# Ponder this: Has Wrestling and MMA made the traditional martial arts obsolete?



## Freestyler777 (Jun 20, 2007)

Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some readers.

Since MMA has come to America, it seems everyone is training in MMA style fighting, and in the three most MMA-proven effective styles: namely, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ.  Alas, not everyone is young and fit enough to practice these individual arts, let alone MMA.  What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?

I think what MMA did for society was that it should that non-lethal 'safe' techniques that can be done every day in sparring/rolling are more effective than 'deadly' techniques, which can't be done to a resisting training partner, or else you'd kill them!  Karate and Kung Fu still have tremendous merit, don't get me wrong.  

But does that mean that martial arts should be the domain of young, strong wrestlers?  Certainly there is a way to learn self-defense without being a great (and young) athlete?  

I am not bashing the older martial arts.  All I am saying is, wrestling has proven to be the best traditional martial art, and MMA is the most realistic combat sport.  If people discarded Karate, what place would there be for people who don't like MMA, non-athletes, women, and children?  Not everyone is interested in Muay Thai Sparring or wrestling or submission grappling. The premise is, everyone should be entitled to a martial arts education.  How would you suggest that lofty goal be accomplished?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 20, 2007)

I'll answer this with another question, what does MMA stand for? the answer of course is Mixed *Martial Arts. *You've named only three martial arts that you consider important, we use Judo, Aikido, karate, TKD, in fact any move from any style that will work. I'm not sure wrestling has been proved to be the best martial arts style either but you are probably right when you say that MMA is the best combat *sport.*  It's also only in America that wrestling is so predominant.

I train MMA and am most definitely not a young male athlete!

MMA is not the best way to train for self defence, it's the very best way to train for MMA! 

Of course there's a place for traditional martial arts,I can't ever see there not being.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jun 20, 2007)

:deadhorse


----------



## MJS (Jun 20, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some readers.
> 
> Since MMA has come to America, it seems everyone is training in MMA style fighting, and in the three most MMA-proven effective styles: namely, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ. Alas, not everyone is young and fit enough to practice these individual arts, let alone MMA. What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?
> 
> ...


 
Question:  You state 3 arts, BJJ, MT and Wrestling.  You state that these arts have been proven.  My question is, by whom?  The Gracies?  A MMA student?  A youtube clip? In the ring?  On the street?  I am certainly not disputing that these arts are good, but this post almost hints that they are the best.  

I am getting the impression that this thread will take the turn of so many others here, which is my art vs. your art. 

I think that BJJ is fantastic for the ground.  I grapple when I can.  I've added a few things in from the MMA line of training.  As far as the 'deadly' reference, well, I'd say the same applies for BJJ.  Do you choke out your opponent every time you roll?  What about breaking his arm?  How about injuring the ankle or knee from a leg lock?  So you see, its really no different than someone who trains an eye jab.  You take the training to a certain point, but you're forced to stop.  

In closing, I'll say that everything has its place.  There are things to be gained from both TMA and MMA.  Add, borrow, change, whatever.  For myself, I'm not going to disregard something, because it can't be done in the cage or its not on tape. 

Mike


----------



## PictonMA (Jun 20, 2007)

> In closing, I'll say that everything has its place. There are things to be gained from both TMA and MMA. Add, borrow, change, whatever. For myself, I'm not going to disregard something, because it can't be done in the cage or its not on tape.



No need for me to type anything else, Mike nailed this perfectly.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2007)

MJS said:


> Question: You state 3 arts, BJJ, MT and Wrestling. You state that these arts have been proven. My question is, by whom? The Gracies? A MMA student? A youtube clip? In the ring? On the street? I am certainly not disputing that these arts are good, but this post almost hints that they are the best.
> 
> *I am getting the impression that this thread will take the turn of so many others here, which is my art vs. your art. *
> 
> ...


 
I agree with every word here, I didn't find the original post offensive as warned though just sad. I spend a lot of time publicising MMA and trying to get people to see it's worth, not as a replacement for other martial arts but as an entertaining, worthwhile add on to martial arts. I don't need to have things stirred up in yet another MMA v TMA argument.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Jun 21, 2007)

At the end of the day, everything that exists in martial arts has its place. When we recognise that, its possible for us to enjoy our art, and respect other arts for what they are.
The declarations of any Art being the Be-All and End-All do nothing more than damage that particular art, as it causes a loss of focus on the arts purpose.


----------



## jkn75 (Jun 21, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> ....What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?...
> 
> But does that mean that martial arts should be the domain of young, strong wrestlers? Certainly there is a way to learn self-defense without being a great (and young) athlete?
> 
> I am not bashing the older martial arts. All I am saying is, wrestling has proven to be the best traditional martial art, and MMA is the most realistic combat sport. If people discarded Karate, what place would there be for people who don't like MMA, non-athletes, women, and children? Not everyone is interested in Muay Thai Sparring or wrestling or submission grappling. The premise is, everyone should be entitled to a martial arts education. How would you suggest that lofty goal be accomplished?


 
Martial arts are for everyone. If we have learned anything, it should be that. MMA should not be the exclusive realm of the young, it should be the exclusive domain of people who enjoy that type of training. If everyone is entitled to martial arts education, the instructors have to make it for everyone. If I want to take any MA class and I am not young and healthy due to age, health, disability, etc., a good instructor should be able to help me overcome those deficiencies.

Additionally, as popular as MMA and the 3 "main" styles used have become, I don't see a lot of empty TMA schools. I don't read about the rash of TMA schools closing in my town and reopening as MMA centers. In reality, there seem to be more schools opening to meet the demand of people interested in MMA while TMA schools hum along. 

TMA schools fail or survive based on a number of factors. Is MMA the main cause? We don't have any facts to support that. I believe the same problems that plague commercial TMA schools plague even the best instructed commercial MMA schools, getting people in the door and running a good business.

As far as TMA's being obsolete? Well, that is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Jun 21, 2007)

Thanks guys for not tearing me to pieces on this one.  Your insights are valid.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 21, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> All I am saying is, wrestling has proven to be the best traditional martial art, and MMA is the most realistic combat sport.



The "best" TMA?  Really?  What do you do if there is more than one opponent?  Hmm....

As for MMA, it has indeed proven to be a realistic sport - with the emphasis on sport.  I have seen no evidence that it is particularly effective over karate or TKD or anything else outside the ring.


----------



## wesley (Jun 21, 2007)

first i'd like to say that all arts have a place.. each is unique and has a purpose.

second, Empty Hands is completly right. you cant wrestle 3vs1. 

third, the average athlete just has to train. train long and hard.  the art is not what beats an opponent, it's the person using it. individual skill and expirence comes into play in ANY fight.  just because someone has a blackbelt doesnt mean they are going to know what to do when the real stuff hits the fan.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2007)

Believe it or not it's not wrestling/grappling, TKD, Karate, Judo, Muay Thai or any other art that wins an MMA fight...... it's fitness. It's stamina and fitness every time. There's no good being the best kicker, puncher or grappler in the world if you gas after a minute or two then even a white belt of any style will defeat you. 

Freestyler, it was tempting to write you off as a troll! I've seen so many TMA v MMA threads on different forums which end up with people slagging each other off and going round in circles. 

MMA is as much for older people as any other MA maybe apart from Capoiera ( the one style I deem impossible for my old bones but it looks so good) 

I think wrestling is probably the oldest martial art rather than the most effective, to say otherwise is just being provocative!  ( I've just had to correct myself there as I typed marital art lol  -a Freudian slip?) A lot of TMA people get into MMA because they want to combine what they know and they enjoy competing. MMA is like physical chess, we just enjoy it's challenges. It's respective parts are TMAs after all so there's no need for any arguing over it!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 21, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some readers.
> 
> Since MMA has come to America, it seems everyone is training in MMA style fighting, and in the three most MMA-proven effective styles: namely, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ. Alas, not everyone is young and fit enough to practice these individual arts, let alone MMA. What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?
> 
> ...




In the 60's it was Judo and Ju Jitsu. 

In the 70's it was TKD and Karate and Full Contact

In the Late 70's through the 80's it was Point Fighting and speed - Also the "eclectic arts" and or weapon arts made rise such as the FMA's. Also add in a general increase to knife awareness and knife training.

In the 90's the UFC was launched. Mostly BJJ and or Wrestling for the winners of the sport (* Note: I said Mostly *). Knife Training also increased in the 90s. 

The ICBM made the regional missiles obsolete. Oh wait we still have them and use them. The car made traveling by horse obsolete (* required lots of asphalt and concrete *) but lots of people still enjoy riding a horse. 

So are the more traditional arts obsolete?

No.

Will some people be more inclined to one thing to another as time goes by?

Yes.


----------



## Selfcritical (Jun 22, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some readers.
> 
> Since MMA has come to America, it seems everyone is training in MMA style fighting, and in the three most MMA-proven effective styles: namely, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ. Alas, not everyone is young and fit enough to practice these individual arts, let alone MMA. What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?
> 
> ...


 
UFC wasn't a revolution in arts- the body of technique existed well beforehand, and many people train in them and still can't fight worth a damn. Similarly, many people manage to do quite well with only cursory jujitsu skills, or poor boxing, or mediocre wrestling. No one art is the secret to MMA. The two incontrovertible lessons of MMA are something that can be adapted and shared by any art.

1- Training method. There is no substitute for regular resistant training with noncompliant partners, where your sole goal is increased performance. Full contact, high conditioning, and someone trying as hard as possible to stop you lead to growth.

2- versatility. You have to be able to fight in multiple ranges, transition to the range where you have the greatest strength, and learn how to resist your opponents attempts to change the range or phase of the fight. That means if your art doesn't address a given range, and you don't get training to supplement, you will always have a significant weakness that will get exploited. 

MMA didn't make old methods obsolete, it just gave us a measuring stick to assess our methods and goals by.


----------



## Selfcritical (Jun 22, 2007)

wesley said:


> first i'd like to say that all arts have a place.. each is unique and has a purpose.
> 
> second, Empty Hands is completly right. you cant wrestle 3vs1.
> 
> third, the average athlete just has to train. train long and hard. the art is not what beats an opponent, it's the person using it. individual skill and expirence comes into play in ANY fight. just because someone has a blackbelt doesnt mean they are going to know what to do when the real stuff hits the fan.


 
3 vs 1 it may not be your choice if you're wrestling, and if one of the three takes it there, you should be prepared.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 22, 2007)

Selfcritical said:


> 3 vs 1 it may not be your choice if you're wrestling, and if one of the three takes it there, you should be prepared.


 
*Absolutely*.  However, that preparation should be towards getting back on your feet as quickly as possible because absolutely no one that I know of can grapple well with one person while two people are striking at them from above.  If you are on your feet you have a chance to escape or deploy a tool or improvised tool more effectively to even the odds.


----------



## Joe Divola (Jun 23, 2007)

MMA will never make TMA obsolete, if anything I think that it will help them.  It will bring more attention to MA in general and get people into local schools to learn MA.  Chuck Liddel trained in Kenpo and GSP started in TKD,  those are a couple of high profile people to have kids look at and want to start the way that they did


----------



## lhommedieu (Jun 23, 2007)

I think that the traditional/mixed martial arts distinction can be as distinct or blurred as you want it to be.  For example, I posted a slightly revised version of this on another, smaller forum a while back after someone asked me for more information about Estacada:

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss one of my favorite martial arts and martial artists. *Estacada *is a form of internal boxing developed by William (Bill) Schettino. It has a boxing/Thai boxing framework, but the movements (punches, kicks, elbows, knees, etc.) are grounded upon the same kinds of internal body mechanics that you'd find in Xing Yi or Ba Gua, etc. In addition, it has a grappling (locks, throws, and destructions) and weapons curriculum that uses the exact same body mechanics, so that everything that is done in the system is basically an expression of the same set of principles.

I consider Bill to be a "coach's coach" with respect to his ability to take _any_ martial artist and help them to do _what they already do _at a significantly higher level. He teaches primarily one-on-one but will teach small group seminars if asked. Quite a few MMA fighters go to Bill for coaching and I know that several members of a national LEO contacted Bill for specialized training a few years ago, because they felt the empty hands training they had received was not adequate. Speaking solely for myself: I have a modest set of skills and yet Bill always makes me feel like a 220 pound hunk of wood as he chases me around the room doing his version of "push hands." 

*Estacada-Kajukenbo* is simply Estacada placed upon a Kajukenbo foundation. Bill spent several years in San Diego learning directly under Sijo Emperado; he kept the hard hitting, "monkey line," format, but uses Estacada principles to teach a series of 52 "sets" that comprise the basis of instruction up until Black Belt level. It's a profound expression of Kajukenbo very much in line with Sijo's original intention (and has received his enthusiastic endorsement).

It was Bill's misfortune (or fortune) to be born a 16th century man in the 20th century - but I figured that most of you on this forum will appreciate him.

Further information can be found at:  www.estacada.net

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## Bujingodai (Jun 23, 2007)

Why would MMA want to make TMA obsolete? They need it to make fun of.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jun 23, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Disclaimer: This may be offensive to some readers.
> 
> Since MMA has come to America, it seems everyone is training in MMA style fighting, and in the three most MMA-proven effective styles: namely, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and BJJ. Alas, not everyone is young and fit enough to practice these individual arts, let alone MMA. What should the 'average' athlete do in order to learn unarmed combat?
> 
> ...


 
Why is there always a thread where someone is comparing sports to martial arts?  MMA is NOT a martial art.  Wrestling is only effective in the one on one, multiple attackers nullifies it's effectiveness.

No, they have not replaced martial arts.  "Nuff Said.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jun 23, 2007)

Selfcritical said:


> 3 vs 1 it may not be your choice if you're wrestling, and if one of the three takes it there, you should be prepared.


 
But once you go to the ground in that situation, the others are going to join in.  Better to not be there in the first place.


----------



## Selfcritical (Jun 25, 2007)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> But once you go to the ground in that situation, the others are going to join in. Better to not be there in the first place.


 
You can not plausibly keep from going to the ground without time spent with people trying to take you to the ground and hold dominant position. This is called wrestling.


----------



## Selfcritical (Jun 25, 2007)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> Why is there always a thread where someone is comparing sports to martial arts? MMA is NOT a martial art. Wrestling is only effective in the one on one, multiple attackers nullifies it's effectiveness.
> 
> No, they have not replaced martial arts. "Nuff Said.


 
It is a venue where martial artist compete however.


----------



## krieger (Jun 26, 2007)

Why have we idolized MMA through the UFC, IFL, and Bodog?  

Why do we call it an art when the spend most of their tim on the ground on top of eachother, tired in a few minutes?


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 26, 2007)

Combat is one whole organism. All of the ways listed are just pieces of it. They all need to be addressed in training if one is truly to be well rounded.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2007)

krieger said:


> Why have we idolized MMA through the UFC, IFL, and Bodog?
> 
> Why do we call it an art when the spend most of their tim on the ground on top of eachother, tired in a few minutes?


 
Try watching non American MMA! You will see the attraction then.
Get the Russian cage fighting DVDs, plus the UK Cagewarriors, Cage Rage, UK1, Pride & Glory etc. You can get them all online.
Personally I don't call it an art but it is made up of the skilful use of several arts.  
The UFC maybe American but it's not the be all and end all of MMA.


----------



## Odin (Jun 26, 2007)

krieger said:


> Why have we idolized MMA through the UFC, IFL, and Bodog?
> 
> Why do we call it an art when the spend most of their tim on the ground on top of eachother, tired in a few minutes?


 
So jujitsu is not an art?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Odin said:


> So jujitsu is not an art?


 
Guess not lol! This is turning into yet another TMA v MMA argument...yawn yawn!

Like or loathe it, MMA is enjoyed by many so why slag it off? Can we get back to a reasonable discussion please?


----------



## krieger (Jun 26, 2007)

Jiu jitsu is an art, however, in MMA it seems that all they do is fight on the ground, one on top of the other.  How is that an art?  Plus, it gets boring to watch them on the ground all the time.


----------



## megat (Jun 26, 2007)

hmmmm i think u have to learn TMA before u can do MMA, better that way i think because u have basics down ( just my 2 cents )


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2007)

krieger said:


> Jiu jitsu is an art, however, in MMA it seems that all they do is fight on the ground, one on top of the other. How is that an art? Plus, it gets boring to watch them on the ground all the time.


 
It's clear you don't train MMA and don't appreciate it so why do you actually watch it? It's very easy to criticise fighters, Trust me, whatever you think it takes guts to get into the ring/cage. Do it at least once then your opinion will be a valid one. Insulting other arts is never an attractive thing to see whereas interesting and informed discussion - it doesn't have to be agreement, is always a welcome thing.

megat is of course right. Impossible to do MMA without TMA knowledge


----------



## krieger (Jun 27, 2007)

I don't watch it.  I was just stating that it has become very popular lately.  I wasn't really insulting MMA, more of, vilifying it.  I was only saying what I thought.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 27, 2007)

As I believe rich said over the years many arts have held the spotlight for a brief moment only to be replaced a few years later by some other art as "the one to study".
As for MMA making traditional arts obsolete I do not see it happening. There is just way to much that can be learned from the traditional arts , some of which can be used in MMA, but much of which can not because of the RULES in MMA


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2007)

krieger said:


> I don't watch it. I was just stating that it has become very popular lately. I wasn't really insulting MMA, more of, vilifying it. I was only saying what I thought.


 

:rofl:

You have just made my day!


----------



## PictonMA (Jun 27, 2007)

Krieger,

Go spend a couple years training Judo (Kosen or a Kodokan Dojo that places a decent emphasis on ne waza), Wrestling, Brazillian Jiu Jiitsu or Japanese Ju Jutsu (again in a dojo that does Ne Waza) and then tell me that ground fighting is 'boring' or not an art.

I would actually argue that MMA in and of itself is becoming an art.  In the past it was a forum for people of various styles to test themselves within a certain ruleset.  But as most would agree, the average competitor has changed and as a result MMA has changed so that it is a unique entity and not just an eclectic blending of various styles.

It will continue to grow and evolve I'm sure, but it's well on its way to becoming it's own art / style.

To all the naysayers who are going to jump in and say that it's just a sport and not an art I would argue that by that logic then Judo or any other competetive representation of TMA isn't an art.

Two things on this - 

First, the skillful competition between combatants in any discipline (Karate, Kung Fu, Judo, Ju Jutsu, MMA whatever) can in and of itself be an art or a part of the broader art.

Second,  there are more people training MMA that will never step foot in a ring or octagon then those that pursue it for competitive / professional purposes.  Just because one CAN compete in MMA doesn't mean one HAS to.  

There is as much to be gained from MMA as TMA (I would argue that for both in order to get the maximum benefit of physical, mental and emotional / spiritual you need the right environment, the right instructor, etc but BOTH can lead to growth in an individual in all of these areas.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2007)

PictonMA said:


> Krieger,
> 
> Go spend a couple years training Judo (Kosen or a Kodokan Dojo that places a decent emphasis on ne waza), Wrestling, Brazillian Jiu Jiitsu or Japanese Ju Jutsu (again in a dojo that does Ne Waza) and then tell me that ground fighting is 'boring' or not an art.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post, I can't add anything to it, says it all.


----------

