activity and actively promote it, leading to the widespread assumption that that's all there is. The result is that people who are drawn to that sort of thing go into it, those who want something else avoid it, and we wind up with a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not Matt Mullins' fault; it's the fault of broadcast media's one-dimensional take on virtually everything they touch. TKD people are going to be especially aware of this sort of thing, but it's going to affect every MA practiced. After all, how much audience attention would head-to-head competing bunkai interpretations under extreme pressure-testing conditions get, compared to what we see in standard XMA performances? And that's what guides the way MAs are presented to the public.
> 
> This whole business is of concern to me because I want people coming into TKD who understand that the art is built around a solid core of very practical self-defense applicability. I want them to realize that that's what they can get from it, and to train it with that in mind, in case they ever need itbecause if they do need it for that, they'll _really_ need it. I don't want to see the culture of TKD presented in a way which totally eclipses its survival-combat essence. Between Olympic-sparring and XMA forms performance, though, that's getting to be something very much like wishful thinking, I'm afraid....


 
This is also the other part of the issue...without the improper marketing, XMA wouldn't be viewed the way it is, nor would it be added into forums where it doesn't belong.  As I have said several times before, there is a place for XMA, but that place is not in a traditional tournement...if you can even all any of the tournements traditional anymore.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 13, 2008)

I hate to point this out, but if you define a martial art by how practical it is for self defense then that disqualifies quite a few that are already widely accepted and would more than likely offend more than a few members of this forum. 

Not everyone is looking for the same thing in a "martial art" and I think it's important to recognize some are more drawn to the "art" than the "martial." LOL


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture.  Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.

But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'.  A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA _as a stand alone _does not qualify.

Not dissing XMA, mind you; given that schools put blackbelts on six year olds that can't wipe themselves without mommy's help, and call the kid a martial artist, XMA practicioners would certainly be more worthy of the title.

Personally, I see XMA as an extention of whatever TMA the practitioners are trained in rather than as a separate entity.  It is only tournaments where there seems to be an issue, an issue easily dealt with by having an XMA and TMA forms divisions and not requiring the two to compete against eachother.

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I hate to point this out, but if you define a martial art by how practical it is for self defense then that disqualifies quite a few that are already widely accepted and would more than likely offend more than a few members of this forum.
> 
> Not everyone is looking for the same thing in a "martial art" and I think it's important to recognize some are more drawn to the "art" than the "martial." LOL


 

It's not just me that defines it in this way...I posted previously the wiki definition of the term martial art.  

It's a different story for someone who is studying a martial art with the emphasis on the art.  The martial aspect is still there, still being taught.

Most martial arts have aspects that are not practical for self defense.  In TKD in particular, I wouldn't use a flying sidekick, as I'm 300 lbs, and the energy that it would take to get me off the ground and fly through the air could better be channelled into a series of moves that would work more effeciently with less risk.

The difference is that XMA is not practical at all for self defense.  While TKD may have a few flashy moves in its arsenal, the main focal point of the martial art is self defense.  The main focal point of XMA is to look flashy and cool.

Like I said before:  apples/oranges.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 13, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture. Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.
> 
> But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'. A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA _as a stand alone _does not qualify.
> 
> ...


 

What he said.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 13, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Yes, CC, but the term arts in 'martial arts' isn't the same as 'art' as the word is generally used in western culture. Adding that usage of the word art to Martial Art is okay; whenever a fighting method is taken to another culture, that culture will put its own stamp on it.
> 
> But that aesthetic artistic value is not what was originally being communicated in the term, 'art'. A better translation would have been fighting method, and from that standpoint, XMA _as a stand alone _does not qualify.
> 
> ...


 
I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL 

Good points and no argument from me on the silliness of putting black belts on 6 year olds, or keeping competitions separate when there is such a large degree of difference in approach and/or methodology. I wouldn't expect a Judoka to spar a WTF-TKD.

However, you did not address the fact that there are other accepted forms of martial arts that have little practical application. 

Personally, I've always looked for practicality and logic in a martial art but I understand that different people look for different things when choosing a martial art to study.

Also, here is the standard definition: 





> any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.


 
One could easily argue that American Kenpo is not a martial art because it is not a traditional oriental form of self-defense. You could also argue that any "art" using weapons would be disqualified based on that definition. 

We, as martial artists, have a more broad view and understanding....I would think... than the general population. 




BrandonLucas said:


> It's not just me that defines it in this way...I posted previously the wiki definition of the term martial art.
> 
> It's a different story for someone who is studying a martial art with the emphasis on the art. The martial aspect is still there, still being taught.
> 
> ...


 
Actually....there are many that hold TKD is not conducive what-so-ever to self-defense. I'm sure many in TKD would argue otherwise just as there are some in XMA that would argue that what they do is martial arts. It's important when trying to keep an open mind to try and separate opinion from facts. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to accept it, like it, or endorse it. My point is that just because your initial knee-jerk reaction to it is negative does not discount XMA as a martial art; especially when other performance oriented arts are already accepted. 

The first time I saw XMA I had a negative reaction to it as well, but after I looked into it some more and accepted it for what it was I adjusted my view. 

I don't think anyone is debating that XMA is all about flash. I think what some are missing is that those that make up this DEMO TEAM are classically trained. I don't think the intent of XMA is to demonstrate those aspects, but instead is a marketing tool that gets people outside of martial arts excited about martial arts, and at the end of the day if someone signs up to take classes to learn what you consider to be a legitimate martial art because of what they saw in a demo put on by XMA....is that such a bad thing? 

I work in marketing....I know...people only pay attention to what I call "Shiney." If you're wanting to draw attention to something, you better make it "shiney" or you'll never get customer one through your door. Once you get them on the mat, you can teach them....but as long as they're not interested you never will.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL
> 
> Good points and no argument from me on the silliness of putting black belts on 6 year olds, or keeping competitions separate when there is such a large degree of difference in approach and/or methodology. I wouldn't expect a Judoka to spar a WTF-TKD.
> 
> ...


I don't know about that, CC; I think that the general population could be easily talked into believing that almost anything is a martial art: just add belts, lol.  I have no doubt that I could convince the unwary that Rex Kwon Do was real, make up a history, and then rant about how Napoleon Dynamite besmirched it, and then sign said unwary up for a two year blackbelt contract.

The definition you listed is partial, but given that I see the term martial art better stated as fighting method, I don't consider the country of origin to be a factor in classifying something as a martial art.  All cultures have 'martial arts' in the most literal sense of the definition.

Regarding martial arts that have little practical application, there are quite a few, I am sure.  I'd have to discuss them on a one by one basis, and am really not familiar with them enough to declare, 'martial' or not.  

I consider modern taekwondo as it is practiced in most schools to be treading very close to the line of no longer being a true martial art, rather becoming a martial sport.

And that is really what boxing, kickboxing,XMA, modern Wushu, and WTF TKD are: martial sports with varying degrees of actual martial application.  Nothing wrong with that;  but I don't think that people should kid themselves; people may think that a Mustang is a sports car, but it that doesn't change the fact that it is actually a pony car.

A martial sport has value all its own and doesn't need to be a martial art.  Martial sports all have a parent martial art and in many ways, are an extension of that art.  Each should be appreciated for what it is.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Actually....there are many that hold TKD is not conducive what-so-ever to self-defense. I'm sure many in TKD would argue otherwise just as there are some in XMA that would argue that what they do is martial arts. It's important when trying to keep an open mind to try and separate opinion from facts.


I am in taekwondo and while I would argue that taekwondo as it was originally conceived and still taught in some dojangs (mine included, oh thank Heaven!) is very practical for self defense and is a fairly complete stand up fighting style, *most* taekwondo schools that *I have seen* do not teach in any way that is practical for self defense or even martial sport; most are glorified after school programs for kids and (poor) fitness programs for adults with maybe a couple of dedicated students who take it upon themselves to go beyond that.

Daniel


----------



## Sylo (Oct 13, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> I don't know about that, CC; I think that the general population could be easily talked into believing that almost anything is a martial art: just add belts, lol. I have no doubt that I could convince the unwary that Rex Kwon Do was real, make up a history, and then rant about how Napoleon Dynamite besmirched it, and then sign said unwary up for a two year blackbelt contract.
> 
> The definition you listed is partial, but given that I see the term martial art better stated as fighting method, I don't consider the country of origin to be a factor in classifying something as a martial art. All cultures have 'martial arts' in the most literal sense of the definition.
> 
> ...


 
What do you consider martial sport TKD?

I want to make sure thats not what my school teaches. (Pretty sure we are as close to tradition as it gets)


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

Sylo said:


> What do you consider martial sport TKD?
> 
> I want to make sure thats not what my school teaches. (Pretty sure we are as close to tradition as it gets)


Sylo, you know your school better than any of us here, so whether or not it is a sport school is something you can easily determine.  From what I've of your posts, you are well qualified to tell the difference.

To answer your question as to what I mean...

WTF sparring is martial sport.  Heck, any tournament sparring is martial sport.  When a school places tournament style sparring over the rest of the curriculum, when the curriculum is there for the sole purpose of belt promotions, and when the curriculum has no real practical application outside of tournament sparring or forms competition, then that is what I'd consider a martial sport.

Some schools are honest about this and promote themselves as sport-only schools.  It is just as difficult to be a fantastic sport school as it is to be a traditional school, but very few schools are even mediocre sport schools.

In fact, most TKD schools that I have seen don't even qualify as sports schools: they're nice little after school programs/fitness programs that do give students exposure to the martial arts in a fairly non challenging, albeit fairly expensive, setting.

Daniel


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 13, 2008)

Exactly. 


Heh...you wanna tell those folks they aren't practicing martial arts you go right ahead. I'll keep my mouth shut. LOL


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> Heh...you wanna tell those folks they aren't practicing martial arts you go right ahead. I'll keep my mouth shut. LOL


If they don't ask, I won't tell.

Daniel


----------



## Sylo (Oct 13, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Sylo, you know your school better than any of us here, so whether or not it is a sport school is something you can easily determine. From what I've of your posts, you are well qualified to tell the difference.
> 
> To answer your question as to what I mean...
> 
> ...


 

Yeah your right.. we are in the clear.

we spar.. but its medium contact continous.. we are taught to keep our hands up, and are not taught certain special tricks to win matches. We are sparring to defend against an attacker, not a competitor.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Oct 13, 2008)

Sylo said:


> Yeah your right.. we are in the clear.


Just to qualify, I don't see it as being in the clear or not, though people serious about self defense do.

I see it as 'know what you're getting.'  A truly good sport school will have a degree of practical application; those kicks hurt!  And if you can knock out a mugger with a spinning back hook kick to the head before he manages to shoot/stab/strike/grab you, then you have definitely successfully defended yourself.  Also, a truly good sport school is no picnic.  Any competative athlete likely trains harder than a solid seventy percent or more of practicing martial artists.  The time and work that it takes to be truly competative, particularly at a state or national level, is monumental and I truly respect it, just as I respect the hard work that XMA competitors put in.

But a truly good sport school still won't teach practical SD, and if its a WTF school, punches will be secondary and blocks will be nearly nonexistent. 

Now, if you know this going in, then great.  And if it is a truly good sport school, you will.

Daniel


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'll continue to play devil's advocate here. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I can certainly appreciate and respect the playing of devil's advocate here...it makes this discussion more enjoyable.

I will grant you the first paragraph up there.  There are indeed people who don't regard TKD as a pratical martial art.  The thing is, if you research TKD, you will find that the origins were for SD purposes.  The problem is that along the way, McDojo's ruined the name, and TKD became known as a joke to alot of people.

If you research XMA, their origins do not point to anything to do with SD at all.  And, as stated before, SD is the key to martail arts...otherwise, the art is not martial.

Even performanced based arts are still martial arts.  The difference is that there is still the martial aspect inbedded in them.  XMA is not performance *based*, its *core* is performance, and everything else falls around that.  

Capoeira is performance based, but with an SD core.  Tai Chi as well.  While they may look really awesome, they still have the basis of combat...and I honestly wouldn't mind losing in a forms competition to someone from either art.  

And as far as someone from XMA being classically trained...I'm not debating that at all.  There are quite a few metal guitarists out there and shred the guitar apart who started out playing on a nylon stringed flaminco styled guitar.

The difference is that someone from XMA is not transferring their knowledge of self defense into the showiness of the art...it's *all* about show.  And while this is very useful for marketing, as you're saying, it is still not fair to someone who still practices TMA to compete in the same competition.

And what you're saying about getting the public's attention using XMA to get them in the door is 100% correct, and I see nothing at all wrong with that....I fell in love with martial arts after seeing Best of the Best, Karate Kid, and Gymkata, and I practice a true SD martial art to this day.  If that's what gets them in the door, great!

The point of all this is that there is a place for those guys, and it's not in a traditional setting.  It's makes the TMAists look inferior in forms competitions when they're all competing together.  I'm certainly not dogging on XMA at all...I love to watch it, for no other reason than to wonder how on earth they even figure out how to do that, let alone practice it. 

I'm just saying that the playing field is not even as far as judging the forms competition goes...and that if the XMAists don't want to stop competing in the traditional tournements, I think there should be a rule that says that if your form is an XMA styled form, and you insist on competing with TMAists in the form competition, then you should have to automatically sign up for the sparring comepitition, no matter if it's full or light contact.


----------



## zDom (Oct 13, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> For the third time, the folks on the XMA teams have traditional training in various recognized martial arts.



Be that as it may, it doesn't mean they ever bothered to get it right (proper chamber positions, directions of motion, proper lines, position of joints and angles) before moving on to backflips.

In other words: sure, they might have completed a TMA curriculum &#8212; but with a C or D grade instead of an A or B.

My opinion is (and that's what was asked for, right? Opinions?) is that student would be better of bringing their basics up to an A grade

_and then_ adding in some backflips and 720-degree turns instead of rushing past the basics to do the flashy stuff.


----------



## Sylo (Oct 13, 2008)

Do XMA people spar? ever?

I've been scouring the youtube.. and you'd think if they were such great martial artists.. I could find at least 1 video of some of the XMA stars in sparring competition..

hmm.. Matt Mullins ever competed in sparring?


----------



## exile (Oct 13, 2008)

Sylo said:


> hmm.. Matt Mullins ever competed in sparring?



Yes, actually, he competed at that US karate nationals tournament that they did the Discover Channel special/DVD on. Wound up losing in a very TKDish-looking match... he was working with a kickboxing coach in fact as part of his prep for the tournament; and the fact is, he'd won the NASKA championship five times or something like that previously, and is a _very_ experienced tournament fighter (some basic data here). See, Mullins himself is unusual: he studied in a very traditional dojo, maybe still does, and has terrific basic skills in core karate. The sloppiness of a lot of his imitators is more the problem than MM himself, I think (though there's a kind of performance vulgarity that he indulges in, a kind of showboating, that bothers me a lot; remember in _Amadeus_, when Mozart says, in that very poignant scene, 'I'm a vulgar man, but my music isn't vulgar'&#8212;my issue with MM's DC video is that a lot of the stuff in that vid seems to be a deliberate show-biz vulgarization of karate, even outside the XMA context, e.g., in just normal kata competition). 

It's always that way: someone branches out from a base of solid skills, but the people who follow that pioneer often aren't nearly so well prepared.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 13, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> I can certainly appreciate and respect the playing of devil's advocate here...it makes this discussion more enjoyable.
> 
> I will grant you the first paragraph up there. There are indeed people who don't regard TKD as a pratical martial art. The thing is, if you research TKD, you will find that the origins were for SD purposes. The problem is that along the way, McDojo's ruined the name, and TKD became known as a joke to alot of people.


 
I know a little martial history....lol...and it isn't just TKD that suffers due to what I call the "Power Ranger Mentality" of the general public. I think most martial arts outside of what is percieved as UFC style MMA is not taken too seriously by the masses any more....

...and in truth, must admit that XMA probably doesn't help that stereotype, but again must argue that they are within their rights to claim what they do as "martial arts." 



BrandonLucas said:


> If you research XMA, their origins do not point to anything to do with SD at all. And, as stated before, SD is the key to martail arts...otherwise, the art is not martial.


 
I did a little reasearch...heck...I even tried to be helpful and post a link in this very thread so that others could do the same. ROFL

Considering that most members of the XMA team have roots in and attend TKD schools, then your own argument contradicts itself. 



BrandonLucas said:


> Even performanced based arts are still martial arts. The difference is that there is still the martial aspect inbedded in them. XMA is not performance *based*, its *core* is performance, and everything else falls around that.
> 
> Capoeira is performance based, but with an SD core. Tai Chi as well. While they may look really awesome, they still have the basis of combat...and I honestly wouldn't mind losing in a forms competition to someone from either art.
> 
> ...


 
Granted and agree that for XMA to compete against TMA oriented individuals is not an equal contest. 



BrandonLucas said:


> And what you're saying about getting the public's attention using XMA to get them in the door is 100% correct, and I see nothing at all wrong with that....I fell in love with martial arts after seeing Best of the Best, Karate Kid, and Gymkata, and I practice a true SD martial art to this day. If that's what gets them in the door, great!
> 
> The point of all this is that there is a place for those guys, and it's not in a traditional setting. It's makes the TMAists look inferior in forms competitions when they're all competing together. I'm certainly not dogging on XMA at all...I love to watch it, for no other reason than to wonder how on earth they even figure out how to do that, let alone practice it.
> 
> I'm just saying that the playing field is not even as far as judging the forms competition goes...and that if the XMAists don't want to stop competing in the traditional tournements, I think there should be a rule that says that if your form is an XMA styled form, and you insist on competing with TMAists in the form competition, then you should have to automatically sign up for the sparring comepitition, no matter if it's full or light contact.


 
No argument there. 



			
				zDom said:
			
		

> Be that as it may, it doesn't mean they ever bothered to get it right (proper chamber positions, directions of motion, proper lines, position of joints and angles) before moving on to backflips.
> 
> In other words: sure, they might have completed a TMA curriculum  but with a C or D grade instead of an A or B.
> 
> ...


 
I can't speak to the whole team, but one of the team members was a student of Jamie Seabrook, and I garauntee you as such she has strong basics. I'd even venture to say that she probably had her basics up to an A grade. 

Granted, it's hard to have a solid stance flipping around in the air. But for the same reasons stated above against them competing in forms competitions, they aren't exactly performing to TMA standards when they're putting on a demo. The goal is different.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 13, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Capoeira is performance based, but with an SD core. Tai Chi as well. While they may look really awesome, they still have the basis of combat...and I honestly wouldn't mind losing in a forms competition to someone from either art.


 
Regarding Capoeira, I'd generally argue against this statement, but the truth is that this is becoming more and more true.  It seems to me that many schools are looking more at the "WOW" aspect for performance, to the detriment of the art as a whole.

Regarding Taiji, I don't think this statement really holds up.  Taiji isn't generally done as a performance art.  It sort of takes someone with a good taiji background to be able to appreciate what he sees in a taiji demonstration.  To most people, it's just boring to watch, so it doesn't make for a good performance art.  However, what most people practice nowadays in taiji is just exercise for health, without much or any focus on the fighting side of the art.  But I don't think that is the same as being a Performance Art.


----------



## YoungMan (Oct 13, 2008)

The thing with XMA is that it is strictly designed as a performance style. That is, it is totally choreographed and used to showboat and show flash.  I'm certainly not taking away from the athletic abilities of the participants, but it bears as much relation to real martial arts as pro wrestling does to actual wrestling. XMA is the WWE of martial arts.


----------



## Cirdan (Oct 14, 2008)

Sylo said:


> Do XMA people spar? ever?


 
Sure they do, prearranged sparring with lightsabers :jediduel: :lol:


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 14, 2008)

First, there's nothing wrong with lightsabers...

Seriously, though, I just don't understand how XMA is a stand-alone martail art. Performance art? Sure. I like the comparison to the WWE of wrestling...those guys are certainly talented and are in great physical shape, but how many of them could really get in a true Greco-Roman wrestling match and win? Kurt Angle, maybe...but the vast majority of them wouldn't know what to do.

To me, XMA is a take-it-or-leave-it expansion for a core TMA. It is not a martial art unto itself...it doesn't matter how many guys have strong roots in the core arts. The average Joe off the street can't just walk in and sign up for classes for XMA alone and expect to make it look good.

Here is a quote on what XMA is from the site that was linked earlier on page 1:

"*Xtreme Martail Arts*, or XMA, is a mixed sport of acrobatics, gymnastics and martial arts.  XMA also sets an X-gmaes kind of pace to weapons drills as well.  It is a combination of techniques, methods of movements and philosophies from all martial arts styles.  It is a mxture of virtually all martial arts styles blended together with high-flying acrobatics and gymnastics.

To quote Micke Chat, creator of XMA, the program is:  "The ability to perform highly skilled moves and also the ability to perform basic moves and make them look spectacular!  This is why XMA is not only for the elite level athletes and competitors, but also for beginners at the entry level as well.  It is the look in one's eyes and position of one's body that tells the story.  It's not only about punching and kicking, or jumping and flipping, but more, showing strength through the mind as well as the body.  To stand planted with your feet on the ground and command the attention of the audience without sound or movement, using only the look in your eyes and the strength of your stance, actually shows more power than any punch, kick or flip.  That's Xtreme!  XMA (Xtreme Martial Arts) is gret for the extreme person and the not so extreme!  The great thing about XMA is that it's designed for anyone...*You don't need any prior knowledge of martial arts to try it out (or look good doing it either!)* The point of the XMA class is to take the skills that students already have and turn them to the XTREME!"

The bolded part on that statement I added for emphasis...

All of the schools that are listed are already TKD schools, like CC was saying.  And yet, the website is trying to say that the XMA "program" is a stand-alone martial art.  

The other problem with that is that these TKD schools are almost all ATA schools...and very likely McDojo's.  I can't say with any certainty, but seriously...how many truly SD schools out there are going to add this junk into their cirriculum?  Looks like something else to pay for to me.

I still fail to see how anything XMA is a martial art under the definition of the word...sure, it's a martial art in the sense that Tae Kwon Do is Karate to the general public....but we as martial artists should know better.  It is a *performance art*.  Period.  Not martial.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 14, 2008)

One other thing I forgot to add:

How is XMA a fusion of virtually all the martial arts?  I don't see any Judo, Jiu Jitsu, Sambo, etc....all that term is, is a way to blanket cover what they're attempting to do, so that they don't have to say that "Oh, yeah, that kick was a TKD kick, while this punching combination comes from an Okinawan form."

That, to me, is the marketing crap that ruins martial arts.


----------



## StuartA (Oct 14, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> but again must argue that they are within their rights to claim what they do as "martial arts."


 
Technically it doesnt... martial arts are so named after Mars, the God of war and so it means 'war arts'.. no XMA comp has anything whatsoever to do with that.. that said, it doesnt mean that someone who does XMA cannot be (or perhaps once was) a martial artist (with XMA as an extra to that).. but XMA by itself, is not a martial art, but a performance.

That said, each to their own, people are free to do what they want and I guess it does bring kiddies into the dojangs and help those who want movie/stunt careers to gain a profile!


Stuart


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 14, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Technically it doesnt... martial arts are so named after Mars, the God of war and so it means 'war arts'.. no XMA comp has anything whatsoever to do with that.. that said, it doesnt mean that someone who does XMA cannot be (or perhaps once was) a martial artist (with XMA as an extra to that).. but XMA by itself, is not a martial art, but a performance.
> 
> That said, each to their own, people are free to do what they want and I guess it does bring kiddies into the dojangs and help those who want movie/stunt careers to gain a profile!
> 
> ...


 

Very well said!


----------



## KickFest (Oct 14, 2008)

StuartA said:


> it doesnt mean that someone who does XMA cannot be (or perhaps once was) a martial artist (with XMA as an extra to that).. but XMA by itself, is not a martial art, but a performance.


Gah, you beat me to it!

This is further reinforced by BrandonLucas' quote:


			
				BrandonLucas said:
			
		

> You don't need any prior knowledge of martial arts to try it out (or look good doing it either!)


 
I've not seen it happen, but whoever thought that putting this stuff up against TMA patterns in tournaments was a good idea needs their head examined! :whip:


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 14, 2008)

To further reinforce the point, I'm posting a link to a forum on the XMA site that was linked by Celtic Crippler...check what TeamSharkey posts in response, and he practices XMA:

http://www.xmarevolution.com/XMABoards/tabid/54/forumid/1/threadid/234/scope/posts/Default.aspx

And just in case you don't want to click on the link, I'll copy and paste what he said here:


"I am one of those people.   I have trained in traditional martial arts as well as some eclectic arts.  I did Thai boxing in my youth as well.  The with people in the tradtional arts is not the art but the one deminsional thinking that people use.  To many people just spit back what they are taught without thinking outside the box.  Now is traditional martial arts the answer to everything?  Nope, but neither is MMA.  However I respect the hell out those fighters as they are some of the toughest trained athletes around.  I love watchnig the UFC and Pride.  Would I personally step into a cage?  HELL NO!!!  I'm way too pretty to fight.   Plus I have a real job where I can't afford to sustain an injury that will prohibit me from working.  Now  I just like to point out a couple of things you mentioned that you were ignorant on (and I don't mean that in a bad way.  I am talking that you lacked knowledge on the subject)

1)  There is the traditional martial art world and there is the tournament world.  If you were to keep going to tournaments you would have learned that it is mostly for performance and not exactly what you would do at your school.  It is like gymnastics.  If you go to the gymnastics club you practice the flips and tumbles.  You would even do some floor exercises.  However when you go to the competition you would perform...face gestures, body language, etc.  This is the same for most touranments.  It is not everyone's cup of tea.

2) XMA is not a martial art.  I don't know why people think it is.  It is simply a program used to enhance the performance aspect of the martial arts.  It is not a form of self defense, nor should anyone go around saying "I have a black belt in XMA".  If they do, then they are either the biggest idiot in the world or their instructor needs to slapped big time for putting that idea in their head.  So if you thought that XMA was a new martial art, then you were sadly mistaken.  I'm not sure how much research you did on it, but apparently not enough.  

If the MMA world works for you that is great and I'm happy that you found something that you can excel in.  I give you props because I know that is not an easy training regimine.  However, if you came on to this site simply to pick a flame war on how XMA is just an inferior martial art and people shouldn't waste their time doing it, then please don't bother.  Not everyone wants to be the next Matt Hughes.  Some people just enjoy doing their tradtional arts along with doing sport karate tournament.  To each his own."​


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> 1) Are the people who practice XMA actually martial artists that have a background in some form of TMA, or are they gymnasts who figured out how to kick and punch like they do in the movies?


 
99% of the people who compete in extreme divisions are indeed martial artists that have some sort of traditional background.  The other 1% are gymnasts who have been taught basic martial arts.



> 2) If the poeple who practice XMA are not based in TMA's, is XMA still considered a martial art?


 
No.  XMA is not and never was a martial art style.  Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they are talking about.  XMA is an extra curricular program that was designed by Mike Chat.  It is based in combining traditional martial arts as well as performance arts into a program that a school can add to its curriculum if it wishes to do more demo type performances or compete in specific divisions in open martial art tournaments.



> 3) If XMA is going to be considered a martail art, then why don't the XMA stylists enter any of the sparring competitions?


 
Again, XMA is not a martial art.  It is just an extra curricular program based on martial arts.



> 4) Even though most tournements seperate the XMA stylists from the traditional stylists in Kata competition, how is it legit that XMA stylists are allowed to compete in the same forum as the traditionalists? Even if the competitions are judged on different criteria, the addition of XMA into the tournement is going to overshadow the traditional competition, so how is this fair to the traditionalists?


 
For the most part they are seperated. In national tournaments such as NASKA, you will see the divisions combined in the end for overall championship divisions.  Contrary to popular belief XMA does not always overshadow TMA.  I have seen TMA forms defeat XMA forms several times.  They are based on individual performance of the form.  If we were to get very picky then even in TMA form divisions how can you judge a Korean form against an Okinawan form? 



> No offense intended to anyone on here who practices XMA...in fact, it would be great to hear from someone who has done XMA in the past or is practicing it currently.


 
Our school has an extreme martial art program that kids can join on the weekend.  It is seperate from our traditional program and you are required to attend at least 2 traditional classes a week if you are to attend the extreme martial art class.  We have found that the kids really do enjoy it and it keeps them motivated and digs into their creative side.  Our program is very successful considering we have people from all over US and parts of Europe who come in on the weekends to work out with us as well as attend our 30 day boot camp, 4 day summer camp and 4 day winter camp.

I would be happy to answer any other questions you have on extreme martial art programs.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

Sylo said:


> Do XMA people spar? ever?
> 
> I've been scouring the youtube.. and you'd think if they were such great martial artists.. I could find at least 1 video of some of the XMA stars in sparring competition..
> 
> hmm.. Matt Mullins ever competed in sparring?


 
Yes, he did in his early years of competition.  He did sparring, weapons and forms (traditional, creative and extreme).  

Craig Henningsen also sparred.  There are people up until last year who did XMA and fought such as Donald Mills.  Brendon Huor used to be on Juan Moreno's TKD Team Force. Jason Tankson-Bourley, though not a top XMA person fights.  Point being there are a lot that do both or used to do both.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

exile said:


> Yes, actually, he competed at that US karate nationals tournament that they did the Discover Channel special/DVD on. Wound up losing in a very TKDish-looking match... he was working with a kickboxing coach in fact as part of his prep for the tournament; and the fact is, he'd won the NASKA championship five times or something like that previously, and is a _very_ experienced tournament fighter (some basic data here).


 
A litte more data on that was that whole US Open part of the XMA special was a last minute decision that the producers wanted to do.  Prior to that Matt was pretty much retired from competition and working on his acting carreer.  So that whole "comeback" angle they were going for was really a farce.  Matt in no way was seeking to comeback into sport karate.  But I digress.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Oct 14, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Yes, he did in his early years of competition. He did sparring, weapons and forms (traditional, creative and extreme).
> 
> Craig Henningsen also sparred. There are people up until last year who did XMA and fought such as Donald Mills. Brendon Huor used to be on Juan Moreno's TKD Team Force. Jason Tankson-Bourley, though not a top XMA person fights. Point being there are a lot that do both or used to do both.


 

I think for this the sparring issue goes back to the XMAists already having a solid core in TMA's.  Since they have the prior experience, then sure, they would be able to spar, since they should have already done it before.

What I would be interested in seeing is one of the XMAists that they claim can be taught with no martial arts experience in a sparring match.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 14, 2008)

...hmmm...

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that XMA is not a martial art by itself, but is mostly performed by martial artists?


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

exile said:


> The problem I have with XMAs in traditional MA tournaments is that the ultra-flash factor they mostly consist of puts pressure on competitors to move more and more in that direction, even if they're competing under the rubric of traditional MA. A vivid example of this is that awful Discovery Channel special on Matthew Mullins that came out on DVD a couple of years ago. If you look at the tournament, the US karate nationals, you can see it's not a dedicated XMA venue; but you can also see how it's going to get that way after a while as a result of the 'sizzle', 'flash', 'excitement' and other crap that the breathless-cheerleader narration keeps going into ecstacy about.


 
Well that has been almost 5 years ago since that video was made and nothing has changed.  The participation in traditional divisions still far out weigh that of the extreme divisions.  Even more is the fact that the kids that compete in the extreme divisions also compete in traditional divisions and tend to do very well in them.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> What I would be interested in seeing is one of the XMAists that they claim can be taught with no martial arts experience in a sparring match.


 
Doubt it will happen.  They are only in it for the performance not the fighting.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> ...hmmm...
> 
> Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that XMA is not a martial art by itself, but is mostly performed by martial artists?


 
It is safe to say that XMA is just a martial arts supplemental program for martial art schools wishing to diversify into more performance like demos and competitions.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

BrandonLucas said:


> You can't take a TKD blackbelt and have them perform Choong-Moo right after somebody from XMA has just gotten off the floor from flipping around like Yoda on Redbull. It doesn't matter how deep the TKD'ists stances are, or how perfect the kicks and punches are, the flipping is going to be more appealing to a judge, and the XMA competitor will win.


 
Not true.  2 years ago at the AKA Grand Nationals there were at least 2 instances where a traditional weapons form beat extreme weapons form and the traditional empty hand forms beat the extreme empty hands forms.  Both were during the night time finals for the Warrior Cup.  Bottom line is that it depends on the execution of the form from the performer.



> Now, this does bring up the point of going into a tournement with a freestyle form, but even then, we don't train to do handstand-splits, so no matter what type of form I put together, unless I'm flying through the air, I'm not going to place.


 
You need to get out to more open tournaments.



> If the tournement is supposed to be a traditional style tournement, then why are the XMA guys allowed to compete? In other words, I certainly wouldn't try to go to the Olympics and compete in the gymnastics floor competition with Hwa-Rang...that form would have no place there, and I feel that this relates to the other side of that coin.


 
There is a difference between an open tournament and a traditional tournament.  A traditional tournament would not have open divisions which would allow XMA people to compete.  Open tournaments are just that...open.



> And besides, I know there are other arts out there that resemble performance arts...the difference is that I actually have sparred a Tai Chi practitioner before in a tournement. Sure, their forms look cool, but the thing is that they understand the SD aspect of their forms. These XMA guys show no concept of SD at all...and most of the time, they're just throwing arms and legs out like they know what they're doing, but all they're really doing is basic gymnastics.


 
There isn't any SD aspects to their forms.  They are not meant to be traditional forms or fighting forms.  They are for performance only.

It's not that I don't appreciate what these guys do...I certainly couldn't do what they do...but XMA has its place, and, in my honest opinion, it shouldn't be with TMA's.

And in regards to the description of XMA, I fail to see how it's even close to having all the martial arts rolled into one, as the description implies. I don't see anything that could resemble a single martial art, let alone multiple arts....the only thing they can use to consider as being a part of a martial art is the fact that they stick their hands and feet in the air and call it punching and kicking.

And KickFest hit the nail on the head for me: How is it that XMA gets to be called a martial art, but TKD is considered a sport?

Now, I'm not trying to rip on XMA, I'm really not. But like I said before, it has its place. And much respect to those guys who actually can do the flipping and acrobatics. It does take a lot of hard work and dedication, but that doesn't make it a martial art.[/quote]


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

Sylo said:


> On that note..
> 
> I don't think Mike Chat should be able to take credit for creating XMA... In my eyes.. the creation of XMA started back in the 80s.. by a man known only as Kurt Thomas.


 
Actually Mike Chat did create XMA.  Remember, XMA is a program which was developed by him.  Though I'm sure Kurt Thomas did help inspire it along with people like George Chung, Jon Velera, etc.


----------



## exile (Oct 14, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> A litte more data on that was that whole US Open part of the XMA special was a last minute decision that the producers wanted to do.  Prior to that Matt was pretty much retired from competition and working on his acting carreer.  *So that whole "comeback" angle they were going for was really a farce.  *Matt in no way was seeking to comeback into sport karate.  But I digress.



Interesting...

... and not really a digression. It's a nice illustration of how production agendas can distort just about everything that the media touch. The strong impression from the video is that the whole thing was about MM wanting to get back into competitive TKD, wandering the world in search of guidance for his comeback, going to Demura, going to that much older CMA chap for guidance on balance, working on his kama kata to ramp up the 'excitement', etc. etc., all in the interests of reactivating his tournament career. And in the end it was all scripted blather... you just cannot believe what these guys tell you, is the moral here, I guess.


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

exile said:


> Interesting...
> 
> ... and not really a digression. It's a nice illustration of how production agendas can distort just about everything that the media touch. The strong impression from the video is that the whole thing was about MM wanting to get back into competitive TKD, wandering the world in search of guidance for his comeback, going to Demura, going to that much older CMA chap for guidance on balance, working on his kama kata to ramp up the 'excitement', etc. etc., all in the interests of reactivating his tournament career. And in the end it was all scripted blather... you just cannot believe what these guys tell you, is the moral here, I guess.


 
Sensei Sharkey was trying to disuade them from doing it that way because it wasn't what they originally was telling Matt and him.  Originally the concept was Matt was to be visiting different schools and train with them, then they were going to show the science part of it like they did in XMA.  They went down a whole different path.  The concept they had for Matt's show became Fight Quest instead.


----------



## exile (Oct 14, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> Sensei Sharkey was trying to disuade them from doing it that way because it wasn't what they originally was telling Matt and him.  *Originally the concept was Matt was to be visiting different schools and train with them, then they were going to show the science part of it like they did in XMA. * They went down a whole different path.  The concept they had for Matt's show became Fight Quest instead.



That would have been a much more productive route to go, IMO, if they wound up actually getting some real engineering analysis of the techs into the final product, the way university sports labs study athletic performance in minute detail to figure out just what the dynamics of the actions involved are&#8212;and how to tweak those actions to achieve small but crucial improvements in the output....


----------



## miguksaram (Oct 14, 2008)

exile said:


> That would have been a much more productive route to go, IMO, if they wound up actually getting some real engineering analysis of the techs into the final product, the way university sports labs study athletic performance in minute detail to figure out just what the dynamics of the actions involved areand how to tweak those actions to achieve small but crucial improvements in the output....


 
I agree.  It would have a lot more interesting.


----------



## granfire (Oct 14, 2008)

exile said:


> That would have been a much more productive route to go, IMO, if they wound up actually getting some real engineering analysis of the techs into the final product, the way university sports labs study athletic performance in minute detail to figure out just what the dynamics of the actions involved areand how to tweak those actions to achieve small but crucial improvements in the output....




I saw something like that before, interesting stuff.

I was under the impression XMA was something like those dude who punch through a 4x4. I am sure it comes in handy should you ever be attacked by one...I did kinda question the Combat Chi thing tho, or this guy who let himself get beat up by his Sensei, all while holding a couple heavy dumbelts...


----------



## midnightfox00 (Nov 1, 2008)

Well all this blatant hostility towards XMA is sure giving me no doubts on what I want to accomplish now.

I am going to begin training in Bujinkan in January, along side XMA.  I will be starting both MA's simultaneously...so perhaps I could be doing an unwise thing mixing the two...but I will see how this works out I guess...I do suggest that anyone wanting to see above average XMA/XSD participants to check out Team Ryuoko.  They are the ones that brought me back to Martial Talk and wanting to get back into the Arts...regardless of what form I chose...they inspired me to return....Cheers to Chris Mark!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 1, 2008)

midnightfox00 said:


> Well all this blatant hostility towards XMA is sure giving me no doubts on what I want to accomplish now.
> 
> I am going to begin training in Bujinkan in January, along side XMA.  I will be starting both MA's simultaneously...so perhaps I could be doing an unwise thing mixing the two...but I will see how this works out I guess...I do suggest that anyone wanting to see above average XMA/XSD participants to check out Team Ryuoko.  They are the ones that brought me back to Martial Talk and wanting to get back into the Arts...regardless of what form I chose...they inspired me to return....Cheers to Chris Mark!



Keep in mind that everyone practices MA for their own reasons and goals.  As long as your goals are right for you and your practice moves you toward your goals (and you know where your goals are *not* taking you) you'll do fine


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2008)

midnightfox00 said:


> Well all this blatant hostility towards XMA is sure giving me no doubts on what I want to accomplish now.
> 
> I am going to begin training in Bujinkan in January, along side XMA.  I will be starting both MA's simultaneously...so perhaps I could be doing an unwise thing mixing the two...but I will see how this works out I guess...I do suggest that anyone wanting to see above average XMA/XSD participants to check out Team Ryuoko.  They are the ones that brought me back to Martial Talk and wanting to get back into the Arts...regardless of what form I chose...they inspired me to return....Cheers to Chris Mark!


I suspect that you'll find some significant and problematic incompatability in training both at once.  You may want to focus on one at least until you have achieved a significant level of skill.


----------



## hkfuie (Nov 1, 2008)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy
yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## miguksaram (Nov 1, 2008)

midnightfox00 said:


> Well all this blatant hostility towards XMA is sure giving me no doubts on what I want to accomplish now.
> 
> I am going to begin training in Bujinkan in January, along side XMA.  I will be starting both MA's simultaneously...so perhaps I could be doing an unwise thing mixing the two...but I will see how this works out I guess...I do suggest that anyone wanting to see above average XMA/XSD participants to check out Team Ryuoko.  They are the ones that brought me back to Martial Talk and wanting to get back into the Arts...regardless of what form I chose...they inspired me to return....Cheers to Chris Mark!



Midnightfox,  If you begin Bujinkan and XMA you will not be starting to martial arts, you will only training in one martial art and one extra curriculum class in a martial arat school.  XMA is not a martial art it is just a class. If you have no martial art background I would strongly recommend holding off on your XMA until you have a firm grasp of the basics.  If you do have a experience then once you get some time in on learning some XMA basics then start throwing in your bujinkan training.  That is where it gets fun as you can use your creativity.  Enjoy.


----------



## miguksaram (Nov 1, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I suspect that you'll find some significant and problematic incompatability in training both at once.  You may want to focus on one at least until you have achieved a significant level of skill.



I agree to a point.  You must have a firm grasp of your basics before starting XMA.  However you don't have to be a black bet or even a high ranking belt.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 1, 2008)

miguksaram said:


> I agree to a point.  You must have a firm grasp of your basics before starting XMA.  However you don't have to be a black bet or even a high ranking belt.


I specifically didn't mention a belt level; there's too much variation in what a given belt means and is.  That's why I said "significant level of skill."  You have to be beyond a beginner, into something like a journeyman level of skill before you can branch out, in my opinion.  I'm not even going to try to compare belt levels or even time in training.


----------



## midnightfox00 (Nov 3, 2008)

Well thank you for your responses and intake on the subject at hand.  

Now I know I said bunjinkan but I doubt I will be able to get into the class now as the classes are highly conflicting with my work schedule...Do anyone of you suggest Wushu or Shaolin Kung Fu instead...or should I start with something a little simpler first then work my way to those arts?

It would probably be best to PM me regarding this, as this is not anymore related to the original post...Thanks again

Fox


----------



## Brian S (Nov 3, 2008)

I HATE XMA!  Flashy uniforms, acrobatic moves, music,etc....Actually, I don't have a problem with XMA,just the fact that they call it martial arts when clearly it is not.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 3, 2008)

I suppose they could call it Xtreme Video Game Bad Guy Style or something more fitting but it does not quite have the ring of _Xtreme Martial Arts_ does it?


----------



## Brian S (Nov 3, 2008)

Cirdan said:


> I suppose they could call it Xtreme Video Game Bad Guy Style or something more fitting but it does not quite have the ring of _Xtreme Martial Arts_ does it?


 

 No, but calling it maretial arts really messes things up publically for those of us who actually do martial arts,lol.

 Would you like boxing if they had guys dressed in sparkling silver doing flips off the ropes to punch eachother in the face to techno music and they called it XTREME BOXING!!!?


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 3, 2008)

Brian S said:


> Would you like boxing if they had guys dressed in sparkling silver doing flips off the ropes to punch eachother in the face to techno music and they called it XTREME BOXING!!!?


 
That actually got me laughing just thinking about it.. I can picture it with glowing boxing gloves, light show sunchronized with the punches and all.


----------



## terryl965 (Nov 3, 2008)

XMA has no place in the Martial Art world, it belongs to stunts and the movies.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 3, 2008)

Brian S said:


> No, but calling it maretial arts really messes things up publically for those of us who actually do martial arts,lol.
> 
> Would you like boxing if they had guys dressed in sparkling silver doing flips off the ropes to punch eachother in the face to techno music and they called it XTREME BOXING!!!?


Isn't that WWF?

*XTREME BOXING!!* would have to include trampolines, sound effect gloves, and flashy but useless techniques...


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 3, 2008)

midnightfox00 said:


> Well thank you for your responses and intake on the subject at hand.
> 
> Now I know I said bunjinkan but I doubt I will be able to get into the class now as the classes are highly conflicting with my work schedule...Do anyone of you suggest Wushu or Shaolin Kung Fu instead...or should I start with something a little simpler first then work my way to those arts?
> 
> ...


Rather than moving to a PM, why don't you start a new thread in The BEginner's Corner about this?

After all, I bet there's someone else out there who's got a similar question... or just folks interested in the discussion!


----------



## miguksaram (Nov 4, 2008)

Brian S said:


> I HATE XMA! Flashy uniforms, acrobatic moves, music,etc....Actually, I don't have a problem with XMA,just the fact that they call it martial arts when clearly it is not.


 
Did you read the whole thread?  I explained this whole misconception already.


----------

