# More mma bashing....



## Mephisto (Feb 25, 2015)

The Myth of Pressure Testing How MMA has failed the martial arts.

The blog above is the epitome of what I find wrong with the mentality of a lot of traditional martial artist. I'm not sure why so many decry the value of mma when martial artists should embrace mma. If they think the fighters are good they're welcome to fight or go to an mma gym and prove their skill is superior to mma. 

Here are the blogs points:
1) mma is supposed to be a proving ground where all martial arts can test and see who's best.

This may have been the goal of the early ufc matches but it no longer is the case. Mma is a sport and ruleset and the rules vary between organizations. 

2) mma sparring is ineffective because it doesn't allow multiple opponents, killing blows or weapons. It isn't realistic enough.

There are some venues that are basically mma with multiple opponents and teams you can find it on YouTube. It's a little ridiculous though. There are also weapons venues arising like sfw and some hema organizations. Do you employ deadly kill shots in your training? Against a resisting opponent in real time? Get real, you're never gonna see public death matches and no one trains this way. Mma is a specialty like boxing or a forms competition it demonstrates skill of the individual under specific settings. 

3)tai chi, Silat, xing yi, bagua, and other Kung fu styles are reality based and they prepare you for every scenario.

I think we see the agenda here. The guy is a traditionalist and is obviously biased. The above systems are far from rbsd but can probably be applied with an rbsd mindset as can mma. But I doubt the majority of schools train this way.

4) mma has horribly failed as a means to effectively test the martial arts.

I'm glad the author is a fan of pressure testing but I'd like him to propose how we do test martial arts effectively. Perhaps some kind of thunderdome format? 

Do I think mma is the ultimate test for martial arts? No, I don't train or really even watch mma, but it's a solid format to assess striking and grappling in all ranges. Unlike these traditionalists I can concede that everything I do isn't the best but I can and train to do some things very well. these guys need to admit mma builds fighters with good striking and grappling and leave it at that. They are fundamental areas of fighting and self defense and are a strong base to build upon.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

In the immortal words of the philosopher Taylor swift.

Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> In the immortal words of the philosopher Taylor swift.
> 
> Haters gonna hate.



Really. Thought it was all about the bass and no treble


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2015)

Whatever the ufc was, Mma has always been a sport.  Even if you go back to shoot fighting,  vale tudo or any other version of it.  

The gist of the blog is essentially this Apple has failed to be a good orange.   Kind of obvious, if you ask me.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 25, 2015)

Steve said:


> Whatever the ufc was, Mma has always been a sport.  Even if you go back to shoot fighting,  vale tudo or any other version of it.
> 
> The gist of the blog is essentially this Apple has failed to be a good orange.   Kind of obvious, if you ask me.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the gist of it. Yes I did actually read it


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2015)

The problem is that this guy is not TMA. His training is a style that he has developed himself based on Silat, Systema, Tai Chi, Xing Yi, Bagua and Kung fu.

He is not bashing MMA. Like the OP in the final paragraph, he is saying that MMA has its failings like any other style of training. Even the 'blog' isn't really a blog. It's a blatant plug for some very expensive training DVDs. Is his training any better? Who knows and who cares.

I don't have any problem with MMA. I just accept it for what it is, just like any other training.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 25, 2015)

K-man said:


> The problem is that this guy is not TMA. His training is a style that he has developed himself based on Silat, Systema, Tai Chi, Xing Yi, Bagua and Kung fu.
> 
> He is not bashing MMA. Like the OP in the final paragraph, he is saying that MMA has its failings like any other style of training. Even the 'blog' isn't really a blog. It's a blatant plug for some very expensive training DVDs. Is his training any better? Who knows and who cares.
> 
> I don't have any problem with MMA. I just accept it for what it is, just like any other training.



Good point. That is the problem for me. I don't possess the knowledge to know what a TMA is actually, until I try immerse myself in a class. How easy is it to defer to what looks good, what will be considered a traditional technique over that what is taught at a MMA gym. Sorry for a stupid question, but I still struggle with the entirety of MMA training from my viewpoint. When do you lose a thousand odd year tradition?


----------



## Blindside (Feb 25, 2015)

You neglected to mention that they will show you the real way spar using drills and stuff that will functionalize your (insert not mma art here) for reality for the low low price of $250 for two DVDs.
The Art of Sparring How to Pressure Test Your Art

This is apparently their highlight reel:




 
Yeah, I'm not seeing alot of pressure here.

And I say this as a non mma guy.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 25, 2015)

Blindside said:


> You neglected to mention that they will show you the real way spar using drills and stuff that will functionalize your (insert not mma art here) for reality for the low low price of $250 for two DVDs.
> The Art of Sparring How to Pressure Test Your Art
> 
> This is apparently their highlight reel:
> ...



Mmm, not so sure that I am going to rely on Ballet though. Interesting vid though


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2015)

It's Richard clear, I wouldn't worry about it, he does a lot of Taiji stuff and talks a lot about Taiji too and it is not Taiji at all.

Speaking at a TCMA guy who does Taijiquan and Xingyiquan I am rather impressed by many who train MMA. Talked with more than a few in the real world that have great training ethics.



Mephisto said:


> The blog above is the epitome of what I find wrong with the mentality of a lot of traditional martial artist.



By the way, that right there...... could be taken as more traditional martial artist bashing too.... might I ask you to define "a lot"


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Thanks for the gist of it. Yes I did actually read it


Would you care to share your thoughts?


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2015)

K-man said:


> I just accept it for what it is, just like any other training.


Words to live by.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 25, 2015)

That article is just typical TMA nonsense.

Sad really.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 25, 2015)

K-man said:


> He is not bashing MMA. Like the OP in the final paragraph, he is saying that MMA has its failings like any other style of training. Even the 'blog' isn't really a blog. It's a blatant plug for some very expensive training DVDs. Is his training any better? Who knows and who cares.
> 
> I don't have any problem with MMA. I just accept it for what it is, just like any other training.


Largely I agree with you. This guy's super system is not TMA, it's a modern hybrid just like many others. But I'd say the following quote is mma bashing:

"Testing yourself under pressure is essential and training your skills against opponents who are trying to counter you is important.

MMA sparring is just a horribly ineffective way to do this."

Saying mma is a horrible way to test yourself under pressure certainly sounds like a negative opinion of mma and I'd call it bashing.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> It's Richard clear, I wouldn't worry about it, he does a lot of Taiji stuff and talks a lot about Taiji too and it is not Taiji at all.
> 
> Speaking at a TCMA guy who does Taijiquan and Xingyiquan I am rather impressed by many who train MMA. Talked with more than a few in the real world that have great training ethics.
> 
> ...


It's only bashing the TMA guys that don't see the value of mma and sport systems as a whole. I consider myself a TMA guy as I train a "traditional" Filipino system. In my circle there's a lot of infatuation with deadly techniques  for the streetz and a fair amount of sport bashing.


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 25, 2015)

if the guy in the article wants MMA to go away, or wants the general public to buy his silliness, all he has to do is step into an octagon and prove the effectiveness of his system against some MMA fighters. There isn't a promotion in the MMA world that would turn down a TMA stylist trying to prove his style against MMA. If he can pull it off, he'll be a very wealthy man, and a hero to millions of practitioners.

He's never going to do that though, and we all know why.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> That article is just typical TMA nonsense.
> 
> .



Also could be taken as TMA bashing..... why can't we just get along..... go after the source, not the styles he claims to teach. And for the record he also claims to be more than TMA



> Self Defense Master of the Year 2007
> USA Martial Arts Hall of Fame
> 
> Sigung (Senior Teacher – Red Sash)
> ...


*\
*
And if you want to get technical there are no belt ranks in TCMA so his Red Sash in Tai Chi and Qi Gong say he is not a TCMA person


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2015)

I think that we can all agree that the original article/blog post/advertisement was casting MMA in a negative light.   It just seems like we should be careful characterizing this as "just another TMA" guy.  I don't get the impression that this guy's nonsense can be laid on "TMA."


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 25, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Also could be taken as TMA bashing..... why can't we just get along..... go after the source, not the styles he claims to teach.



Because its the same song and dance regardless of the source. It's the typical TMA response to the "threat" of MMA. Which frankly just boils down to TMA schools losing business to MMA gyms. What clowns like this don't understand is that the REASON people are moving away from TMA styles to MMA gyms is because they're simply smarter consumers.

Also that vid was terrible. If that's the highlight reel, I shudder to think what a typical class looks like.


----------



## BeeBrian (Feb 25, 2015)

There will never be a reality based self defense system until a hardened thug decides to market his own original martial art based off of his real street fights. Either that, or a Rambo-like survivor gets out of the battlefield and apply his aggression into the beautiful capitalist USA through his own brand of martial art.

The odds of a savage killer having the mental capacity to efficiently run a legitimate business in a civilized country is zero.

The closest thing to that is whatever they teach in the military... Which is basically MMA.

Lol... The way I see it, the only difference between sport combatives and military combatives is the inclusion of weapons and the very slight addition of dirty tactics.

You want an effective system? Legalize knife usage in a Vale Tudo competition and there it is... RBSD.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 25, 2015)

As a "traditional" martial artist. I don't bash MMA. 

To be quite blunt, I really don't think about MMA much at all. I mean, it's not even on my radar and it's not something I watch very often. When I do think about it on rare occasions, it's not really positive or negative…it's a sport. Just like many others. As K-Man said, I accept it for what it is.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 25, 2015)

BeeBrian said:


> The closest thing to that is whatever they teach in the military... Which is basically MMA.
> 
> Lol... The way I see it, the only difference between sport combatives and military combatives is the inclusion of weapons and the very slight addition of dirty tactics.



As a former military person I take a bit of an issue with this. It's not simply the inclusion of weapons, it is a completely separate way of thinking and frame of mind. When you realize the person is not simply trying to win but actually trying to kill you it changes the way you fight and think completely. Also, the martial arts we learned weren't MMA in the sport sense, but rather a mixture of different techniques from several arts. Including Hapkido, jujutsu, karate, etc. Speaking as a former Navy Corpsman stationed with Marine Recon.


----------



## BeeBrian (Feb 25, 2015)

This is simply a shift in the market trend. The modern McDojo is RBSD.

Krav Maga, Systema, and the Marines Program are a great attempt at making real fighting become something people can prepare for.

...And then there's Papa Greed and the lord of lies, with their hybrid Muay Systemaga that they learned from their Polynesian ancestors.


----------



## BeeBrian (Feb 25, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> As a former military person I take a bit of an issue with this. It's not simply the inclusion of weapons, it is a completely separate way of thinking and frame of mind. When you realize the person is not simply trying to win but actually trying to kill you it changes the way you fight and think completely. Also, the martial arts we learned weren't MMA in the sport sense, but rather a mixture of different techniques from several arts. Including Hapkido, jujutsu, karate, etc. Speaking as a former Navy Corpsman stationed with Marine Recon.



Does the Military ever teach that stuff to the public?

It's something that I actually would love to get into.


----------



## jezr74 (Feb 25, 2015)

Looks like marketing BS to me. If your buying into it's MMA vs. TMA thing, your just giving it some validity it doesn't deserve, or have your own axe to grind.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> if the guy in the article wants MMA to go away, or wants the general public to buy his silliness, all he has to do is step into an octagon and prove the effectiveness of his system against some MMA fighters. There isn't a promotion in the MMA world that would turn down a TMA stylist trying to prove his style against MMA. If he can pull it off, he'll be a very wealthy man, and a hero to millions of practitioners.
> 
> He's never going to do that though, and we all know why.


He wouldn't even have to attend a venue. He could go to any mma gym and ask to spar and record the whole affair. No money involved so he doesn't have to compromise his morals. He may even be able to find a gym that will agree to a no rules match that will allow his deadly techniques. Competing gyms are used to having guys drop by to spar and wouldn't view it as a challenge or insult as long as he acts normal about it.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 25, 2015)

BeeBrian said:


> Does the Military ever teach that stuff to the public?
> 
> It's something that I actually would love to get into.


I'm not sure the military focuses much on hand to hand, yes there are some programs that have existed, but I don't think seals and special forces have anything all that special or unique.  A lot of the guys that claim to tech special forces are straight up bs or really stretching the degree to which they taught a member of the special forces. That being said what flys on the battle field can only help you in limited scenarios in real life. On a battlefield your object might be more obvious and killing and maiming is more likely to be expected. In civilian life if all you know is "deadly" attacks you can really get yourself into trouble. Every physical altercation does not merit destroying your opponent. You may want to have the ability to put someone down for good in the worst case scenario, but you should also have the ability to put them into submission with strikes or locks without permanently maiming them. "The deadly" is overrated imo, and can get you into trouble if it's all you've got.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> As a former military person I take a bit of an issue with this. It's not simply the inclusion of weapons, it is a completely separate way of thinking and frame of mind. When you realize the person is not simply trying to win but actually trying to kill you it changes the way you fight and think completely. Also, the martial arts we learned weren't MMA in the sport sense, but rather a mixture of different techniques from several arts. Including Hapkido, jujutsu, karate, etc. Speaking as a former Navy Corpsman stationed with Marine Recon.



you think you go a bit easier when you are getting elbowed in the face for fun and not for reals?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

BeeBrian said:


> Does the Military ever teach that stuff to the public?
> 
> It's something that I actually would love to get into.



I know a guy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Because its the same song and dance regardless of the source. It's the typical TMA response to the "threat" of MMA. Which frankly just boils down to TMA schools losing business to MMA gyms. What clowns like this don't understand is that the REASON people are moving away from TMA styles to MMA gyms is because they're simply smarter consumers.
> 
> Also that vid was terrible. If that's the highlight reel, I shudder to think what a typical class looks like.



Okie dokie, generalize bash away and enjoy


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 25, 2015)

Folks, 
Style and art bashing are against the rules, so I am sure nobody is intentionally doing any of that, right?  

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

The thing is if there is better sparring than mma. I would like to hear it.

I mean you cant bite peoples ears of sparring. So you need to limit the techniques while maintaining as much of the range of techniques as you can.

This is going to mean protective gear rules and a ref. Sorry but that is the reality.

but then think of the options mma sparring gives you. Because there is nothing forcing a mma sparring to be a ufc match.

So if you want to spar street principles of stand up evade and so on. Go for it. If you want to spar multiples nobody is stopping you. Weapons is fine as well. You don't have to reinvent sparring. Just tweak it a bit.

I often spar for standing restraints. There is even not many actual mma rules against this. (cant gooseneck) Now i can spar restraints against a guy who wants to knock my head off. Which gives me the best chance of pressure testing the sort of movements i need for the deadly street.

But what if you box? Well you can mma spar kung fu. Guess what. You can mma spar. Wrestle tkd. There are very few systems that will let you pressure test you system against others.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The thing is if there is better sparring than mma. I would like to hear it.
> 
> I mean you cant bite peoples ears of sparring. So you need to limit the techniques while maintaining as much of the range of techniques as you can.
> 
> ...


Curious to know what would you call a silat player sparring a boxer or a wrestler? Is that mma or is it just a couple of practitioners sparring? I have my wing chun practitioners spar vs my muay thai students. I have my csw students spar the muay thai and the wc students, is that mma or is just sparring?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

Danny T said:


> Curious to know what would you call a silat player sparring a boxer or a wrestler? Is that mma or is it just a couple of practitioners sparring? I have my wing chun practitioners spar vs my muay thai students. I have my csw students spar the muay thai and the wc students, is that mma or is just sparring?



how far off reservation are you going with the sparring?

If it is basic mma rules then it is mma sparring. If one party is doing jumping ninja chops or something. that is their business but it is still mma sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

The rule set kind of gives you a skill set. We mma,box,kickbox,shoot box,wrestle and hits. And it just focuses on different skills you should know and different environments you should explore.


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The thing is if there is better sparring than mma. I would like to hear it.


Some of us have been trying for a long time to show what we think is as good. Unfortunately some people have no intention of accepting there is an alternative, so I, for one, have given up trying to change the opinion of those who who will not accept that anything else could possible be as good as MMA.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 25, 2015)

I am having my players spar according to their perspective training vs another's. Do we do 3 minute or 5 minute rds; sometimes. Other times it is for 10 seconds and is geared toward self-defense and escaping. Sometimes it is vs multiple opponents using their particular methods of attacking or fight. My mma fighter's do 3 & 5 minute rds per the rules of the governing body for mma. Our mma sparring is specific to the rules of mma not self defense. Our submission wrestling is different for mma vs self defense but they do spar vs each other. Funny thing is the mma guys complain the most about the self defense guys not engaging or just getting away when they are able. The sparring tactics are similar even the same but the strategies are different.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

K-man said:


> Some of us have been trying for a long time to show what we think is as good. Unfortunately some people have no intention of accepting there is an alternative, so I, for one, have given up trying to change the opinion of those who who will not accept that anything else could possible be as good as MMA.



The combat scenarios. Which you can do in mma sparring. All the way from compliant to fully resisted.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I am having my players spar according to their perspective training vs another's. Do we do 3 minute or 5 minute rds; sometimes. Other times it is for 10 seconds and is geared toward self-defense and escaping. Sometimes it is vs multiple opponents using their particular methods of attacking or fight. My mma fighter's do 3 & 5 minute rds per the rules of the governing body for mma. Our mma sparring is specific to the rules of mma not self defense. Our submission wrestling is different for mma vs self defense but they do spar vs each other. Funny thing is the mma guys complain the most about the self defense guys not engaging or just getting away when they are able. The sparring tactics are similar even the same but the strategies are different.



But the same basic method?

No becoming the jelly fish while five guys lightly punch you like in that super sparring video?

no wandering out into the car park and doing takedowns on broken glass for realism?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2015)

Danny T said:


> I am having my players spar according to their perspective training vs another's. Do we do 3 minute or 5 minute rds; sometimes. Other times it is for 10 seconds and is geared toward self-defense and escaping. Sometimes it is vs multiple opponents using their particular methods of attacking or fight. My mma fighter's do 3 & 5 minute rds per the rules of the governing body for mma. Our mma sparring is specific to the rules of mma not self defense. Our submission wrestling is different for mma vs self defense but they do spar vs each other. Funny thing is the mma guys complain the most about the self defense guys not engaging or just getting away when they are able. The sparring tactics are similar even the same but the strategies are different.



And a good point different strategies. Where the pressure testing is kind of the same but a different focus.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The thing is if there is better sparring than mma. I would like to hear it.


That is just your opinion.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Where the pressure testing is kind of the same but a different focus.


Absolutely. 
The length of time for some sparring is for cardio and conditioning. It also makes the self defense people understand how much work goes into be prepared for a competition and the competition people also see how well the self defense people can fight. Mindset and strategies are different. The ability to punch, kick, choke is the same, the ability to do so under heavy pressure is also the same. One may fight for the time limit where as the other may be just to get away or to get to a position of safety or for example to deploy a firearm if so needed.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 25, 2015)

Blindside said:


> This is apparently their highlight reel:


That is their pressure testing?  That was almost a vacuum.


----------



## Steve (Feb 25, 2015)

K-man said:


> Some of us have been trying for a long time to show what we think is as good. Unfortunately some people have no intention of accepting there is an alternative, so I, for one, have given up trying to change the opinion of those who who will not accept that anything else could possible be as good as MMA.


Oh, come on, now.  The TMA bashing is ridiculous, and inappropriate.  But when's the last time you've budged on any of your opinions?  I haven't seen it.


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> The combat scenarios. Which you can do in mma sparring. All the way from compliant to fully resisted.


Which is, of course, exactly as some of us train in other places.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 25, 2015)

I wouldn't put too much stock in wehat they have to say considering that anyone seems to be able to become an instructor within 6 months without any prior training just by downloading a teaching packag:

Kuntao Dragon Certification


----------



## Danny T (Feb 25, 2015)

Blindside said:


> This is apparently their highlight reel:


This is not pressure testing by any comparison to what we do and I would not call anything I saw in this video as sparring. Some light drilling action but by no means sparring or pressure testing.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Feb 26, 2015)

My ex-man brought his new girlfriend; She's like "OMG", but I'm just gonna shake it - and to the fella over there with the hella good hair, won't you come on over, baby, we can shake, shake, shake!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> Which is, of course, exactly as some of us train in other places.



Look at Danny t,s set up. His sd/tmaers can sit in the same cage as the mmaers. And spar. It is objective pressure testing. If you combat scenario I feel you are being too subjective. Especially if you just combat scenario.

I still don't think we have found one good video of combat scenarios yet.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> Some of us have been trying for a long time to show what we think is as good. Unfortunately some people have no intention of accepting there is an alternative, so I, for one, have given up trying to change the opinion of those who who will not accept that anything else could possible be as good as MMA.


Don't give up! Present your evidence and present it again, sometimes the same information presented in a new context makes sense. Although it can be frustrating when you're dealing with hard heads like me. For me a video of a guy using TMA to hold his own against an mma guy is evidence enough. I value TMA I just think that mma sparring, which in this case just means nhb sparring in all ranges is the best way to test an art for reality. For example, I box, I spar with a boxing ruleset. The boxing ruleset is a specialized focus that gets you better at boxing. But I don't tell myself that it's the best way to train for self defense and that mma guys are unrealistic because of all the broken glass and needles on the streetz. 


RTKDCMB said:


> That is just your opinion.


I largely agree with him too, so it's not just his opinion. I also get the impression that many others also think the same here. The mma all ranges aspect of sparring is the most realistic way to train to handle an aggressive attacker. Now as k man said you can at with the mma format and do it with multiple opponents, or short duration or any specific objective. You can also spar with an mma format and still to compliant drills too and flow or sensitivity drills. The point is a basic ability to handle yourself while fighting in all ranges is crucial to self defense ability.


----------



## K-man (Feb 26, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Don't give up! Present your evidence and present it again, sometimes the same information presented in a new context makes sense. Although it can be frustrating when you're dealing with hard heads like me. For me a video of a guy using TMA to hold his own against an mma guy is evidence enough. I value TMA I just think that mma sparring, which in this case just means nhb sparring in all ranges is the best way to test an art for reality. For example, I box, I spar with a boxing ruleset. The boxing ruleset is a specialized focus that gets you better at boxing. But I don't tell myself that it's the best way to train for self defense and that mma guys are unrealistic because of all the broken glass and needles on the streetz.


I don't need to provide evidence. There is no evidence. There is only opinion. One of my training partners is a BJJ blackbelt and highly ranked in several other styles. Three of my Krav guys are ex MMA. One of my Krav guys is ex BJJ. Years ago I used to box. I know how my training stacks up but I'm not making any claims of being better than others, or bagging other styles, and I try to make my training as realistic as possible. 

Now you think that MMA sparring is the best way. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think there are other ways that are equally effective if not more so. That is my opinion and the opinion of others. When you have systems that are not suited to competition and where those practitioners don't compete it is illogical to claim that as a result they are not up to the quality or ability of MMA guys. There is no point in banging on about which is better because we are never going to agree.  

To be honest, I don't see anything that interests me in MMA. Each to their own, but I have no doubt as to the effectiveness of a person trained in MMA to defend them self in a street situation. What I do like is some of what I see in BJJ, and I am not too proud to take bits from anywhere to add to my training. Even so, I am not training to stay on the ground. 

But we are still coming from two diametrically opposed positions. At 66 I am not interested in competing. I finished with that years ago. Telling me that unless I try out what I teach in the ring my training sucks is certainly less than endearing. The training I provide is not for athletes training to compete against other highly trained fighters at the peak of their ability. I am teaching average girls and guys from the community how to defend themselves in the unlikely situation that they need to physically defend themselves. I do not teach with a set of rules. I teach what is allowable within the law.

What some MMA guys here fail to acknowledge is that many martial artists are not vaguely interested in fighting competitively. That in no way means that they aren't effective in what they do.

As to providing videos of TMA guys holding there own with MMA guys, I'm not going to waste my time. Firstly, we can't even agree on what TMA is. Within my understanding of TMAs, I know of no TMA guys who would be vaguely interested in that scenario as most TMAs don't compete. I'm sure that you will find countless videos on Youtube to prove your point. Forgive me if I don't seem overly impressed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 26, 2015)

Yup...Same argument, only the names have changed...... seen this tired old, back and forth, MMA vs TMA argument so many times over the last 9 years... nothing new...same stuff...over and over again......and it is accomplishing the same exact thing it does every time.....nothing of any use....yup....I'm bored with it...moving on.....good luck storming the castle...or tilting at windmills....which ever you prefer

Xue out...peace


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 26, 2015)

Steve said:


> Would you care to share your thoughts?



I don't if I should really. Don't want to upset anybody with my ignorance. But for one, the following I cannot agree with. May have been just a generalization, but looks more of an assertion to me.

*To this day many folks consider MMA and Kickboxing style sparring to be an essential part of learning to use their art effectively.*


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 26, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> For me a video of a guy using TMA to hold his own against an mma guy is evidence enough.



For me the evidence of  TMA practitioners being good is one where they were attacked in the street and they have successfully defended themselves without getting seriously hurt. Fortunately in the art that I study there are ample examples of people doing just that.



Mephisto said:


> I value TMA I just think that mma sparring, which in this case just means nhb sparring in all ranges is the best way to test an art for reality. .



For the reality of what? For the reality of an MMA competition, you bet. When it comes to self defence there is only one way to be completely realistic and that is to get into real fights, everything else is a compromise. If you want to do full contact sparring you have to compromise by padding up or limiting your techniques to safer ones, so MMA sparring isn't really no holds barred. I have sen a lot of MMA fights on TV and there are plenty of things that are barred.Other arts approach realism in different ways but there are ALWAYS compromises.




Mephisto said:


> I largely agree with him too, so it's not just his opinion. I also get the impression that many others also think the same here.



An opinion is still just an opinion no matter how many people share it.



Mephisto said:


> The mma all ranges aspect of sparring is the most realistic way to train to handle an aggressive attacker.



Of course all ranges of self defence need to be trained but do you think that MMA sparring is the only way to address it? Again, other arts address it differently and they don't have any significant trouble handling aggressive attackers.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> I don't need to provide evidence. There is no evidence. There is only opinion. One of my training partners is a BJJ blackbelt and highly ranked in several other styles. Three of my Krav guys are ex MMA. One of my Krav guys is ex BJJ. Years ago I used to box. I know how my training stacks up but I'm not making any claims of being better than others, or bagging other styles, and I try to make my training as realistic as possible.
> 
> Now you think that MMA sparring is the best way. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think there are other ways that are equally effective if not more so. That is my opinion and the opinion of others. When you have systems that are not suited to competition and where those practitioners don't compete it is illogical to claim that as a result they are not up to the quality or ability of MMA guys. There is no point in banging on about which is better because we are never going to agree.
> 
> ...



This ^^^^^^^^...One thousand times....this.


----------



## Steve (Feb 26, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> I don't if I should really. Don't want to upset anybody with my ignorance. But for one, the following I cannot agree with. May have been just a generalization, but looks more of an assertion to me.
> 
> *To this day many folks consider MMA and Kickboxing style sparring to be an essential part of learning to use their art effectively.*


I think it's a fair statement, but it would be just as fair to say that many folks don't consider MMA and Kickboxing style sparring to be essential, as well.  Hard to quantify "many." 

Something to think about (maybe.)  We criticize people who have never sparred for denouncing sparring.  And we also tend to criticize people who have sparred (trained in other styles) and who denounce sparring.  Sort of a catch 22 for the TMA crowd. 

But on the other hand, more often than not, the folks who denounce sparring tend to fall back on their ample experience in styles that incorporate sparring.  Is it not possible that they are able to apply the techniques and principles within their current style in part because they have developed some tacit, intangible benefits from their previous training model?

Just to be clear, I don't expect to change anyone's opinions.  Just maybe food for thought.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 26, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> For me the evidence of  TMA practitioners being good is one where they were attacked in the street and they have successfully defended themselves without getting seriously hurt. Fortunately in the art that I study there are ample examples of people doing just that."
> Yes but you can't regularly get into streets fights to test yourself. Id say if you're regularly getting into street you're probably an unsavory character. I agree you'll never get 100 real, that's not attainable for regular training. You've got to do the best you can.
> 
> 
> ...


No I don't think mma sparring is the only way. It's just part of the equation, along with compliant training, reflex, and flow drills.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 26, 2015)

Steve said:


> I think it's a fair statement, but it would be just as fair to say that many folks don't consider MMA and Kickboxing style sparring to be essential, as well.  Hard to quantify "many."
> 
> Something to think about (maybe.)  We criticize people who have never sparred for denouncing sparring.  And we also tend to criticize people who have sparred (trained in other styles) and who denounce sparring.  Sort of a catch 22 for the TMA crowd.
> 
> ...



Makes sense. The Kickboxers I know and have trained with find sparring quite essential. However more from a workout perspective. I have always viewed sparring as something that is a natural extension of training, and admittedly I don't always quite understand how someone could not like sparring. As I said that would be down my own ignorance as apposed to knowledge of any TMA.



Steve said:


> But on the other hand, more often than not, the folks who denounce sparring tend to fall back on their ample experience in styles that incorporate sparring. Is it not possible that they are able to apply the techniques and principles within their current style in part because they have developed some tacit, intangible benefits from their previous training model?



I would say so. Perhaps much cross training or just learning another style, would benefit. Then again, perhaps a detrimental affect may get highlighted. Modifying an action can be just mental, but can also be physical. The medium between the two though can blur. Perhaps not a great deal, but enough to leave an opening if one solely relies on technique. If I have read you correctly here, that's how I see it anyway.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 26, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> No I don't think mma sparring is the only way. It's just part of the equation, along with compliant training, reflex, and flow drills.


And TMA's have different sparring, along with compliant training, reflex, and flow drills.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 26, 2015)

Getting back to the original link ...

Mr. Sterling (or Mr. Clear, if that's him writing under a psuedonym) is indeed bashing MMA in order to promote his own system. I don't have a problem with that. MMA started out as a way for certain individuals to promote their own art at the expense of others, and there was a lot of style bashing along the way. Goose, gander, yadda, yadda.

He's quite right that there are "unrealistic" elements to MMA that place limitations on the conclusions you can draw and benefits you can gain from that form of training. (The lack of weapons and multiple opponents are just two of many such elements.)

The part he doesn't acknowledge is that every single form of training possible, including his own, has unrealistic elements and important limitations. That doesn't mean you can't learn from them or gain benefits from them. It just means that you have to keep an open mind and figure out which lessons apply to the situation you are training for. MMA has plenty of useful lessons for a martial artist (of whatever style) training for street self-defense. It also has plenty of lessons which are not so applicable for that context. You have to be able to figure out which is which.

If you want to see MMA with weapons, watch footage from a Dog Brothers gathering. If you want to see MMA with multiple opponents, watch some of the promotions coming out of Russia lately.

As others have noted, the bits shown in Mr. Clear's promo video are not what I would call pressure testing by any stretch of imagination. The may have some value in their appropriate place, but they are not pressure testing.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 26, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The part he doesn't acknowledge is that every single form of training possible, including his own, has unrealistic elements and important limitations. That doesn't mean you can't learn from them or gain benefits from them. It just means that you have to keep an open mind and figure out which lessons apply to the situation you are training for. *MMA has plenty of useful lessons for a martial artist (of whatever style) training for street self-defense. It also has plenty of lessons which are not so applicable for that context. You have to be able to figure out which is which*.



Is this more or less the same situation with a TMA as apposed to MMA? IE the skills as it were are more numerous in MMA because of what it is. Figuring out which must be quite difficult from whatever background. Be that a TMA or MMA.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 26, 2015)

As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as MMA sparring orTMA sparring or whatever. As far as martial art training goes sparring is sparring. We are punching, kicking, throwning, taking down, ground fighting or attempting to get off the ground. The focus with in may be different but the tactics are the same. There can be restrictions as to some specifics for a certain focus but if I am being truthful to pressure testing then it is going to be vs anything.
Back in the early 70's while in the military several of us would get to get together and spar. We had people from all walks of martial arts training and we sparred striking, throws, takedowns, ground, weapons and just about everything we could come up with. Was that MMA sparring? No. It was sparring to learn what worked best for the individual in whatever environment we could. Sandy beach area, water, rocky terrain, wet grass, mud, etc. 
You are arguing over a name. Sparring is sparring. What is your focus? Spar it and spar it against as many different people you can. If you are not concerned about being taken down; cool, just training striking. But if you are training for SD or cage competition you are fooling yourself if you don't. If your are training just cage fighting an think you are training for SD and don't train to get away or vs weapons again you are fooling yourself.
There is not much out there that is more truthful than getting hit, kicked, taken down, controlled on the ground, being shot or stabbed multiple times.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 26, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Is this more or less the same situation with a TMA as apposed to MMA? IE the skills as it were are more numerous in MMA because of what it is. Figuring out which must be quite difficult from whatever background. Be that a TMA or MMA.


Yeah, almost every form of training has some sort of potential benefit (and potential pitfalls). The trick is in a) understanding the context you are preparing for and b) letting go of the ego attachment to whatever art or style of training you are already invested in.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 26, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, almost every form of training has some sort of potential benefit (and potential pitfalls). The trick is in a) understanding the context you are preparing for and b) letting go of the ego attachment to whatever art or style of training you are already invested in.



Yes of course the ego. Which I would venture that we all have issues with at some point or another.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 26, 2015)

Danny T said:


> As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as MMA sparring orTMA sparring or whatever. As far as martial art training goes sparring is sparring. We are punching, kicking, throwning, taking down, ground fighting or attempting to get off the ground. The focus with in may be different but the tactics are the same. There can be restrictions as to some specifics for a certain focus but if I am being truthful to pressure testing then it is going to be vs anything.
> Back in the early 70's while in the military several of us would get to get together and spar. We had people from all walks of martial arts training and we sparred striking, throws, takedowns, ground, weapons and just about everything we could come up with. Was that MMA sparring? No. It was sparring to learn what worked best for the individual in whatever environment we could. Sandy beach area, water, rocky terrain, wet grass, mud, etc.
> You are arguing over a name. Sparring is sparring. What is your focus? Spar it and spar it against as many different people you can. If you are not concerned about being taken down; cool, just training striking. But if you are training for SD or cage competition you are fooling yourself if you don't. If your are training just cage fighting an think you are training for SD and don't train to get away or vs weapons again you are fooling yourself.
> There is not much out there that is more truthful than getting hit, kicked, taken down, controlled on the ground, being shot or stabbed multiple times.



Who is arguing over a name?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

Danny T said:


> As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as MMA sparring orTMA sparring or whatever. As far as martial art training goes sparring is sparring. We are punching, kicking, throwning, taking down, ground fighting or attempting to get off the ground. The focus with in may be different but the tactics are the same. There can be restrictions as to some specifics for a certain focus but if I am being truthful to pressure testing then it is going to be vs anything.
> Back in the early 70's while in the military several of us would get to get together and spar. We had people from all walks of martial arts training and we sparred striking, throws, takedowns, ground, weapons and just about everything we could come up with. Was that MMA sparring? No. It was sparring to learn what worked best for the individual in whatever environment we could. Sandy beach area, water, rocky terrain, wet grass, mud, etc.
> You are arguing over a name. Sparring is sparring. What is your focus? Spar it and spar it against as many different people you can. If you are not concerned about being taken down; cool, just training striking. But if you are training for SD or cage competition you are fooling yourself if you don't. If your are training just cage fighting an think you are training for SD and don't train to get away or vs weapons again you are fooling yourself.
> There is not much out there that is more truthful than getting hit, kicked, taken down, controlled on the ground, being shot or stabbed multiple times.



Good post.

And yeah it is not so much a mma sparring vs tma sparring thing except in some details.

It is sparring vs that sort of thing we see in that original video.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 26, 2015)

*I think we can all agree* that whether it is TMA, MMA or some thing else not ever person is going to want to train the way we train.  There are different approaches that can get a person to the same goal that they are trying to achieve.  There may be core fundamentals that are practiced but there can certainly be large variety in training methods.  We can easily look at any athletic endeavor and see this to be true.  Certain fundamentals are taught but then athletes and trainers take their training in various different directions some with fantastic results and some with not so much.  Wouldn't it make sense that it is similar in the Martial Sciences? 

*Where we get to the problem is when one side thinks they have the ultimate answer for everyone's goals.*  Personally with what I do it is designed for personal protection and yet the methods have allowed practitioner's to enter the mat, ring, cage and win in kickboxing, submission grappling and mma with one even becoming an amature mma champion several times.  Yet, because of my age I will never get into the cage (no org would let me) nor because I have always sparred do I need to spar as much as when I was younger. (though of course I still do regularly)  People have different goals and needs.  I train now for the one or two times left in my life when I may face physical violence.  I no longer work in a field that requires me to put my hands on people everyday.  So my overall goals are different than say when I was in my twenties.  K-man's goals are different than Drop Bears which are still different than Tony Dismukes.  We all have similar things we work on but differences and we are all better because of it!  I enjoy hearing everyone's opinion here about their training.  *We can disagree on things and also agree on other things!*

*Embrace diversity folks!*


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> I don't need to provide evidence. There is no evidence. There is only opinion. One of my training partners is a BJJ blackbelt and highly ranked in several other styles. Three of my Krav guys are ex MMA. One of my Krav guys is ex BJJ. Years ago I used to box. I know how my training stacks up but I'm not making any claims of being better than others, or bagging other styles, and I try to make my training as realistic as possible.
> 
> Now you think that MMA sparring is the best way. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I think there are other ways that are equally effective if not more so. That is my opinion and the opinion of others. When you have systems that are not suited to competition and where those practitioners don't compete it is illogical to claim that as a result they are not up to the quality or ability of MMA guys. There is no point in banging on about which is better because we are never going to agree.
> 
> ...



And that is the difference. If i asked you to show me your method works. You cant. And don't feel you have to.

And why I train with people who can apply the method they endorse. So when they say method a will take you down and prevent you getting up. They can actually do that. If the guy is sixty five and is fifty kilos soaking wet. Then sure that is taken into account.

 You just say I may not be able to get this on due to the other guy out muscling me. 

here it is not about sport or non sport. Its about pressure testing and evidence based.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Is this more or less the same situation with a TMA as apposed to MMA? IE the skills as it were are more numerous in MMA because of what it is. Figuring out which must be quite difficult from whatever background. Be that a TMA or MMA.



It is about layers. If the other guy can defend you need to get more complex in attack. Or more game specific the attack. Which puts you at more risk. Because the more complex the attack generally the lower percentage the attack is.


----------



## K-man (Feb 26, 2015)

drop bear said:


> And that is the difference. If i asked you to show me your method works. You cant. And don't feel you have to.
> 
> And why I train with people who can apply the method they endorse. So when they say method a will take you down and prevent you getting up. They can actually do that. If the guy is sixty five and is fifty kilos soaking wet. Then sure that is taken into account.
> 
> ...


And the irony is you can't prove your system works either. This is the internet and you can pull up any video you like but it is never going to prove what you can do.

I train with the same type of people you do. I train with some of Australia's top martial artists but because I don't fight in the ring my system can't be any good. That doesn't pass the logic test.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> And the irony is you can't prove your system works either. This is the internet and you can pull up any video you like but it is never going to prove what you can do.
> 
> I train with the same type of people you do. I train with some of Australia's top martial artists but because I don't fight in the ring my system can't be any good. That doesn't pass the logic test.




Which top martial artists? 

what I can do doesn't matter. I don't teach because there are guys with real verifiable ability who do. That is my point. 

What I can do doesn't reflect on the validity of the system I do. That would be like me holding you to account for every student you had.

 I  prefer to train with guys who do have a proven track record. And who i can see make their theories work.

And in the  the internet where i can pull up any video i want. We cant find a video that supports your methods.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> because I don't fight in the ring my system can't be any good. That doesn't pass the logic test



No It is because you don't fight under any conditions. It doesn't have to just be in the ring.


----------



## Tames D (Feb 26, 2015)

K-man said:


> Some of us have been trying for a long time to show what we think is as good. Unfortunately some people have no intention of accepting there is an alternative, so I, for one, have given up trying to change the opinion of those who who will not accept that anything else could possible be as good as MMA.


Why is this so important to you? Why does it matter that others don't agree with you? And frankly, I really don't think you have given up trying to change others opinions.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 27, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No It is because you don't fight under any conditions. It doesn't have to just be in the ring.



Well in my personal viewpoint, conditions outside of a ring are pretty unconditional don't you think


----------



## Hanzou (Feb 27, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Well in my personal viewpoint, conditions outside of a ring are pretty unconditional don't you think



Sometimes martial artists that purport to teach self defense outside the ring fail completely at that purpose.

The author of this article is one such example.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 27, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Well in my personal viewpoint, conditions outside of a ring are pretty unconditional don't you think



Absolutely but you can still pressure test a street system. Either by sparring in some manner or by fighting people. Otherwise without some sort of grounding you confuse what should be with what is.

Confirmation bias i think is the term.


----------



## Marnetmar (Feb 27, 2015)

I think the whole "my art's deadly techniques aren't allowed in the ring" argument is a bit silly. I don't think I've ever heard of a martial art that _doesn't_, without rules, eventually make use of techniques like, say, eye gouges, one way or another whether it's commonly used inside or outside of the ring except for maybe straight boxing.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 27, 2015)

Fouls happen in the ring all the time. But following the logic of many "street" advocates they shouldn't happen because they're not allowed. If a fighter can foul in the ring he can foul outside the ring. Additionally many competitors know how to play dirty and push the rules and hide fouls from the ref or disguise them. The notion that they won't play dirty outside the ring is ludicrous. But I think it is good to take some street oriented and rbsd specific classes to keep your self defense options open, even for a sport practitioner. The difference though is a lot of self defense involved simple dirty tactics that can be learned in a short amount of time, especially if you're already trained. On the other hand if you're a "street" martial artist you've got the dirty tricks but you can't develope the ability to strike or grapple like a competitor in nearly as quick a time as the competitor can learn your tricks (assuming you don't spar or train those skills specifically already).


----------



## drop bear (Feb 27, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> I think the whole "my art's deadly techniques aren't allowed in the ring" argument is a bit silly. I don't think I've ever heard of a martial art that _doesn't_, without rules, eventually make use of techniques like, say, eye gouges, one way or another whether it's commonly used inside or outside of the ring except for maybe straight boxing.



I also don't think many people would beat maywhether in a straight eyegouge off. Even if he had done no eyegouge training.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 27, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Fouls happen in the ring all the time. But following the logic of many "street" advocates they shouldn't happen because they're not allowed. If a fighter can foul in the ring he can foul outside the ring. Additionally many competitors know how to play dirty and push the rules and hide fouls from the ref or disguise them. The notion that they won't play dirty outside the ring is ludicrous. But I think it is good to take some street oriented and rbsd specific classes to keep your self defense options open, even for a sport practitioner. The difference though is a lot of self defense involved simple dirty tactics that can be learned in a short amount of time, especially if you're already trained. On the other hand if you're a "street" martial artist you've got the dirty tricks but you can't develope the ability to strike or grapple like a competitor in nearly as quick a time as the competitor can learn your tricks (assuming you don't spar or train those skills specifically already).



Yeah. (he says tentatively) you want more of a tactical change. And that can be specific to the outcomes you are trying to achieve. Honestly trading a legitimate technique for a foul is a minor difference. 

It is where you create opportunities for yourself and deny his that become the advantage.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 27, 2015)

Does anyone else here find it ironic that the OP is complaining about "MMA bashing", yet many of the replies in this thread (and many others) are bashing more traditional martial arts? IE; "they don't train like us, and don't fight in a ring like us, therefore their art is not as good". I find this slightly amusing. LOL.

Mike


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 27, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> I think the whole "my art's deadly techniques aren't allowed in the ring" argument is a bit silly.


Most of the time when that argument is made it is made by a ring sport/combat art person about the 'too deadly' art.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 27, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Does anyone else here find it ironic that the OP is complaining about "MMA bashing", yet many of the replies in this thread (and many others) are bashing more traditional martial arts? IE; "they don't train like us, and don't fight in a ring like us, therefore their art is not as good". I find this slightly amusing. LOL.
> 
> Mike



Ironic perhaps, but here it would be normal from my own personal viewpoint.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 27, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Does anyone else here find it ironic that the OP is complaining about "MMA bashing", yet many of the replies in this thread (and many others) are bashing more traditional martial arts? IE; "they don't train like us, and don't fight in a ring like us, therefore their art is not as good". I find this slightly amusing. LOL.
> 
> Mike



Yeah, it was me complaining about this guy in the blog complaining. It's kind of funny but obviously it's made a fairly interesting discussion topic. For the record, I'm only referring to TMA guys like the one in the blog that view mma as ineffective for the street or in the words of the blogger "horrible for pressure testing". If you are willing to admit that mma is one valid approach to self defense your in the same boat as me. Some believe that mma is terrible for self defense and that they are better off without sparring, these guys actually believe compliant drills are superior for learning self defense. there are many TMA guys who like mma and see its value as a training approach, I'm not lumping all TMA together here.


----------



## Steve (Feb 27, 2015)

Tames D said:


> Why is this so important to you? Why does it matter that others don't agree with you? And frankly, I really don't think you have given up trying to change others opinions.


Totally agree.  I tried to make this point earlier.  It's ABSOLUTELY okay for people to have different opinions.  And there's nothing wrong with trying to influence someone's opinions or bring someone around to your way of thinking.  Often, though, that is a sure path to frustration.  And typically, changing one's opinion is something for everyone else to do.  People advocating that other people change their opinions are very unlikely EVER to budge from their own position.   It's human nature.   



Hanzou said:


> Sometimes martial artists that purport to teach self defense outside the ring fail completely at that purpose.
> 
> The author of this article is one such example.


Absolutely.  This just appears to be another person with little actual experience in something claiming to be an expert. 



drop bear said:


> Absolutely but you can still pressure test a street system. Either by sparring in some manner or by fighting people. Otherwise without some sort of grounding you confuse what should be with what is.
> 
> Confirmation bias i think is the term.


If the instructor is a real expert, then he/she should be able to bring a student to the point where they can independently demonstrate proficiency.  In other words, the teacher should be an expert.  But at some point, as a student, I need to stand on my own and demonstrate proficiency independent of my instructor.  It's perfectly valid to say, "This system is legimate and useful because my instructor can demonstrate that it works."  This is not, however, the same as saying, "I can make this sytem work."  And unless you have established yourself as an expert, independent of your instructor, you shouldn't (IMO) consider teaching the system.  That's trouble.   



Spinedoc said:


> Does anyone else here find it ironic that the OP is complaining about "MMA bashing", yet many of the replies in this thread (and many others) are bashing more traditional martial arts? IE; "they don't train like us, and don't fight in a ring like us, therefore their art is not as good". I find this slightly amusing. LOL.
> 
> Mike


I chuckle every time I open the thread.   But, it's kind of a circular thing.  I mean, even the statement, "Another example of a TMA guy bashing MMA," is perceived by some as bashing TMA. 



Mephisto said:


> Yeah, it was me complaining about this guy in the blog complaining. It's kind of funny but obviously it's made a fairly interesting discussion topic. For the record, I'm only referring to TMA guys like the one in the blog that view mma as ineffective for the street or in the words of the blogger "horrible for pressure testing". If you are willing to admit that mma is one valid approach to self defense your in the same boat as me. Some believe that mma is terrible for self defense and that they are better off without sparring, these guys actually believe compliant drills are superior for learning self defense. there are many TMA guys who like mma and see its value as a training approach, I'm not lumping all TMA together here.


This is an extremely important distinction.  Some MMA guys are complete a-holes.  Some BJJ guys, some TKD guys and so on and so on.  We shouldn't feel compelled to own the a-holes within our own systems.  And the term TMA is so broad and poorly defined that it's pointless for anyone to take umbrage at its use.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 27, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Does anyone else here find it ironic that the OP is complaining about "MMA bashing", yet many of the replies in this thread (and many others) are bashing more traditional martial arts? IE; "they don't train like us, and don't fight in a ring like us, therefore their art is not as good". I find this slightly amusing. LOL.
> 
> Mike


|
All this bashing talk comes across to me as wanting to sound important to the world by posting opinionated text on a forum board.
|
I feel MMA makes a great laboratory to test one's anyone's martial arts concepts & skills in a condoned, full contact environment.
|
In the shoes of an MMA competitor, you are facing a guy who is determined to punch or maybe kick you into UN-fightable condition,
GNP you to same, or choke or lock your body into non-usable form.  To me, there's a physical confrontation that's definitely one of 'pressure testing.'
|
As a traditional karateka, the style vs. style debate makes MMA particularly interesting.  Prime examples of karate-based fighters are two well-known UFC competitors, Lyoto Machida & "Wonderboy" Thompson."
|
A favorite bout of mine there, was the Thompson vs. Brown UFC fight, where Wonderboy lost.  My concern, from viewing Wonderboy's pre-fight open workout vid, was that his sport-based exhibition wouldn't be strong enough to handle Brown's "in-your-face" aggression.
Results proved my fears.  As a karateka, was rooting for Wonderboy all the way; Brown got the deserved win.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 28, 2015)

_"i dont belive in styles anymore,,unless human being have three arms and four legs, we will have a different form or fighting. but basically we only have two hands and two feet. so styles not only begin to separate man, because they have their own doctrines and the doctrine became the gospel truth"
*Bruce Lee
*_
for myself i have made this my own belief. i dont belive in styles.  when i read or hear conversation like this thread i often think of two little boys arguing over who's daddy can beat up the others daddy.
every art form has its own end result purpose as a guiding factor in its training.  MMA wants to win in the octagon. RBS looks at street defense.  TMA varies but also has its own image of what it is aiming for as an end result.  each art and practice has its own unique tool box. some of these tools over lap and some are unique to that tool box.  what i see, is people arguing over both tool sets in an attempt to validate their own beliefs.  
all systems or tool boxes include a basic punch.  if that punch is truly valid then it should be valid under any circumstance and any venue.  the same punch will work on the street and in the octagon, with weapons or without or one adversary or multiple opponents. if a basic punch does not work in any one venue then it probably will not work in any.
any true comparison should always be apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  it is futile to compare eye gouges to double leg take downs and a sticky hands drill to a rubber guard.  this is like rock, paper, scissors. anyone can beat anyone on any given day.  the argument that MMA doesnt allow eye gouges is quite frankly a dumb premise and so is the idea that a TMA guy wouldnt stand a chance in the octagon. both statements are at the same time true and false on any given day.
The underlying problem is that each person has their own internal vision of what reality is "their systems doctrine has become their truth".  when one persons vision of reality clashes with what another person holds as their reality there is a conflict that each person has the need to "defend" and protect their reality that they have created and invested so much time and energy into. people need to defend their own "truth" for fear that if there is one small crack in that belief than maybe, possibly there is flaw in the entire "truth".
this causes conflict here in the forums and in the world as a whole.  Christians and Muslims are indeed guilty of this.   

the quote of "never talk about religion or politics in polite company" should probably add martial arts to the list.
.
_*
*_


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 28, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> _"i dont belive in styles anymore,,unless human being have three arms and four legs, we will have a different form or fighting. but basically we only have two hands and two feet. so styles not only begin to separate man, because they have their own doctrines and the doctrine became the gospel truth"
> *Bruce Lee
> *_
> for myself i have made this my own belief. i dont belive in styles.  when i read or hear conversation like this thread i often think of two little boys arguing over who's daddy can beat up the others daddy.
> ...




That is actually quite understandable and you pose good points. Especially the latter.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 28, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> That is actually quite understandable and you pose good points. Especially the latter.




Yep, to me, the argument about MMA vs TMA vs ?? is akin to two highly trained tennis players executing perfect shots from opposite ends of two completely separate tennis courts.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 28, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Yep, to me, the argument about MMA vs TMA vs ?? is akin to two highly trained tennis players executing perfect shots from opposite ends of two completely separate tennis courts.



Shout out to Tim Minchin for that analogy….brilliant Aussie that man is.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 28, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Yep, to me, the argument about MMA vs TMA vs ?? is akin to two highly trained tennis players executing perfect shots from opposite ends of two completely separate tennis courts.



Yeah but that would be a sniper shot!


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> for myself i have made this my own belief. i dont belive in styles.  when i read or hear conversation like this thread i often think of two little boys arguing over who's daddy can beat up the others daddy.
> every art form has its own end result purpose as a guiding factor in its training.  MMA wants to win in the octagon. RBS looks at street defense.  TMA varies but also has its own image of what it is aiming for as an end result.  each art and practice has its own unique tool box. some of these tools over lap and some are unique to that tool box.  what i see, is people arguing over both tool sets in an attempt to validate their own beliefs.
> all systems or tool boxes include a basic punch.  if that punch is truly valid then it should be valid under any circumstance and any venue.  the same punch will work on the street and in the octagon, with weapons or without or one adversary or multiple opponents. if a basic punch does not work in any one venue then it probably will not work in any.


|
First all, I hate it when martial artists constantly quote Bruce Lee, who now in the MMA world has been replaced by ugh, Greg Jackson.  We have the same thing, particular in my style of traditional karate with all sorts of instructors denoting themselves not just Masters, but Grand Masters, some even akin to the Supreme Grand Master.  If Bruce Lee represented any ideal, it was INDIVIDUAL expression of marital art concepts.
|
Second, Bruce Lee was famous for his ongoing criticisms of traditional karates such a I practice.  He referred to the traditional karate's as the "classical mess."  Bruce Less then went on to demonstrate the superiority of his approach over the traditional karates, boxing, etc. in his demonstrations & most clearly in his films.  So then you write that style doesn't matter after you quote Bruce Lee???
|
Again, I realize this is a discussion forum, but consistency in thought is important.... if you want to get your point across to instructor-level members.  Replace "arguing" with "evaluation" and your post will then be a solid jumping off point for your views.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Yep, to me, the argument about MMA vs TMA vs ?? is akin to two highly trained tennis players executing perfect shots from opposite ends of two completely separate tennis courts.


|
Right, that is exactly how people come to the conclusions that Hoshin1600 complained about in the post you quoted.  Analogies like yours make for clever cocktail talk are only vague rhetoric.  This is exactly the significance of the legacy of Gichin Funakoshi who designed an exacting curriculum and a highly detailed syllabus on training traditional karate arts.
|
Even Greg Jackson, who I'm not fond of, is known for his detailed compendium of MMA techniques taken from different fighting styles, and his analytical decision-tree work, competitor specific.
|
The suggestion that somehow MMA & TMA are in some kind of separate, exclusive environment is ridiculous.  The fact that one is a sport and one is a mental discipline doesn't mean an MMA competitor can't overcome a karateka in the Octagon, or vice versa.  Physical conflict is the union.


----------



## Spinedoc (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Right, that is exactly how people come to the conclusions that Hoshin1600 complained about in the post you quoted.  Analogies like yours make for clever cocktail talk are only vague rhetoric.  This is exactly the significance of the legacy of Gichin Funakoshi who designed an exacting curriculum and a highly detailed syllabus on training traditional karate arts.
> |
> Even Greg Jackson, who I'm not fond of, is known for his detailed compendium of MMA techniques taken from different fighting styles, and his analytical decision-tree work, competitor specific.
> ...



That was exactly the point of my metaphorical example. Which you missed.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

THE MACHIDA LEGACY:
|
The last 2 posters I quoted get A+ for presenting discussions arguments.  Great for stirring the pot so to speak.  How about this to focus the issue....
|
When Machida came into the MMA arena & confounded so many competitors (& their MMA trainers), we didn't observe Machida doing so by  tactically punching basically the same as those he defeated.  To the serious MMA observer / trainer, the question is why is Machida prevailing?  Particularly when the traditonal karate base is in the definite minority of competitors and even rarer when you look at the MMA training schools such as the much lauded Greg Jackson / Mike Winkeljohn & Co.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> That was exactly the point of my metaphorical example. Which you missed.


|
No you missed.  Since karate & MMA come together in the Octagon, the tennis court is then the same.
|
The cleverness is in the eye of the beholder.  The competence rests in the curriculum, where I gave Gichin Funakosi for karate and Greg Jackson for MMA.  Are the underlying principles the same, different, share commonalites, exclusive, one or some more or less developed than another and in what way.
|
Again your metaphor a great jumping off point.... nodded to by many no doubt.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

UFC 60: MATT HUGHES VS. ROYCE GRACIE.
|
I'm not a personal fan of the MMA approach, just like I personally don't practice Shotokan karate.  However, the larger view is that I do study Shotokan and I really thought this match was a fascinating case study for MMA.
|
Again, Royce Gracie was another 'guru,' the champion of the BJJ revolution.  BJJ was the "it" style for MMA.  Practically unbeatable, with all pointing to the great success of Royce Gracie who all the TMA strikers wilted in front of ...... YEAH.
|
What a I loved about this bout, was that MH, a MMA boxer / wrestler, basically sailed right through RG's defense (if you can call it that) and flattened him like a pancake with GNP wrestling, finishing RC with yes, a submission!  So much for big name gurus....
|
I'm not interested in tennis courts, but in what tools & techniques, conditioning, etc, Hughes used to make mincemeat of the 'invincible' Gracie.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Feb 28, 2015)

BASH MMA NO WAY!
|
I'm convinced TMA is better than MMA in theory.  That's my view.  Bash MMA, heck no!  these MMA competitors train a valid method of fighting and many are highly dedicated, such as Matt Hughes--prime example.  The Gracie's popularized BJJ, which brought a greater functionality & application, certainly in some respects, than did say certain interpretations of the Japanese grappling arts.  Certainly BJJ has become more widely accepted in the sporting world of MMA.
|
Again, the take on bashing appeals to an audience, it goes flat with me.  My concern with MMA is safety, not it's validity as a sporting style or a fighting / self defense style.


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Right, that is exactly how people come to the conclusions that Hoshin1600 complained about in the post you quoted.  Analogies like yours make for clever cocktail talk are only vague rhetoric.  This is exactly the significance of the legacy of Gichin Funakoshi who designed an exacting curriculum and a highly detailed syllabus on training traditional karate arts.
> |
> Even Greg Jackson, who I'm not fond of, is known for his detailed compendium of MMA techniques taken from different fighting styles, and his analytical decision-tree work, competitor specific.
> ...


What's your deal with Greg Jackson?  Did he in some way personally insult you?  You bring him up negatively in just about every post you write, whether it makes sense or not.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> Bruce Less then went on to demonstrate the superiority of his approach over the traditional karates, boxing, etc. in his demonstrations & most clearly in his films. So then you write that style doesn't matter after you quote Bruce Lee???



I am not sure he ever actually did that.


----------



## Tames D (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> First all, I hate it when martial artists constantly quote Bruce Lee, who now in the MMA world has been replaced by ugh, Greg Jackson.  We have the same thing, particular in my style of traditional karate with all sorts of instructors denoting themselves not just Masters, but Grand Masters, some even akin to the Supreme Grand Master.  If Bruce Lee represented any ideal, it was INDIVIDUAL expression of marital art concepts.
> |
> Second, Bruce Lee was famous for his ongoing criticisms of traditional karates such a I practice.  He referred to the traditional karate's as the "classical mess."  Bruce Less then went on to demonstrate the superiority of his approach over the traditional karates, boxing, etc. in his demonstrations & most clearly in his films.  So then you write that style doesn't matter after you quote Bruce Lee???
> ...


So, if I'm reading you right, you don't like Bruce Lee quotes because he disagreed with what you believe in? Your feelings get hurt pretty easily. Suck it up and move on.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> When Machida came into the MMA arena & confounded so many competitors (& their MMA trainers), we didn't observe Machida doing so by tactically punching basically the same as those he defeated. To the serious MMA observer / trainer, the question is why is Machida prevailing? Particularly when the traditonal karate base is in the definite minority of competitors and even rarer when you look at the MMA training schools such as the much lauded Greg Jackson / Mike Winkeljohn & Co.



I imagine machida used the same methods of pressure testing that everybody else does.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 28, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> All this bashing talk comes across to me as wanting to sound important to the world by posting opinionated text on a forum board.
> |
> I feel MMA makes a great laboratory to test one's anyone's martial arts concepts & skills in a condoned, full contact environment.
> ...



Since i have no clue what Shotonoob is ranting about, i would like to say that i agree with his post as quoted.  MMA is a good testing ground for ones own ability.  so i think we agree ...not sure what the ranting is about ,,
Shotonoob hates when people talk about Bruce Lee ....well other than Machida and Matt Hughes and Gracie i have no clue who he is talking about since i dont watch UFC or any TV for that matter.   some people like myself quote Bruce because he is a known figure in my generation... and the quote sums up my own personal feelings and that was the intent of my post..it was not a response to Shotonoob or anyone else ..  if you dont like Bruce so be it ..doesnt bother me one bit..so moving on......


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 1, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Right, that is exactly how people come to the conclusions that Hoshin1600 complained about in the post you quoted.  Analogies like yours make for clever cocktail talk are only vague rhetoric.  This is exactly the significance of the legacy of Gichin Funakoshi who designed an exacting curriculum and a highly detailed syllabus on training traditional karate arts.
> |
> Even Greg Jackson, who I'm not fond of, is known for his detailed compendium of MMA techniques taken from different fighting styles, and his analytical decision-tree work, competitor specific.
> ...





um....again no clue here.  some rant about me complaining...my only complaint is that i would rather see informative and usefull posts rather than emotional rants.





ShotoNoob said:


> First all, I hate it when martial artists constantly quote Bruce Lee, who now in the MMA world has been replaced by ugh, Greg Jackson.


what does this mean?  Bruce was an actor and MA ..i dont know who Greg Jackson is, but how he replaced Bruce i cant make sense of.



ShotoNoob said:


> If Bruce Lee represented any ideal, it was INDIVIDUAL expression of marital art concepts.


  agreed , that was the part of my point



ShotoNoob said:


> Second, Bruce Lee was famous for his ongoing criticisms of traditional karates such a I practice. He referred to the traditional karate's as the "classical mess." Bruce Less then went on to demonstrate the superiority of his approach over the traditional karates, boxing, etc. in his demonstrations & most clearly in his films. So then you write that style doesn't matter after you quote Bruce Lee???


 first Bruce was critical of  his own practice in Chinese martial arts " the classical Mess"  i am not aware of him bashing other arts.  your comment on Individual expression made me think you understood his concepts then... this points to  the fact you have no clue what he was about.
Me personaly ,i hate when people comment on Bruce Lee when they dont understand what they are commenting about.



ShotoNoob said:


> The suggestion that somehow MMA & TMA are in some kind of separate, exclusive environment is ridiculous.


  maybe this was made in response to another poster but ,yeah i agree that was what i was saying. i said if a punch is valid it will work in any venue.



ShotoNoob said:


> I'm not interested in tennis courts, but in what tools & techniques, conditioning, etc, Hughes used to make mincemeat of the 'invincible' Gracie.


 ok i agree ,  however the real answer is that Gracie is not invincible he has lost many times.  Hughes was much younger and in great shape. Gracie is older and not in as good of shape and everyone is well aware of what a ground game is now. it is no longer an unknown factor.  BJJ is constantly evolving and getting better.  while im sure it brought in the ticket sales who in their right mind would think Gracie could beat Hughes?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 1, 2015)

i would like to remind people that this was the original topic





and i think most of us agree that this guy looks like a complete fool and he is the one bashing MMA in an attempt to validate his own training.
this was the point of my first post. that people have their own version of reality and this guy certainly has his own.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 1, 2015)

one thing i dont think i have read in this thread is, exactly what is a pressure test?  for me the test is not about trying my punch against anothers or which works better, a stand up style or a ground fighting style.  rather its about the will to fight within the individual.  Sam sheridan's book "a fighter's heart" does a good job at exploring this.  my pressure test would be to question my heart and will to fight. every person is hard wired to experience the _fight or flight  _brain wave pattern during a high stress situation.  we may start with a strong will to fight but there is a point where with enough pain or fear that _fight_ response in the brain will turn to _flight_.  this for me is the pressure test. how much stress pressure can i take before my will to fight leaves and becomes a flight response.  for some that flight response is immediate. they wont even admit to themselves that they are actually afraid to attempt a test.  so they come up with cleaver ways to get around it.  for others that turning point is based on pain  tolerance and once the fear of more pain kicks in they turn to flight. but for some the will to fight remains and they have found that the will and drive to continue fighting leads them to victory.  the pressure test is  like a sliding scale an i want to know where i land on that scale.  the goal of course is to move to a point where fear will not cripple your performance.  
when i think about it this way the argument about eye gouging and rules is really irrelevant. because i am not pitting my style against another. it is not about comparisions.  its about my desire VS his desire and who will cave first.  the heart , will and desire to continue to fight even when injured, scared and in pain is part of the human experience and cannot be tossed aside as unimportant  because it is the direct connection between fighting in the ring, octagon, bar room or in your own home during a home invasion.  punches, kicks and techniques may be the vehicle for the expression of violence but the will to fight is the underlying current that carries and holds everything together.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 1, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to remind people that this was the original topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What set off the typical TMA vs MMA argument was the fact that we've seen this before. Whether we hear TMA stylists say that MMA "only works in the ring", or some other nonsense, its the same song and dance anytime articles like this pop up. There was a similar article that popped up in the Karate forums recently with a similar theme, and if I really felt like looking, I'm sure I could find more from just about every TMA style out there.

Sad thing is, this video doesn't surprise me. Whether its the laughable anti-grappling vids, sparring vids, or vids like this, they all come out looking the same. Its to the point now that if someone wanted to learn self defense, I simply couldn't recommend a TMA school in good conscience.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 1, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> What set off the typical TMA vs MMA argument was the fact that we've seen this before. Whether we hear TMA stylists say that MMA "only works in the ring", or some other nonsense, its the same song and dance anytime articles like this pop up. There was a similar article that popped up in the Karate forums recently with a similar theme, and if I really felt like looking, I'm sure I could find more from just about every TMA style out there.



Turnabout is fair play. 



Hanzou said:


> Its to the point now that if someone wanted to learn self defense, I simply couldn't recommend a TMA school in good conscience.



That is because you don't know the first thing about TMA.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 1, 2015)

Hanzou while your posts usually irritate me.  i can say...i agree with you on this one.  but honestly i have to say that its only your experiences with the TMA community and not ALL that are like that.  maybe most ,,but not all.  i know this is only the internet and everyone says things that cant be backed up but for myself i have done a a few different styles and yes most were not that great but i was in one karate school that was really good. we even traveled a few times per month to train in a MMA school that produced Joe Lauzon. but at the same time, in the same organization there were a few schools that were a complete joke. behind their backs we would all make fun of them but we were of the same organization and same style. i am sure there were people that would judge what i do by what they were doing and its embarrising.   for all the years i have been training i can say that the number of practitioners that i honestly respect i can count on the fingers of one hand.  but that doesnt mean there arent more out there. i just havnt met them yet.  i remind myself often about how i was a mid level black belt and instructor when i walked into that karate school and got my rear end handed to me.  my new instructor made it a point to really show me i wasnt diddly squat and it opened my eyes.  so from now on i am open to learning no matter the source.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 1, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> one thing i dont think i have read in this thread is, exactly what is a pressure test?  for me the test is not about trying my punch against anothers or which works better, a stand up style or a ground fighting style.  rather its about the will to fight within the individual.  Sam sheridan's book "a fighter's heart" does a good job at exploring this.  my pressure test would be to question my heart and will to fight. every person is hard wired to experience the _fight or flight  _brain wave pattern during a high stress situation.  we may start with a strong will to fight but there is a point where with enough pain or fear that _fight_ response in the brain will turn to _flight_.  this for me is the pressure test. how much stress pressure can i take before my will to fight leaves and becomes a flight response.  for some that flight response is immediate. they wont even admit to themselves that they are actually afraid to attempt a test.  so they come up with cleaver ways to get around it.  for others that turning point is based on pain  tolerance and once the fear of more pain kicks in they turn to flight. but for some the will to fight remains and they have found that the will and drive to continue fighting leads them to victory.  the pressure test is  like a sliding scale an i want to know where i land on that scale.  the goal of course is to move to a point where fear will not cripple your performance.



I consider another part of pressure testing is my ability to execute my techniques under both adrenaline and against another's skillset, two separate but obviously related things.

Mindset: Assuming you are in "fight" mode and aren't at flight or freeze, then how does what you trained work?  Can you deal with the adrenal dump, can your skillset survive it?  When you get a large adrenaline dump does it negate your fine motor skills?  Do you tense up?  Does that impact your ability to throw shots with relaxed power?  

Skillset: Testing against another's skillset, this is more about how your technique matches another persons, less about the mental side of things and more about the learned skills.  

I don't see the massive divide between MMA and TMA that some are setting positions on.  I think MMA does a great job with testing opposing  technique (skillset), providing their students with workable skills even if impacted by adrenaline (skillset), getting students used to the violence necessary to win the fight (mindset) , desensitizing fighters to adrenaline dumps (mindset).  

I am curious how some other TMA test their mental clarity and skillsets against adrenaline dumps, because I view that as the greatest obstacle to "mental clarity" or whatever is getting .  As a TMAer myself, I don't get any sort of adrenaline rush with my in school sparring, I am too comfortable with knowledge of my students for that to be an issue even with full contact level sparring.  I do get adrenaline dumps when I participate in Dog Brothers events, which is why I am now attending them, I consider that critical to my growth as a martial artists.  The TMA I do, Pekiti Tirsia KaIi, has a  mindset is about having an aggressive attacking mentality designed to put the opponent on the defensive and then take advantage of that defense, but just because we train for a particular mentality that does not negate the impacts of adrenaline.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 1, 2015)

good post Blindside
all points i agree with and maybe i should have brought that up as well but in a heated debate sometimes details like that get ignored in the emotion.  but i feel this could lead us back down the rabbit hole.  within the MMA community is seems to me the skill set is getting homogeneous.  the die is really being cast as to what IS and what IS NOT  MMA.  
i think UFC was the great wake up call to the TMA community. from my experience there is no skill set under adrenaline dump or pressure test in the a TMA. i feel this was the great weekness and the pink elephant in the room that no one wanted to talk about.  many people laughed at Fred Ettish but for me(if your out there Fred i thank you!! )  he woke us up and absolved us of our prior sins.  he took a beating so we could all be released from the bonds of tradition and false dogma.  
as for myself i used to visit other schools of any style and  often i was met by an attitude of superiority, dispite the fact i wasnt egotistical or challenging anyone.  so i was constantly having to prove that what i was doing was valid.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 1, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> one thing i dont think i have read in this thread is, exactly what is a pressure test?  for me the test is not about trying my punch against anothers or which works better, a stand up style or a ground fighting style.  rather its about the will to fight within the individual.  Sam sheridan's book "a fighter's heart" does a good job at exploring this.  my pressure test would be to question my heart and will to fight. every person is hard wired to experience the _fight or flight  _brain wave pattern during a high stress situation.  we may start with a strong will to fight but there is a point where with enough pain or fear that _fight_ response in the brain will turn to _flight_.  this for me is the pressure test. how much stress pressure can i take before my will to fight leaves and becomes a flight response.  for some that flight response is immediate. they wont even admit to themselves that they are actually afraid to attempt a test.  so they come up with cleaver ways to get around it.  for others that turning point is based on pain  tolerance and once the fear of more pain kicks in they turn to flight. but for some the will to fight remains and they have found that the will and drive to continue fighting leads them to victory.  the pressure test is  like a sliding scale an i want to know where i land on that scale.  the goal of course is to move to a point where fear will not cripple your performance.
> when i think about it this way the argument about eye gouging and rules is really irrelevant. because i am not pitting my style against another. it is not about comparisions.  its about my desire VS his desire and who will cave first.  the heart , will and desire to continue to fight even when injured, scared and in pain is part of the human experience and cannot be tossed aside as unimportant  because it is the direct connection between fighting in the ring, octagon, bar room or in your own home during a home invasion.  punches, kicks and techniques may be the vehicle for the expression of violence but the will to fight is the underlying current that carries and holds everything together.



there are two aspects. One is the mental will to win and one is the chance your techniques are going to work. And best case is you want both.

Some techniques work better with more pressure and contact than others. And this is because as you change the levels of contact you change the environment you are fighting in.
The double leg for example is very effective if i am really trying to punch your head off. But not so good if i am not committed.

Some techniques only become exposed as an issue after you fight a quality guy. Fighting with your hands down may not be a concern untill the other guy can take advantage.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 1, 2015)

Blindside said:


> I don't see the massive divide between MMA and TMA that some are setting positions on. I think MMA does a great job with testing opposing technique (skillset), providing their students with workable skills even if impacted by adrenaline (skillset), getting students used to the violence necessary to win the fight (mindset) , desensitizing fighters to adrenaline dumps (mindset).



There are also tmaers who spar. Which seems to get ignored.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 1, 2015)

Tames D said:


> So, if I'm reading you right, you don't like Bruce Lee quotes because he disagreed with what you believe in? Your feelings get hurt pretty easily. Suck it up and move on.


I don't like bruce lee quotes either, the martial arts community has as unhealthy obsession with them. Yeah, a lot of them make sense but people quote bruce lee like they quote the bible. Bruce lee is not scripture, remember he was a movie star and an athlete with a lot of charisma but there's no evidence he was really a skilled fighter. Now Kano, Ali, even chuck Norris, they are worth quoting and much less played out.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 1, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I don't like bruce lee quotes either, the martial arts community has as unhealthy obsession with them. Yeah, a lot of them make sense but people quote bruce lee like they quote the bible. Bruce lee is not scripture, remember he was a movie star and an athlete with a lot of charisma but there's no evidence he was really a skilled fighter. Now Kano, Ali, even chuck Norris, they are worth quoting and much less played out.


I'm also not a big fan of Bruce Lee quotes. I'm a JKD practitioner, but Lee is not the reason behind it. I have a problem with the reasons given for the hating. And as far as comparing his quotes to the bible and scripture, give me a break. There is alot of  subject matter in the bible that is questionable. And Chuck Norris quotes? He's never been in a street fight. Good tournament player but not someone I would want to quote.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because you don't know the first thing about TMA.



Oh yes I do. The majority of my training was in TMA styles, or at least styles that attempted to pattern themselves as "traditional" in order to hide their glaring flaws. I think one of the disadvantages that TMAs tend to have is that they attempt to be all things to all people. More modern styles make it known that if you want to learn something not emphasized in the style you're currently training in, you should cross train. My instructor for example says pretty plainly that if you want to become good at punching and kicking, then you should cross train

On the other hand, if I were still doing Karate, my instructor would be showing me some half-assed choke holds, take downs, or even whip out some Sais or a Staff in an attempt to prove to me that Karate was a "complete system". I never "really" learned how to stop a takedown or a choke in Karate, but I'm sure that if I asked, my sensei would come up with some crazy maneuver that's never been tested in any sensible or reliable form whatsoever. However, since some Okinawan or Japanese guy formalized it 100 years ago, its still better than those MMA guys because their stuff "only works in the ring".

Like I said, its all the same song and dance. The difference now is that people are realizing the emperor has no clothes, thanks to social media, YouTube, and MMA competitions. For example, if this guy didn't show a Youtube, we'd be seeing those sequenced photos from Black Belt magazine and thinking this guy knew what he was talking about.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Oh yes I do.



So far that has not been reflected in your posts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 2, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> When Machida came into the MMA arena & confounded so many competitors (& their MMA trainers), we didn't observe Machida doing so by tactically punching basically the same as those he defeated. To the serious MMA observer / trainer, the question is why is Machida prevailing? Particularly when the traditonal karate base is in the definite minority of competitors and even rarer when you look at the MMA training schools such as the much lauded Greg Jackson / Mike Winkeljohn & Co.



Machida has been successful for much the same reasons that other top fighters have been successful. He's in fantastic shape, he's rounded out his striking game with high-level grappling (BJJ & sumo), and he does the right kind of sparring (continuous striking + grappling sparring with contact with high level partners). The fact that his striking base is in karate rather than in boxing or muay thai is less important than _how_ he trains.



ShotoNoob said:


> Again, Royce Gracie was another 'guru,' the champion of the BJJ revolution. BJJ was the "it" style for MMA. Practically unbeatable, with all pointing to the great success of Royce Gracie who all the TMA strikers wilted in front of ...... YEAH.
> |
> What a I loved about this bout, was that MH, a MMA boxer / wrestler, basically sailed right through RG's defense (if you can call it that) and flattened him like a pancake with GNP wrestling, finishing RC with yes, a submission! So much for big name gurus....
> |
> I'm not interested in tennis courts, but in what tools & techniques, conditioning, etc, Hughes used to make mincemeat of the 'invincible' Gracie.



Royce was "unbeatable" in the beginning of the UFC because he had a lifetime of training in a specialized area of combat, he had experience in challenge matches against typical stand-up strikers, and most of his opponents had no idea how to fight on the ground and little or no experience in style vs style match-ups.

By the time of his match with Hughes, the secrets of BJJ were out. Hughes had a good understanding of BJJ as well as being a more well-rounded grappler and martial artist. He was younger, stronger, and had more fight experience. Royce had none of the advantages that he had in his earlier career.



hoshin1600 said:


> what does this mean? Bruce was an actor and MA ..i dont know who Greg Jackson is, but how he replaced Bruce i cant make sense of.



Greg Jackson is a top MMA coach. I'm not sure what he has to do with Bruce Lee.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Oh yes I do. The majority of my training was in TMA styles, or at least styles that attempted to pattern themselves as "traditional" in order to hide their glaring flaws. I think one of the disadvantages that TMAs tend to have is that they attempt to be all things to all people. More modern styles make it known that if you want to learn something not emphasized in the style you're currently training in, you should cross train. My instructor for example says pretty plainly that if you want to become good at punching and kicking, then you should cross train
> 
> On the other hand, if I were still doing Karate, my instructor would be showing me some half-assed choke holds, take downs, or even whip out some Sais or a Staff in an attempt to prove to me that Karate was a "complete system". I never "really" learned how to stop a takedown or a choke in Karate, but I'm sure that if I asked, my sensei would come up with some crazy maneuver that's never been tested in any sensible or reliable form whatsoever. However, since some Okinawan or Japanese guy formalized it 100 years ago, its still better than those MMA guys because their stuff "only works in the ring".
> 
> Like I said, its all the same song and dance. The difference now is that people are realizing the emperor has no clothes, thanks to social media, YouTube, and MMA competitions. For example, if this guy didn't show a Youtube, we'd be seeing those sequenced photos from Black Belt magazine and thinking this guy knew what he was talking about.



I think you make good point. A lot of schools would like to say they have all the answers. Many styles claim to be a "complete system" some are more complete than others but many fall short. A lot of FMA is guilty of this, I say this as an FMA practitioner. It's important for a system or school to recognize its specialty and excel at it. Many martial artists claim to be humble, but they also claim to have all the answers. 

You cant excel at everything all the time. This is what I noticed with my time in hapkido. On the surface hapkido appears to be very well rounded and this claim is made by a lot of hapkido guys. It's somewhat true, there are many skillsets in the hkd curriculum but I noticed I knew just enough to do everything poorly. Time was too divided and I never got good at any one area. I think it would be very time consuming to perform in every area of training at a high level.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

I found a few more vids from the author in the article;






Did you know you can stop a grappler by walking around in a circle and pushing the big meanie-head away with your palms?

Yeah, me neither.


----------



## K-man (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I found a few more vids from the author in the article;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what is the problem? If you listened to what Clear explained the training drill makes sense. The Bagua I have seen was totally explosive as taught by Erle Montaigue but soft training is still part of it. This video has nothing to do with stopping a grappler.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

K-man said:


> So what is the problem? If you listened to what Clear explained the training drill makes sense. The Bagua I have seen was totally explosive as taught by Erle Montaigue but soft training is still part of it. This video has nothing to do with stopping a grappler.



So a video called sparring against grapplers has nothing to do with stopping a grappler?

If you *really* want to pressure test this, try doing any of that against a person actually skilled in grappling.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> So a video called sparring against grapplers has nothing to do with stopping a grappler?
> 
> If you *really* want to pressure test this, try doing any of that against a person actually skilled in grappling.



Like you?


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Like you?



Sure, if a purple belt is all you can find. I think a black belt in Bjj, Sambo, or Judo, or someone who excels at wrestling would be better choices however.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Sure, if a purple belt is all you can find. I think a black belt in Bjj, Sambo, or Judo, or someone who excels at wrestling would be better choices however.



Just wondering. You seemed so certain before?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 2, 2015)

K-man said:


> So what is the problem? If you listened to what Clear explained the training drill makes sense. The Bagua I have seen was totally explosive as taught by Erle Montaigue but soft training is still part of it. This video has nothing to do with stopping a grappler.



I can see what Mr. Clear is trying to do with the exercise and it has some potential validity, but there are some problems.

1) He really shouldn't call it sparring, because it isn't. It's a semi-free form training drill, but not sparring.
2) The "attacker" is not moving either like a trained grappler or like a realistic untrained fighter.
3) As he kept trying to correct, his students kept trying to speed up to get out of trouble. This is a natural instinct for most students when doing this sort of slow-motion free form exercise and it's really hard to avoid. I think practitioners who have experience with full-speed sparring actually have an easier time with this because they are more likely to understand the realistic rhythms of a fight.

I can actually see some use for this exercise for a skilled grappler looking to develop good habits for moving through a crowded melee and trying to get to safety without engaging in a clinch or focusing on a single opponent. I do think that both the practitioners in the attacking and defending roles need to learn some at least some grappling basics before the exercise will be that effective.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 2, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is because you don't know the first thing about TMA.





Hanzou said:


> Oh yes I do. The majority of my training was in TMA styles





RTKDCMB said:


> So far that has not been reflected in your posts.



In fairness, Hanzou's time spent training in Shotokan is probably pretty typical of what many people experience in schools which self-identify as "Traditional Martial Arts."

You could argue that his school wasn't _really_ TMA, but that's hard to justify, given that there is no universally accepted definition of what "TMA" actually is. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily a marketing term used by a variety of arts and schools which are very different from each other.

Of course, Hanzou's mistake is thinking that every school which uses the marketing term has the same sort of training - even within the same style. Lyoto Machida should be an instructive example for a MMA fan who thinks Shotokan doesn't teach effective fighting skills.


----------



## Grenadier (Mar 2, 2015)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this discussion civil, and on-topic.  Any further disruptive behavior will be subject to the appropriate disciplinary action.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Administrator


----------



## drop bear (Mar 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can see what Mr. Clear is trying to do with the exercise and it has some potential validity, but there are some problems.
> 
> 1) He really shouldn't call it sparring, because it isn't. It's a semi-free form training drill, but not sparring.
> 2) The "attacker" is not moving either like a trained grappler or like a realistic untrained fighter.
> ...



I cant watch the video yet. How exactly do you move through a crowded melee without getting caught up?

And inherently my issue with multiple sparring. The odds are so much in favor of the multiples as to render it basically pointless. Except to teach that a couple of guys can generally drag down a single guy.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> Just wondering. You seemed so certain before?



Certain of what? My skill level?

My point is only that if you want to pressure test what you do, get the best. In grappling terms those would be the people I mentioned.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I cant watch the video yet.
> .



Get ready for a good chuckle.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Machida has been successful for much the same reasons that other top fighters have been successful. He's in fantastic shape, he's rounded out his striking game with high-level grappling (BJJ & sumo), and he does the right kind of sparring (continuous striking + grappling sparring with contact with high level partners). The fact that his striking base is in karate rather than in boxing or muay thai is less important than _how_ he trains.


|
<<Completely DISAGREE with your final sentence>>.  The mantra that Machida has rounded his Shotokan with MMA add-on's aren't what have made him successful for the most part.  What has made him successful for the most part is his Shotokan based kumite style.
|
Don't go haywire on me before I complement you on your personal BJJ accomplishments.  Moreover, Machida's grappling training, especially BJJ is well suited for MMA and can be adapted for self defense as well.  I think the Gracie's really evolved the jujitsu arts to a more practical system for sport (or self defense), though I have tons of respect for what I know about Jujitsu.
|
Quite frankly, I think Machida now practices exactly the  WRONG kind of striking.  Oh, sure, it's MMA convention to spar as you say (continuous striking...with high level partners).  This is the 'sport fighting' approach I have complained about as being taken for gospel.
The traditional methods of kumite training particularly IPPON KUMITE as far more valuable for learning dynamic striking.
|
Now don't take me too literal and QUOTE ME as saying that the kind of sparring you are talking about can't produce good or even great strikers.  Note in my earlier posts I related about the two Golden Glove-skilled boxer types @ my dojo.  Remember how the Golden Glove Protege basically tuned me into punching bag  @ the outset of our sparring session?  There are very capable sport karate fighters also who do a lot of athletic-type & speed exercises who become very good.  And in MMA I can't but help but flash to RR, with her very decisive TKO's.
|
P.S.  The Frog parables over @ "State of Mind" T, I'm starting to warm up to them, thought I'd never pay attention to children's parables--but you know--they're growing on me....


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Royce was "unbeatable" in the beginning of the UFC because he had a lifetime of training in a specialized area of combat, he had experience in challenge matches against typical stand-up strikers, and most of his opponents had no idea how to fight on the ground and little or no experience in style vs style match-ups.


|
Royce Gracie couldn't touch a bona-fide traditional karate striker any day.  Matt Hughes sailed through Royce Gracie's guard like butter & clocked him.  Hughes only strike was a demo of how easy it really was.  That's because Hughes was only listening to himself.  What's true is I wouldn't want a competent BJJ artist to get me on the ground--that I'll grant you BIG TIME.



Tony Dismukes said:


> By the time of his match with Hughes, the secrets of BJJ were out. Hughes had a good understanding of BJJ as well as being a more well-rounded grappler and martial artist. He was younger, stronger, and had more fight experience. Royce had none of the advantages that he had in his earlier career.


RG had no advantages?  How about experience.  How about track record?  What about the goobs & goobs & goobs of muscle memory all the sport trainers rave above?  How about the much vaunted Gracie "fearlessness?"  How about his increased work on karate sparring which he touted?
|
That MMA-speak stuff about 'secrets being out,' you act like grappling arts didn't exist until the Gracie Revolution.  Come on.  I asked my 1st Sensei very early on on how to defend / defeat a takedown attack--he demonstrated a simple move.  Yep, the grappler really exposes himself coming in for a takedown--against the the mentally-adept striker....


Tony Dismukes said:


> Greg Jackson is a top MMA coach. I'm not sure what he has to do with Bruce Lee.


Frog & turtle.
|
SUMMARY:
Frog & turtle aside, I really enjoyed your post, including the original one I read @ another thread.  I'm sure you'rE getting some good results from your approach.  That's why even the conventional MMA makes such a good testing ground for traditional karateka, IMHO.  Hey, I think perhaps the best example of that for my particular perspective were BOTH the Shogun Rua bouts with Machida, where in UFC 113 Rua took Machida right out.... a Round 1 finish.  Sort of the Muay Thai vs. Karate Base style match up.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 2, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> Royce Gracie couldn't touch a bona-fide traditional karate striker any day



I suppose you will argue that Minoki Ichihara and Gerard Gordeau are not bona-fide karateka? Or just not "traditional" according to your particular definition of "traditional."



ShotoNoob said:


> RG had no advantages? How about experience. How about track record? What about the goobs & goobs & goobs of muscle memory all the sport trainers rave above? How about the much vaunted Gracie "fearlessness?" How about his increased work on karate sparring which he touted?



Hughes had *more* fight experience and a *better* track record. "Muscle memory" is a misnomer, but regardless Royce had no advantage over Hughes in that department either. Royce isn't lacking in courage, but neither is Hughes. Royce might have worked on his striking, but he still wasn't in Matt Hughes class as far as that goes.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I suppose you will argue that Minoki Ichihara and Gerard Gordeau are not bona-fide karateka? Or just not "traditional" according to your particular definition of "traditional."


|
It's not the big-name recognition, it's how they fought.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Hughes had *more* fight experience and a *better* track record. "Muscle memory" is a misnomer, but regardless Royce had no advantage over Hughes in that department either. Royce isn't lacking in courage, but neither is Hughes. Royce might have worked on his striking, but he still wasn't in Matt Hughes class as far as that goes.


|
On MH vs. RC. I completely agree with your overall assessment of relative weight in skill.  Which completely begs the question of why the apparently well-renowned karateka you cited did so poorly I presume.  Sounds like despite their apparently distinguished track records, they couldn't make simple principled adjustments.  I stand corrected on the muscle memory view.
|
I surmise that the gentleman you cited, train & fight according to the regimen you believe in, as opposed to what I believe in.  That would explain the results, empirically that is...


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 2, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I suppose you will argue that...Gerard Gordeau are not bona-fide karateka? Or just not "traditional" according to your particular definition of "traditional."


|
Looked up Gordeau.  Champion Kyo competitor.  UFC 1. Defeated Teila Tuli by round kick to head & follow on punch to head.  Defeated Kevin Rosier, with low round kicks, later hand strikes to head.
|
IMHO, neither Tuli or Rosier were TMA.  Tuli could not even stay on his feet in the initial exchange with Gordeau who was obviously tough as nails.  Rosier, another mountain-sized presence, in my estimation, won his record by being so physically overpowering in size with kickboxing technique added.  Against a tactical karate fighter re Gordeau, Rosier way outclassed analogous to Hughes vs. Gracie on overall effectiveness.
|
Gracie-Gordeau bout, Gordeau fighting posture way too reserved.  On Gracie's initial takedown attempt, two patently clear traditional karate techniques would have stopped Gracie dead.  The objective is you have to adjust as your opponent changes.  Gordeau basically had no traditional karate response, including "mental clarity," against Gracie's take-down 101.  Puzzling....
|
So much for referencing "big names," be it Gordeau or Greg Jackson.  Incidentally, I think Jon Jones training under Greg Jackson has greatly enhanced Jones talents & tactical ability.  But I give more credit to Jones than Jackson.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 2, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> So a video called sparring against grapplers has nothing to do with stopping a grappler?
> 
> If you *really* want to pressure test this, try doing any of that against a person actually skilled in grappling.





Hanzou said:


> Get ready for a good chuckle.


First the video is named 'against grapples' not grapplers and probably is vs someone attempting to grab the arms, hands as shown. 

It is also a video describing the principles and concepts for the drill much like one would get when first learning about hand fighting in wrestling and BJJ. It isn't presented the same but the principles are there. Didn't see any 'pressure' testing in the video either only a bit for a beginner to grasp the concept to drill it. Kinda like doing a drill to rep out the movement of doing a..., uh spinning armbar from mount or any other drill to develop the movement/s and positions. Haven't you also done slow compliant drills to learn and to get reps for a particular submission or to work basic transition without doing so with pressure? Don't your instructors do demos with a compliant partner so everyone is able to see and learn the material or all the presentations are done at speed with a partner applying pressure defending or countering the instructor?


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 3, 2015)

Danny T said:


> First the video is named 'against grapples' not grapplers and probably is vs someone attempting to grab the arms, hands as shown.



Also the legs, as a student attempted to do so in a bizarre fashion, and was able to get shrugged off by the other guy prancing around in a circle.



> It is also a video describing the principles and concepts for the drill much like one would get when first learning about hand fighting in wrestling and BJJ. It isn't presented the same but the principles are there. Didn't see any 'pressure' testing in the video either only a bit for a beginner to grasp the concept to drill it. Kinda like doing a drill to rep out the movement of doing a..., uh spinning armbar from mount or any other drill to develop the movement/s and positions. Haven't you also done slow compliant drills to learn and to get reps for a particular submission or to work basic transition without doing so with pressure? Don't your instructors do demos with a compliant partner so everyone is able to see and learn the material or all the presentations are done at speed with a partner applying pressure defending or countering the instructor?



That's all well and good, but shouldn't you actually be practicing "grapples" in a semi-realistic fashion?  In other words,  practicing against what someone would actually do when they grapple with you?

Hence why I said training with an actual grappler would be helpful, not assuming that everyone trying to control you is going to just try to control your arm with both hands.


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 3, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, Hanzou's time spent training in Shotokan is probably pretty typical of what many people experience in schools which self-identify as "Traditional Martial Arts."
> 
> You could argue that his school wasn't _really_ TMA, but that's hard to justify, given that there is no universally accepted definition of what "TMA" actually is. As far as I'm concerned, it's primarily a marketing term used by a variety of arts and schools which are very different from each other.
> 
> Of course, Hanzou's mistake is thinking that every school which uses the marketing term has the same sort of training - even within the same style. Lyoto Machida should be an instructive example for a MMA fan who thinks Shotokan doesn't teach effective fighting skills.



One thing thats important to remember here, is that many many folks who found themselves in a bad school or a school where they werent happy with the quality of training like Hanzou, tend to become very, very stubborn. They find something they like and become very rigid in their belief that their way is best, 

There are a lot of people in MMA who wil bash TKD and Karates ability to fight even when showed fighters like Machida who is very much a Karate "Purist" in the cage with it being his main striking foundation. Or Spider Silva, Ben Henderson, and Cung Le who all use a lot of WTF TKD style kicks. Or back in the early days of Kickboxing, where point fighters from TSD, Karate, and TKD basically went straight into full contact bouts with boxers and folks from "Harder" styles.


There are many, many MMA guys out there who train in as many styles as they can and always seem to pick up something they like and feel they can use. When somethings been or is being used regularly in the cage and ring, and someone still denies it they're just stubborn. Some folks are just like that, trying to change their opinion would be pointless.

Folks poor experiences, or lack of experience to other styles in some cases, have given them a  firm opinion. People here seem to be taking these differing opinions very personal lately hence all the animosity and frustration.

When many of us here  use or have used our TMA training in the cage, ring, or in SD the idea that one needs gratification from someone on a computer screen is crazy in my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Mar 3, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> One thing thats important to remember here, is that many many folks who found themselves in a bad school or a school where they werent happy with the quality of training like Hanzou, tend to become very, very stubborn. They find something they like and become very rigid in their belief that their way is best,
> 
> There are a lot of people in MMA who wil bash TKD and Karates ability to fight even when showed fighters like Machida who is very much a Karate "Purist" in the cage with it being his main striking foundation. Or Spider Silva, Ben Henderson, and Cung Le who all use a lot of WTF TKD style kicks. Or back in the early days of Kickboxing, where point fighters from TSD, Karate, and TKD basically went straight into full contact bouts with boxers and folks from "Harder" styles.
> 
> ...


Great points.   If I understand hanzou's position correctly, it's not karate he has concerns with.  It's the way in which the karate is trained.    Doesn't Machida train karate differently than many other people?

Another question.  Do you guys think cross training is material to his success?   He is a karateka, but also a bjj black belt and has competed in sumo.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 3, 2015)

Steve said:


> Great points.   If I understand hanzou's position correctly, it's not karate he has concerns with.  It's the way in which the karate is trained.    Doesn't Machida train karate differently than many other people?



Exactly. 

And yeah, Machida's style of Karate is heavily influenced by his training in other styles. The idea that he's some sort of Karate purist is nonsense. He may market himself that way, but its not the whole picture. You can even see the influences of other styles when he fights.

I have no problem with "Machida Karate". In fact, I view Machida's style as something akin to my personal fighting style, due to our similar MA backgrounds (though I never took sumo).


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 3, 2015)

Steve said:


> Great points.   If I understand hanzou's position correctly, it's not karate he has concerns with.  It's the way in which the karate is trained.    Doesn't Machida train karate differently than many other people?
> 
> Another question.  Do you guys think cross training is material to his success?   He is a karateka, but also a bjj black belt and has competed in sumo.
> 
> ...



Right, hanzou had a bad experience. His school walked through things, had poor instruction, etc. Hes been very open about that and theres nothing wrong with his opinion. A good point that Tony made, was that hes wrong in thinking Karate has a standard method. In reality, School A and School B only are alike in that they have forms, Some form of SD, and free sparring. There really arent any standard drills, methods, etc for how Karate is trained. Within multiple schools of the same style, there may be a standard curriculum, but odds are it isnt taught in the same way. In Hanzous defense, nobody can expect him to think any different when his main exposure was at a poor school. Which is why these opinion arguments keep popping up lately

Cross Training has without a doubt helped his grappling and rolling, I was referring to his striking only.

As for training differently, I'm sure he pushes himself far harder. But him and GSP have both been very adamant about still training in forms, Step Sparring, etc at their traditional schools in the same way that Spider Silva still actively throws on the WTF gear and finds time to train it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 3, 2015)

Steve said:


> Another question. Do you guys think cross training is material to his success? He is a karateka, but also a bjj black belt and has competed in sumo.



It's relevant to his success in MMA in that he's not worried about being taken down. His sumo and wrestling help him with takedown defense and his BJJ means that he can handle himself on the ground. That means he doesn't have to hold back with his striking for fear of takedowns.



Steve said:


> If I understand hanzou's position correctly, it's not karate he has concerns with. It's the way in which the karate is trained. Doesn't Machida train karate differently than many other people?





Hanzou said:


> Machida's style of Karate is heavily influenced by his training in other styles. The idea that he's some sort of Karate purist is nonsense. He may market himself that way, but its not the whole picture. You can even see the influences of other styles when he fights.





Drose427 said:


> As for training differently, I'm sure he pushes himself far harder. But him and GSP have both been very adamant about still training in forms, Step Sparring, etc at their traditional schools in the same way



I've watched Machida's "Karate for MMA" instructional DVD, and it's all stuff you could see from any other Shotokan instructor, including forms. I've also watched footage of him training. Once you take out the grappling aspects, it's pretty much what you would expect of a high-level competitive karateka.

I think what Hanzou is identifying (and disliking) as "traditional" martial arts is actually "watered down for the casual consumer" martial arts, i.e. WDFTCCMA. Unfortunately, if you walk into a school claiming to teach TMA, there's statistically very good odds that you will actually be getting WDFTCCMA.


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> The Myth of Pressure Testing How MMA has failed the martial arts.
> 
> The blog above is the epitome of what I find wrong with the mentality of a lot of traditional martial artist. I'm not sure why so many decry the value of mma when martial artists should embrace mma. If they think the fighters are good they're welcome to fight or go to an mma gym and prove their skill is superior to mma.
> 
> ...



MMA is not the ultimate proving ground, despite what some of the fanboys claim.  I do feel that they do offer a lot of what other others can benefit from, that being the intensity of training, the contact, resistance, etc.  Yeah, I know, everyone trains for different reasons, however, if you're serious about SD, then you need to train hard, you need to be able to take a good hit...basically, you need to put in the blood, sweat and tears.

Now, we also need to keep in mind that just because there are no weapons, no multi man attacks, etc, that their training methods are useless.  We should be able to take from them, and apply certain methods to multi man attacks, weapons, etc.  Grab a padded stick, or even a rattan one if you choose, gear up as needed, and have at it.  Have your training partner, really swing at you, and see what you can do.  Trust me, it's one hell of an eye opener, and you'll realize real fast that much of that static stuff, goes right out the window, when someone is really swinging, with the intent to hit you, to follow through and strike again, and again, etc.  

At the end of the day, debates like this will rage on and on.  Ever since the early UFC days, these debates have gone on.  There are pros and cons to all aspects of training.  Find what works for you, and put it into play.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 3, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's relevant to his success in MMA in that he's not worried about being taken down. His sumo and wrestling help him with takedown defense and his BJJ means that he can handle himself on the ground. That means he doesn't have to hold back with his striking for fear of takedowns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Watered down for the casual customer (Wddtccma ) is a good way to look at it and your mention of statics of finding such a place are spot on imo. I've been on this soap box for a while, what makes a system good or bad is how said system is trained and the ability that the average student develops. Statistically if the majority of schools in a given style are a McDojo (tkd in the US) than that style would not be a good recommendation if your goal is self defense and fighting ability. Does that mean that all tkd is bad? no, it just means it's difficult to find a good school. I've talked to plenty within some of the more questionable systems who reassure me their school is legit only to see the same type of stuff every other school within said system does. The problem is people new to a martial art don't know how to define good and bad. Some people have been in martial arts for years training badly and think they know what's best.


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 3, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Watered down for the casual customer (Wddtccma ) is a good way to look at it and your mention of statics of finding such a place are spot on imo. I've been on this soap box for a while, what makes a system good or bad is how said system is trained and the ability that the average student develops. Statistically if the majority of schools in a given style are a McDojo (tkd in the US) than that style would not be a good recommendation if your goal is self defense and fighting ability. Does that mean that all tkd is bad? no, it just means it's difficult to find a good school. I've talked to plenty within some of the more questionable systems who reassure me their school is legit only to see the same type of stuff every other school within said system does. The problem is people new to a martial art don't know how to define good and bad. Some people have been in martial arts for years training badly and think they know what's best.




Idk if TKD in the US is a good example of a Mcdojo. The majority of US TKD by far is Kukki TKD, which very rarely claims to be anything other than sport. You cant really judge a system for not being good at something it doesnt really care about.

I believe SD and Step Sparring arent even a part of the Kukkiwons 1st Dan requirement. 

 World Culture Taekwondo Kukkiwon will make it 

Most Kukki schools are focused on WTF style tournaments. I've personally never seen one of these schools claim to be RBSD.

Labelling them a bad school over something they dont do, is like calling a boxing gym gym because their students got taken down and crushed in a barfight. Or saying a gyms wrestling program is crap because their wrestlers lose to boxers.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 3, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Idk if TKD in the US is a good example of a Mcdojo. The majority of US TKD by far is Kukki TKD, which very rarely claims to be anything other than sport. You cant really judge a system for not being good at something it doesnt really care about.
> 
> I believe SD and Step Sparring arent even a part of the Kukkiwons 1st Dan requirement.
> 
> ...


If you've been following the thread you'd see that I'm using "good" and "bad" in relation to self defense and fighting ability. Does someone who goes to a Kukki school looking for self defense and fighting ability get told that kukki is only about point sparring, and that they don't care about self defense?    Does that school claim to tech self defense? i don't see a problem with a school that only claims to teach point sparring, but I doubt theyre as up front about what they do as you are.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 3, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Idk if TKD in the US is a good example of a Mcdojo. The majority of US TKD by far is Kukki TKD, which very rarely claims to be anything other than sport. You cant really judge a system for not being good at something it doesnt really care about.



Interesting point. I just went and googled a whole bunch of random TKD studios to see what they were advertising as their benefits.

At least half mentioned self-defense, but usually just in passing. Some mentioned sport competition, but that wasn't a huge emphasis either.

The most common claims (and the most emphasized) were that TKD builds confidence, fitness, character, discipline, leadership, etc. It seems to be marketed primarily as a method for physical and mental self-development and as a fun family activity. If that's what they are selling, I guess I'm not going to judge them too harshly for not building great fighters.


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 3, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> If you've been following the thread you'd see that I'm using "good" and "bad" in relation to self defense and fighting ability. Does someone who goes to a Kukki school looking for self defense and fighting ability get told that kukki is only about point sparring, and that they don't care about self defense?    Does that school claim to tech self defense? i don't see a problem with a school that only claims to teach point sparring, but I doubt theyre as up front about what they do as you are.



They usually are, considering many schools dont teach any SD anyone watching a class would see that. These schools aren't using RBSD as a marketing tool like many other MA's both good and bad do. It's hard to claim you teach RBSD to someone who observed a class where you focused on forms and sparring. 

Obviously, there are instructors who bring in SD stuff and teach it, but its hardly the main marketing point.

Kukki Tae Kwon Do School

What is Taekwondo

World Taekwondo Headquarters

None of these place really talk about it as RSBD, but these are all Olympic Competition focused.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting point. I just went and googled a whole bunch of random TKD studios to see what they were advertising as their benefits.
> 
> At least half mentioned self-defense, but usually just in passing. Some mentioned sport competition, but that wasn't a huge emphasis either.
> 
> The most common claims (and the most emphasized) were that TKD builds confidence, fitness, character, discipline, leadership, etc. It seems to be marketed primarily as a method for physical and mental self-development and as a fun family activity. If that's what they are selling, I guess I'm not going to judge them too harshly for not building great fighters.



Yeah, TKD is so diverse that you really have to know the focus of a specific school before you can judge or classify it within a certain criteria.

Our school is SD focused. I dont know one adult whos made it to any advanced rank who hasnt had their nose, eye, lip , or ribs busted becuase they just didnt react quick enough, or block properly, etc. I got gib slapped once because I was working with teenage student on takedowns and "didnt resist it" enough. We do these full contact drills every class with free sparring and compete once or twice a year.

On the flipside, schools we've seen at competition who compete 12 or 13 times a year and dont do much SD. WHen I was looking at moving to Denver, the TKD school I looked at was a very  family friendly fun school that wasnt very strict. Their kids loved it, but I've been spoiled by our military style class.

My point to Mephisto was that the Kukki schools tend to focus on WTF comps, but TKD as a whole is too many things to really put under one label


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 3, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> They usually are, considering many schools dont teach any SD anyone watching a class would see that. These schools aren't using RBSD as a marketing tool like many other MA's both good and bad do. It's hard to claim you teach RBSD to someone who observed a class where you focused on forms and sparring.
> 
> Obviously, there are instructors who bring in SD stuff and teach it, but its hardly the main marketing point.
> 
> ...


For now I'm gonna go ahead and put tkd under one label, and that's that it isn't a good bet for someone looking for self defense and fighting. As mentioned, it's an issue of statics and statistically if you agree that most tkd is kukkikwon/wtf or whatever point sparring, than maybe you'll see my point. I'm sure you train at of the minority of badass tkd schools but they're a rarity. I'm not saying all are bad for self defense but the odds are that you're not gonna find a school of hardened tkd fighters near by.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> They usually are, considering many schools dont teach any SD anyone watching a class would see that. These schools aren't using RBSD as a marketing tool like many other MA's both good and bad do. It's hard to claim you teach RBSD to someone who observed a class where you focused on forms and sparring.



You are making it a style thing though. You can teach SD. And still be teaching garbage.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 3, 2015)

any style/system be it traditional, modern, or MMA can be great or garbage.  There are enough schools out there that are legit and way to many that have no clue what they claim to teach but it happens to be the new fad so they "teach" it. 
The not so legit schools will claim to teach you the whole gambit of things.  The difference may not be recognizably to the average person or even to the martial arts person who has no knowledge of the style.


----------



## Transk53 (Mar 3, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> any style/system be it traditional, modern, or MMA can be great or garbage.  There are enough schools out there that are legit and way to many that have no clue what they claim to teach but it happens to be the new fad so they "teach" it.
> The not so legit schools will claim to teach you the whole gambit of things.  The difference may not be recognizably to the average person or even to the martial arts person who has no knowledge of the style.



Which can be very difficult to the uninitiated. Thing is, how can that be negated, at least to the level where someone can have an inkling if something is not right, before any new class is attempted. Logically I guess that can't be done, but watching a bit of MMA tonight seems that sometimes, too much variety is there rather than the logical blows to end a fight.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 3, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> any style/system be it traditional, modern, or MMA can be great or garbage.  There are enough schools out there that are legit and way to many that have no clue what they claim to teach but it happens to be the new fad so they "teach" it.



Be that as it may, there aren't any MMA/Bjj schools I'm aware of that would teach you that a sound method to avoid getting grappled is to move around in circles and smack/slap your aggressor away.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> any style/system be it traditional, modern, or MMA can be great or garbage.  There are enough schools out there that are legit and way to many that have no clue what they claim to teach but it happens to be the new fad so they "teach" it.
> The not so legit schools will claim to teach you the whole gambit of things.  The difference may not be recognizably to the average person or even to the martial arts person who has no knowledge of the style.



 sometimes it is the quality of the instructor and not the style. Especially if we are comparing similar methods

Boxing stylistically should be terrible for sd. But boxers are constantly disproving that.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 3, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Be that as it may, there aren't any MMA/Bjj schools I'm aware of that would teach you that a sound method to avoid getting grappled is to move around in circles and smack/slap your aggressor away.



tee hee.





It comes back to street vs sport. If you don't compete/spar/fight. You remove the pressure test.

 then any technique is viable.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Idk if TKD in the US is a good example of a Mcdojo. The majority of US TKD by far is Kukki TKD, which very rarely claims to be anything other than sport. You cant really judge a system for not being good at something it doesnt really care about.
> 
> I believe SD and Step Sparring arent even a part of the Kukkiwons 1st Dan requirement.
> 
> ...


|
I think they can be labeled a 'bad school' if you are using a moniker that conveys a history of traditional martial arts.
|
Yet your explanation is key and constantly gets overlooked in these discussions about how karate, etc. isn't effective in MMA.  First there is always the quality issue which you so importantly stress.  And frankly, the quality issue could be with the student.
|
Secondly and just as important, what's the makeup of the curriculum.  This is so critical.  To illustrate, do you have 10-year old black-belts sparring with 6-year old white belts for a lot of the class time.  I mean this is kickboxing, not traditional karate.  This is tai-bo karate or aero-fu.  Hey, I'm 9 years old and took the regional in no-touch point fighting.  Just look @ my 36-inch trophy....


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> There are a lot of people in MMA who wil bash TKD and Karates ability to fight even when showed fighters like Machida who is very much a Karate "Purist" in the cage with it being his main striking foundation. Or Spider Silva, Ben Henderson, and Cung Le who all use a lot of WTF TKD style kicks. Or back in the early days of Kickboxing, where point fighters from TSD, Karate, and TKD basically went straight into full contact bouts with boxers and folks from "Harder" styles.


|
You make an excellent distinction here about Machida.  I have to agree he's not pure Shotokan *today* in how he fights & trains.  Incidentally I am opposed to that...
|
But to start, and this is true of Chinzo as well IMO, the Machida's are Shotokan Karate Point-Kumite fighters.  That is essentially the base for the style they present in MMA.  Posters lump in Machida's sumo, BJJ, Muay Thai, etc, etc.  But fundamentally what you see in the Machida's base style is Shotokan.
|
Thanks for pointing out that issue.


Drose427 said:


> There are many, many MMA guys out there who train in as many styles as they can and always seem to pick up something they like and feel they can use. When somethings been or is being used regularly in the cage and ring, and someone still denies it they're just stubborn. Some folks are just like that, trying to change their opinion would be pointless.


|
Yes, and although this conventional way to train MMA is valid, it only highlights the bias that karate fighters can only succeed in MMA by cutting & pasting a bunch of other styles & tactics.  It's patently silly to believe a bully in a street fight never tried to tackle a WWII ERA TKD artist in Korea & the Korean TKD stood still flabbergasted because the attack wasn't a point-fighting kick.  But when the UFC came along, suddenly the Original Korean TKD practitioners saw the error of their ways.....



Drose427 said:


> Folks poor experiences, or lack of experience to other styles in some cases, have given them a  firm opinion. People here seem to be taking these differing opinions very personal lately hence all the animosity and frustration.
> When many of us here  use or have used our TMA training in the cage, ring, or in SD...


|
That's talking like an instructor.  Props.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Blindside said:


> This is apparently their highlight reel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


|
See MMA for what it is.  Full contact/ Submission Fighting Competition.   Great for pressure testing.
|
What you see in the video is the commercial TMA approach where you don't want your customers heading for the exits in horror as other students are carried out to the ambulance on a stretcher.
|
Legitimately, most TMA practitioners in the US are part-time 3-days a week , ways away from wanting to be professional or even pro-am competitors.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 15, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> What you see in the video is the commercial TMA approach where you don't want your customers heading for the exits in horror as other students are carried out to the ambulance on a stretcher.



Lol, I do applaud that sentence, it's as the kids say... wicked! I quite agree with it though.

We've had students leave on stretchers, last one had a dislocated shoulder, he was as happy as larry though being given gas and air which I don't think is used in the US (?)


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 15, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Lol, I do applaud that sentence, it's as the kids say... wicked! I quite agree with it though.
> 
> We've had students leave on stretchers, last one had a dislocated shoulder, he was as happy as larry though being given gas and air which I don't think is used in the US (?)


|
Key word is 'customers.'


----------

