# A MT argument while at work



## Hand Sword (Jun 21, 2006)

Hello all,

A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's. 
(I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles"  TMA's as well. They've been around long enough) 

We argued from a reality point of view, and their application, since we are in the security/LEO industry.

What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing  everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against  that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it. 

Where does everyone stand on this?


----------



## pstarr (Jun 21, 2006)

For one, the term "mixed martial arts" being used as though it's something new is a misnomer.  Virtually all forms of kick-punch martial arts (karate and kung-fu systems) also include an array of grappling maneuvers and joint techniques.  Some systems utilize more grappling techniques than others, but they're there.

     The old traditional schools of grappling (shuai-jiao from China, jujutsu from Japan, and so on) also featured various forms of striking.

     So the concept of "mixed martial art" is nothing new.

     Now, if you use the term "mixed martial art" in reference to guys wearing padded gloves and competing in a roped-off ring under sets of rules with a referee watching the action...that was never a part of traditional martial arts.

     The old traditional practitioners trained as if their lives depended on it - because they did.  And a great many of them were known to have used their skills with tremendous effect (and not against drunks).  By and large, they trained to be able to knock a man down or kill him as quickly as possible.

     If they say that, "No one fights that way for real..." well, _somebody did_ back in the day.  I think these fellows probably have a pretty skewed idea of how people "used to fight."

     I'd tell them to get real.  People fight now pretty much like they've always fought save for firearms and other technological advances.


     In the competition ring killing your opponent is frowned upon  - and any peace officer who thinks that wrestling an assailant on the ground is a good idea is likely to have a fairly short career.  I know- I was one.  

     The "mixed martial arts" haven't "forced" traditional martial arts into the light by a long shot.  Traditional martial arts were never intended for competition and fighting with rules.

     The only way to get the true measure of it would be to put a traditionalist in the ring with one of these "revolutionaries" or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays...no pads, no rules, no referee.  Anything goes.  

     I remember back in the 70's when the first "karate vs. boxing" contests were held.  It was a circus.  The karateka had to wear boxing gloves (!!!), couldn't kick or use throws, couldn't hit his opponent in the back, and so on.  Guess who won?  

     That'd be like putting the boxer into a TKD tournament and telling him he can't punch to the face and a kick to the head is worth two points.  Who's going to win?

     The measure of a martial art can't be made if it's forced to wear the rules of another form.  Karateka should never fight under boxing rules, boxers should stay clear of TKD tournaments, grapplers should enter tennis contests...

     And to measure the true effectiveness of a traditional martial art means risking a life.  It just isn't worth it.

     As for me (as a former police officer), I'll stick with what I know works - and it's worked for several centuries.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 21, 2006)

Oops- I meant "grappler should NOT enter tennis contests..."


----------



## MartialIntent (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
> (I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)
> ...


HS, this is a good question. I would agree - having *never once* encountered anyone in a real live situation who came at me with a recognized TMA strike - that nobody fights like this on the pavement. Thing is, *I* do though. I'm much happier to mold my style to the "modern" circumstance rather than run off jumping the MMA bandwagon because someone in their great wisdom deems my art outmoded and has also decreed the MMA arts the best thing since sliced bread. If that's your thing, fine. I've got no arguement that one art is better than the other.

But I don't see the point of X-training *my* art just because some street-guru says it no longer holds sway with the street-fighting fashion intelligensia - shoulder pads and Dynasty haircuts ok, but my Aikido, no. Traditional, yes it is certainly. Out of date? Well only to practitioners too lazy to refocus their techniques and instead run off looking for the arts that have the nicer t shirts or the coolest ring-boots or the highest-profile TV coverage.

If one is bored with one's art, fair enough, that suggests a need to go find something more challenging or appropriate, I'd be the first to suggest that. But at least we should be honest about it and not reason that it's because it doesn't work in the application for which it's designed. If anything in such an instance we should be honest with ourself that our motivation has withered to look deeper into our existing art.

All imho only! And all my own work. And I _still_ like Miami Vice rolled-up jacket sleeves anyway. Fashion? Who cares, hehe.

Respects!


----------



## Kensai (Jun 21, 2006)

I think the concept of the MMA is great in the ring, but as previously stated, it's nothing revolutionary. Where did the original techniques come from? You've guessed it, TMA. It's a good idea to x train in my view, if you think it will benefit you, and your existing art. MMA is in my opinion, the simplest, most direct attacks/defence for the ring. I'd imagine there's little or no difficulty in transferring that to a self defence scenario too, so all good. Self defence and fighting ARE different beasts entirely, it is a fine line, but there is a subtle difference. A lot of TMA focus on SD, some focus on fighting. There's good in both. Also as previously mentioned, MMA is in vogue at the moment, some arts are trendy, some aren't. It's to do with TV exposure, it's to do with marketing, martial arts politics (which royally pees me off I might add) and egos, always a dangerous, small-minded mix.

MMA for me has no interest. I've sparred, done boxing training in the forces, been punched in the face/head with gloves and bare knuckle in the course of my TMA/boxing training, I don't feel the need to constantly step into a ring to "fight someone" to prove that my MA works. If "you" do, that's great. I personally wonder if sometimes MMA leads to a watered down version of TMA, what I mean by that is, I'd rather do a direct striking TMA, and a grappling TMA to X-train, rather than do some MMA. That's simply my personal preference, what works for me, isn't someone elses cuppa tea. Whatever you train in, should work for you, and add an element of realism/practicality and most importantly perhaps, enjoyment. I get that from Wing Chun, and am currently looking for a grappling art taught in the West Mids in the UK...If anyone has any ideas, I'm open to suggestion. 

Cheers,

Kensai :asian:


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
> (I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)
> ...


 
I certainly wouldn't get discouraged, think that your training is useless and run off to start something 'new' because someone else said so.  IMHO, alot of it comes down to how one gears their training.  Many people look at an art, not really having any background in it, and assume that because things are not being done a certain way, that its ineffective.  Personally, I think before any judgement can be formed, a more in-depth look at the art in question, would be required.

I think that its a good idea to cross reference other arts, so as to get a better understanding of how they work, is a good idea, but I don't think that one needs to run off, abandon their current art, and jump on the new craze.  For example:  There are defenses in Kenpo against someone attempting to tackle us.  Now, if I always trained my defense against people with little to no grappling experience, am I really going to know if I can really do this defense?  Instead, I think it would be good to work with someone such as a grappler to get a better feel as to how they're going to do this tackle, and make any corrections/adjustments to my defense.  Am I leaving my base art?  No, but I am, as Martial Intent said, molding my style to the current times.

Pstarr also brought up some very good points.  There are many aspects hidden in the traditional arts.  The key word there is 'hidden' and its up to the student to be able to extract those points and apply them.  Having a teacher that can show these things is half the battle.

Keep in mind that everything has its pros and cons, its strong and weak spots.  If I wanted to better my punching skill, I may look at the MMA's, so 'borrow' some ideas and concepts that they use.  However, if I was looking to better my club and knife defense, I think that it'd be best to look at the FMA's for example, or an art that focuses a bit more on that area.

Mike


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
> (I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)
> ...


 
complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> What went back and forth was That the MMA's are the new revolution in the MA world, bringing everyone else (or forcing them, which was the word used) into the light. The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc.. It was said that no one fights that way for real, it's more like a MMA flow to it.
> 
> Where does everyone stand on this?


 
Do these people watch TV? Shows like COPS, Maximum Exposure, or World's Most Amazing Videos? Or do they ever watch clips of "real" street fights on Youtube or Ebaums World? There's plenty of documented video to tell anyone with two eyeballs and a brain that a large majority of attacks are right-left haymakers and/or tackle & grab attempts. The normal 'Joe' on the street isn't going to use Tito Ortiz-like strategy when considering how they will rob you, or after a couple of beers how they will make you stop looking at their girlfriend. LOL ....that is, unless you've managed to piss off the real Tito Ortiz, or one of his students...unlikely. 

There's absolutely no reason why someone that takes the time and developes the discipline required to learn TMA couldn't more than adequately defend themselves in the 'real' world.


----------



## gixxershane (Jun 21, 2006)

i dont think that martial arts are out dated.. i think that they need to evolve as we do. every system has its pros and cons..

there have been really good posts here in this thread..if you look at mma, you see verry little defense when it comes to the stand up.. it seems to me that when counter strikeing they also get hit... might just be me, but i thought the whole idea is to not get hit, then hit back in a devistating manor.. thus preventing the altercation from going to the ground..

i have no problems with wanting to cross train to try to gain an advantage, so as to be prepaired for as manny situations as possible.

this is just my opnion, and you know what they say about thoes


----------



## Kensai (Jun 21, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Do these people watch TV? Shows like COPS, Maximum Exposure, or World's Most Amazing Videos? Or do they ever watch clips of "real" street fights on Youtube or Ebaums World? There's plenty of documented video to tell anyone with two eyeballs and a brain that a large majority of attacks are right-left haymakers and/or tackle & grab attempts. *The normal 'Joe' on the street isn't going to use Tito Ortiz-like strategy when considering how they will rob you, or after a couple of beers how they will make you stop looking at their girlfriend. LOL ....that is, unless you've managed to piss off the real Tito Ortiz, or one of his students...unlikely*.
> 
> There's absolutely no reason why someone that takes the time and developes the discipline required to learn TMA couldn't more than adequately defend themselves in the 'real' world.


 
Smack on the money. Another difference, fighting some chav on the street who's trying to half inch your wallet, or a 230lb muscleman fighting machine/*professional *fighter, massive difference in circumstances.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 21, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
> Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.



those two statements seem a bit contradictory. What is wrong w/ a martial sport? I don't participate in one, but I'd love to hear why its w/out merit.. not just MMA, but other MA's you'd consider martial sports.

Lets tear the first one apart, since you called BS 

1) Boxers train to fighting in a ring. they wear gloves, and train for specific durations of time, 3 or 2 minutes. This won't happen in a "real fight", so is their training impractical? They also train w/ head gear, but they don't fight with it. Personally, I'd not like to face a boxer in a street fight.

2) In just about every martial art I'm familiar with, you don't go full contact or full threat (someone with a loaded gun pointed at your head for instance, or someone seriously intent on killing/raping/maiming you). So, would you consider the training w/out full contact or w/out serious threat w/out merit? Alot of MA's have multiple attacker defenses. This seems a realistic situation, but how many deal with more than 4 attackers at a time? is this not also possible? They won't all come in to attack in sequence either, but likely jump in whenever they want, w/out choreography. Try that next time you do multiple attackers in practice. They won't be going slow-mo either 

3)  Suppose you play soccer. The intent of playing soccer is to win games. each player has their own facet, but they play as a unit in an attempt to score and win (in this case, take soccer to be the training). Now, take a soccer player and put them on a track, telling them to run a 100M race (in this case, the "realistic" situation). Would they do ok? Most of them sure would, because a byproduct of them playing soccer religiously is that they are in shape enough to perform decently on the track. Is running a 100M race the point of playing soccer? No. So, would it be impractical for the "real situation" of running a 100M race?

so, in conclusion, you can't truly practice realistically (w/out protection or GREAT health insurance), but thats a bit irrelevant, since you practice the best you can for what you could possibly encounter. I'd rather be a soccer playing running a 100M race than some guy sitting on the couch all day drinking beer trying to run the 100M. I guess you could "pressure test" your stuff by going out and picking fights, or entering no hold barred contests, but personally I value my life a bit more than that  Its hard to defend against someone w/ a gun a few yards away. You can't possibly train for every situation, but you train the best you can. Does not make it unrealistic/impractical, just practical and you train the best you can.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
> (I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)
> ...


 
Since your LEOs you guys need a reality check, that being intent, motive, concept and reality. I've got to play on both sides of the fence and have issues all a round.

MAs (TMA or MMA) is approached as a sport, will get you killed. Thats not to say BJJ or even TKD won't work in a street fight, I've seen it happen. That does say the basic human ability to learn does not generally process intent, motive and reality for any technque, only the method of how it is taught to be applied. Sports based MAs teach "fair play" in application, and until a student learns the technique fluidly enoughto do it on reflex the idea of fighting dirty does not come up, mentally.

I have friends who are LEOs as well, and as much as I love to throw back a few beers and watch some guys beat the crap out of each other, that is nothing compared to a street fight and even less compared to trying to bring some yahoo loaded on meth down in a fight without having to use lethal force. Most TMAs were designed for the battle field or the intent of killing another men/woman if need be. 

I don't see MMA as the new revolution in MA, but the new marketing strategy for MA. I don't care if you use Karate or Muay Thai, BJJ or Greeko-Roman wrestling. There are only two essentual methods of martial arts striking and grappling and if you don't consider both them you are way off the map.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jun 21, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> complete BS. You either train for the way you're going to fight.....or you practice something impractical.
> Guys that do MMA are training to fight MMA......that doesnt mean they wont be good in other aspects of martial arts......but it is martial sport.


 
agreed.

it sounds like yet another, "MMA is the way to go; everything else is obsolete."

HS, you can't argue with closed-minded individuals.  don't attempt to sway the ignorant.  if you do, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.  do what you do, the best you can do it!


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.  

In China, lei fights occured for hundreds of years.  A martial artist would set up a platform and ask people to fight him under a ruleset he created (his platform his rules).  Challenge matches were common, often with agreed upon rules.  These one-on-one prearranged fights were considered as the top indicator of fighting prowess and when a fighter was victorious over a rival, the loser's students would often go over to the winner or at very least leave him.  

Today, virtually every time an MMA fighter faces a TMA fighter, he wins.  This has given us spectacles such as MMA fighters with six months on part time training destroying lifelong traditional fights who operate their schools full time.  Virtually every TMA man who has tried has failed - the Gracies, who are today far from the top of the MMA world have racked up literally thousands of victories under no or very few rules.  Truly talented TMA fighters like Keith Hackney and Ron Van Clief have admitted the superiority of the new fighting style.  

In the earlier days of mixed martial arts, fights in the hotels and bars surrounding the venues were fairly common.  Though today this has largely passed, at one point virtually every UFC was followed by someone being jumped in the lobby.  Some of these turned into mass brawls while others were one-on-one.  One was fought 3 against 2 in an elevator.  Several UFC competitors were attacked by street thugs in or around their hotels in an attempt to prove their toughness.  The sheer fact that these people didn't say "hey, our tounament fighting is totally useless 'on the street'" should say something.  

Even more relavent is the fact that many earlier UFC fighters were at one point streetfighters.  Others were highly trained and very experianced TMAists.  Yet, they gave up their old training for MMA preparation.  If these things worked better, they wouldn't have changed.  While many champions of the TMA's sport world, and several of its higher level non-competitive fighters have switched to MMA, no major MMA fighter has ever quit to study TMA.  

In their day, the creators of many TMA systems were similar to todays MMA fighters.  Unlike today's TMAists, they took their strength seriously.  Many lifted river rocks regularly (a rather primative, though effective form of powerlifting).  Others ran considerable distances building aerobic fitness.  Several CMA forms are intended as isometric exercises.  Often, they relished the idea of competition and actively sought out other martial artists to challenge.  They then modified their styles to be more effective.  

Bruce Lee pointed out that the personal insights of an effective fighter were often turned into static imitation by the kool aid drinkers of the world who refused to acknowledge that the originators were effective competitive fighters who won matches and trained for strength and speed.  

Just as Royce Gracie was a dominent force in his origional UFC fights against all comers but now is little match even for a man he normally outweighs by 15 lbs., Yang LuChan and his like were truly phenomenal  match fighers in their own day whose styles are today practiced in an ineffective manner and whose practitioners can no longer effectively face off against modern fighters.  

Many TMA practitioners have fallen back on a weak and tired appeal to authority in the form of saying that their style's origionator was more street tested than modern MMA fighters.  Perhaps true, but if his martial arts descendants can't fight, it doesn't matter whan his capabilities were - it is YOU who will fight, not him.  The idea that combative knowledge is static is also rather absurd.  

Today, we believe in things like blood circulation, even though the Roman surgeon Galen, who performed more operations than all but a few modern surgeons and was a personal doctor to the emperor as well as chief physician for the Olympic games explicitly stated that blood did NOT move about the body.  If medicine was treated the same way martial arts were, every mention of circulation would be met with "Are you smarter than Galen?"  "It amazes me that people who have never operated believe they know better than Galen" and similar statements.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.


 
What defines competitive? I pretty much agree with as to the state of TMAs and that is the fault of more then just how they are taught. But do I define MMA as the best we got, yes and no. Sports wise I define it as the best we have, street wise may be. I haven't seen too many people who can stand up in the street, period end of story and I don't care what you think you know.

I don't care if its TMA or MMA, but not facing reality will get you killed. There is no one martial art or mix of martial arts that can prepare you for the real world, there is facing the reality that no matter what statistics say, or what BS propaganda your instructor feeds you. You will always be lacking and you will always stand a chance of being a victem at some end.

Now what defines competitive? Competitive in the ring and competitive in the street is a big difference...


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 21, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Now what defines competitive? Competitive in the ring and competitive in the street is a big difference...


However, not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

They are seperated only by intent and focus...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> The TMA's were dated, maybe revolutionary back in the day, but, now MOSTLY irrelevant. They were designed to defend against that one big punch by a drunk, where you take a stance, block it, etc..


 
Actually many were designed to kill their opponent. 

I know I am late to this, but I just saw it.

I have read through these posts and all though I agree with much of what has been said I thought that should be pointed out.

Many TMA were designed for use by people that were going to be in a war.

As well known Sifu said at a seminar when a woman asked him what you do after you get the person in the Qinna lock "you kill them"

Even in MA competitions in the past people got killed, there were no rules. 

If your coworker believes what he is saying he has very little understanding of martial arts at all.

MMA is very impressive and quite effective, but I have never understood the need for some MMA practitioners to bash other arts, nor have I understood the need for some TMA people to bash MMA.

MMA is nothing new, it has been around or centuries by definition, Samurai practiced more than just sword arts. Chinese Solders knew more than just how to use a sword as well. MMA competitions on the other hand have not been around for years and are fairly new by comparison.


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

I don't agree Dark.  The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I don't agree Dark.  The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.



Streetfighting has no rules - that is the issue that many people, whether they practice TMA or MMA tend to forget.  Simply because you can beat someone in a fight with rules - no matter how loose the rules - means little on the street, where there are no referees, no protective gear of any type (including cups, unless you wear yours all the time), and no holding back from maiming or killing strikes, with or without weapons.  No system, unless it follows the same lack of rules as a street fight, is going to prepare you to be in a street fight - so unless your system allows you to fight no holds barred, with no illegal targets, no holding back, and weapons of all types, then this statement is not particularly meaningful.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 21, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Streetfighting has no rules - that is the issue that many people, whether they practice TMA or MMA tend to forget.  Simply because you can beat someone in a fight with rules - no matter how loose the rules - means little on the street, where there are no referees, no protective gear of any type (including cups, unless you wear yours all the time), and no holding back from maiming or killing strikes, with or without weapons.  No system, unless it follows the same lack of rules as a street fight, is going to prepare you to be in a street fight - so unless your system allows you to fight no holds barred, with no illegal targets, no holding back, and weapons of all types, then this statement is not particularly meaningful.



are you claiming then that 99%+ of all TMA and MMA are meaningless in the street? Go back and read post #11.


----------



## crushing (Jun 21, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> Streetfighting has no rules - that is the issue that many people, whether they practice TMA or MMA tend to forget. Simply because you can beat someone in a fight with rules - no matter how loose the rules - means little on the street, where there are no referees, no protective gear of any type (including cups, unless you wear yours all the time), and no holding back from maiming or killing strikes, with or without weapons. No system, unless it follows the same lack of rules as a street fight, is going to prepare you to be in a street fight - so unless your system allows you to fight no holds barred, with no illegal targets, no holding back, and weapons of all types, then this statement is not particularly meaningful.


 
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it appears that you are saying that those that practice TMA or MMA will be only as effective or less effective in a streetfight than the 'average Joe'.

Things such as balance, speed, quickness, flexibility, and power tend to be improved in training, so I don't see how training in TMA or MMA could do anything but help a person that ends up in such a situtation, independent of their understanding of any rules, or lack thereof.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I don't agree Dark. The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.


 
To that I agree, the rules of body mechanics and physics are the same, and live practice does build a better understanding of this. But we are talking about reality and that includes intent, psychology and suvivalist instinct.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2006)

No, I am saying that someone who trains with the intent of learning to defend themselves, with an instructor who understands street defense, will have a better chance of defending themselves *regardless* of the style they train in - because no matter what style one trains in, no matter how realistic the training, people must understand that _the street is different_.  This is the part that many people miss when attempting to compare arts through tournament competition.  Sorry if my previous post was unclear; I knew what I meant to say, but didn't get it all down in the post.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 21, 2006)

Exactly.  To say that in the UFC contests the traditionalists always lost - well, you've got to take a hard look at the event itself.


Who owned the event?  After making public challenges to "names" such as Bill Wallace and others, the Gracies decided to conduct this special event- and guess who always managed to win?
I recall some of the hype which featured "traditional martial arts 'masters' " including:
           *A karate master from Japan who, according to the hype, was 
             legendary throughout that nation.  Now, I try to keep fairly 
             current on these things but I never heard of this guy-

           *A top kenpo "master" from the U.S.  The guy had to weigh in at 
             least at 400 lbs.  I was surprised he didn't roll out onto the mat.  
             If I'd been a kenpo practitioner, I'd have been wondering who on 
             earth this guy was?  Not surprisingly, he lost...

          *One of the top kung-fu competitors in America...a young 
            Caucasian kid.  Now, at the time, I was Nat'L Chairman of the 
            AAU Kung-Fu Division which was the largest kung-fu organization 
            in the country.  I'd never seen or heard of this fellow.  And, 
            well...he lost.  But he would've lost if he'd fought my sister, too.

     And so on it went.  So let's not make foolish statements like "virtually every traditional martial artist who fought in an MMA match lost..." because that's like saying that "every MMA person who competed in the Triple Crown Golf Tournament lost..."  It's meaningless.

     Traditional martial arts were (and still are) designed to kill an opponent rather than pin him to the ground or force him to submit.  They were designed for dealing with multiple aggressors (try wrestling some scumbag on the street and see if his buddies stand around and watch...).  On the street, as several members have pointed out, there are no rules, no ring, no cushy mats, no referees, no prize money.  You enemy may be (and likely will be) armed.  I'd rather not wrestle some bozo who's got a knife in his pocket.

     And, as has been pointed out, mixed martial arts are nothing new at all.  Competing under rules like they use, is.  Traditionalists who compete against MMA practitioners under these rules are fools because their arts were never designed to be restricted by such rules.

     For many years people have wanted to see if this karate and kung-fu "stuff" really works...thus, the "full-contact" contests - which are neither "full contact" nor are they really karate or kung-fu.  The fact is that you simply can't compete with the real thing.  That'd be like having combat shooting matches with competitors shooting at each other, or fencing matches with sabers and no protective gear.

It just ain't healthy.

MMA (which I still insist is a misnomer) has its place as a competitive sport and that's fine.  But to say that it's superior to traditional martial arts is like comparing a fish to a bicycle...


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> are you claiming then that 99%+ of all TMA and MMA are meaningless in the street?


 
in a criminal incounter, they are meaningless. In reality a mugger will stab first and ask for your wallet second. Or my un-favorite getting popped in the back of the gord with tire iorn and you wallet snatched...


----------



## Adept (Jun 21, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> No system, unless it follows the same lack of rules as a street fight, is going to prepare you to be in a street fight - so unless your system allows you to fight no holds barred, with no illegal targets, no holding back, and weapons of all types, then this statement is not particularly meaningful.



I disagree. Knowing your techniques, and importantly knowing _relevant_ techniques, as well as being in decent physical shape and having plenty of relevant experience is an advantage over anyone who doesn't know squat, and isn't in shape, regardless of the type of competition.

It may not be the most important advantage, but it is an advantage none the less, and often times it will be the decisive one.


----------



## Adept (Jun 21, 2006)

I tend to agree with Rook. Unless someone actively takes their TMA background and techniques and applies those techniques in their training, as they would in a 'street' altercation, then they are essentially kidding themselves. Now, I imagine most people here  do this, and I imagine that most people here would have found, as I did, that the 'vanilla' techniques, straight from the dojo, were pretty hopeless. They needed slight re-working, and they needed to be applied in live drills.

Added to that, I also found that my TMA repertoire was lacking, and I felt the need to do some cross-training to fill gaps and give myself a more relevant toolbox.

Most MMA fighters do this constantly. They have to in order to remain competitive. I've found that most TMA practitioners do not. Now, I'm sure most of us here take out MA pretty seriously, and have either supplemented our own training or found a school that delivers what we seek; relevant and effective training for likely encounters. But I don't believe that we are the majority of TMA practitioners. 

In my experience, most people are pretty happy just taking the vanilla techniques home and never improving them. Perhaps improving them isn't the right word, as it's more a process of modification of application for the individual. Whatever it is, most people don't do it. They never test it against a live opponent, the TKD people never go full contact with someone who wants to take them to the ground, the Judo people never spar against someone trying to take their head off with controlled, competent strikes, etc.

That to me, is the biggest and most important difference between MMA and TMA, or even just full contact sport martial arts and twice-weekly martial arts classes. The competitive fighters train hard, and they train what works for them in a ring environment. Sure, the street is different again, but there is a lot of cross-over area. I know I'd be happier facing most Kung Fu black belts in a bar, than a competent professional boxer.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> I disagree. Knowing your techniques, and importantly knowing _relevant_ techniques, as well as being in decent physical shape and having plenty of relevant experience is an advantage over anyone who doesn't know squat, and isn't in shape, regardless of the type of competition.
> 
> It may not be the most important advantage, but it is an advantage none the less, and often times it will be the decisive one.


 
Problem is except for the cookie cutter dojos, the masses of martial arts TMA and MMA all preach physical fittness. That is a non-issue, for non-McDojos, sparring is one thing but lets talk the average human learning curve.

Do as you are most commonly known to do...
Do as you are most repeatedly told to do...
Do as you are most repeatedly see to do...

If you are most commonly told to punch and you must commonly see punching and you most commonly practice punching. Your gonna punch. To that end you hit the preverbial fixed pattern and you lose.

The issue here, is in all reality a non-issue. Most traditional martial arts are derived from other arts modified or added to. Every martial artist who takes themselves seriously adds to or modifies their arts. It's only become look down by the large organizational bodies. To say one is better then the other is personal choice I see no point in arguing. But to say one is meaningless ot the other is childnesses. It's like saying only I can have a red car because I want red cars


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I don't agree Dark. The street follows the same rules of physics as elsewhere - if someone can strike, throw, or grapple effectively in a ring they should be able to do it on the street and more importantly viceversa.


 
Big John McCarthy ain't gonna come runnin' out of the alley to save your butt on the street from a rear naked choke. The same rules don't apply. That doesn't mean all styles or systems don't have something productive to offer in the realm of self-defense. All legitimate ones do, it's just some prefer to focus more on the sport aspect, some the 'internal' or performance aspect, and some self-defense aspect. 

All systems or styles contain elements of all three aspects (sport/internal/defense) but individual needs usually dictate what art form someone studies. That's not a reason to perpetuate an "us vs. them" mentality. All legitimate arts have something to offer and IMHO if you cut yorself off from any one of them you're only limiting yourself tohow good a martial artist you can actually be.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 21, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> in a criminal incounter, they are meaningless. In reality a mugger will stab first and ask for your wallet second. Or my un-favorite getting popped in the back of the gord with tire iorn and you wallet snatched...



opcorn:


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Exactly. To say that in the UFC contests the traditionalists always lost - well, you've got to take a hard look at the event itself.
> 
> 
> Who owned the event? After making public challenges to "names" such as Bill Wallace and others, the Gracies decided to conduct this special event- and guess who always managed to win?
> ...


 
There are several points to make to this.  

1.  Everyone realizes that the Gracies were not able to get the best opponents in the earliest UFCs.  These people were "Champions" of some sort or another, but were rarely at the top of the heap.  However, many very high level MAists have competed.  

2.  The field is by no means closed to TMAists today.  Literally thousands of tournaments go on every year in the US alone.  Someone who believes they could do better than those in the early UFCs has ample opportunities to do so.  Those who claim effectiveness vs. MMAists without ever having fought competitive ones are deluding themselves.  

Many MMA gym members are more then willing to spar or even go full contact with someone who wants to test what they know in a less formal setting.  

In short, those who think they can do better should actually do, rather than merely talk about.  

3.  PRIDE and other organizations often arrange exhibitions between their fighters and non-MMAists or low-level but famous MMAists.  Someone who holds a prominent place in the TMA community would have little difficulty getting an exhibition with an excellent practitioner if they ask.  

4.  "Combat shooting matches" are refered to as wars, police shootouts, etc.  Input from what has worked in these actual shooting situations continues to inform training methods and practices.  Weapons and ammunition are legitimately called "combat tested" only after actual use in war.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> I disagree. Knowing your techniques, and importantly knowing _relevant_ techniques, as well as being in decent physical shape and having plenty of *relevant experience* is an advantage over anyone who doesn't know squat, and isn't in shape, regardless of the type of competition.
> 
> It may not be the most important advantage, but it is an advantage none the less, and often times it will be the decisive one.



What, in your opinion, constitutes *relevant experience*?  Does competing in tournaments _help_?  Yes - because unlike in-class sparring, you are competing against someone you don't know, and don't practice with regularly - therefore someone less predictable.  Nonetheless, in a competition setting, your opponent is not attempting to knock you out, destroy your knee joint, shatter bones, etc - not that such things don't happen, but that is not the *aim* of tournament competition, and no matter how intense your opponent, in the back of your mind is the thought that there are rules... some kind of rules... which you don't have in the street.


----------



## Adept (Jun 21, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> What, in your opinion, constitutes *relevant experience*?



Anything which helps deal with the adrenalin dump and the shock of getting hit. Full contact sparring matches, tournaments, competitive fights, previous 'streetfight' experience, some types of security or LEO work, etc. Obviously some are better than others, but they are all an advantage in some measure.



> no matter how intense your opponent, in the back of your mind is the thought that there are rules... some kind of rules... which you don't have in the street.



Not entirely relevant. Experience taking full contact hits and dealing with rushing adrenaline will be of significant benefit in most real life physical altercations, especially when your opponent(s) don't have that experience.


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

celtic_crippler said:
			
		

> Big John McCarthy ain't gonna come runnin' out of the alley to save your butt on the street from a rear naked choke. The same rules don't apply.


 
True.  If someone gets you in a choke on the street, they may hold it until either forced to give it up or until the person being choked dies.  How that makes a choke less effective is beyond me.  



> That doesn't mean all styles or systems don't have something productive to offer in the realm of self-defense. All legitimate ones do,


 
True.   Some are better than others though, and some are better adapted to certain body types than others.  



> it's just some prefer to focus more on the sport aspect, some the 'internal' or performance aspect, and some self-defense aspect.


 
Thats fine.  I study karate because its fun, not because I believe I am on the path to destroy people at will.  I just wish that people who train for entertainment wouldn't claim that they can beat professional athletes who train effective combat for a living.  



> All systems or styles contain elements of all three aspects (sport/internal/defense) but individual needs usually dictate what art form someone studies.


 
Fair enough. 



> That's not a reason to perpetuate an "us vs. them" mentality. All legitimate arts have something to offer and IMHO if you cut yorself off from any one of them you're only limiting yourself tohow good a martial artist you can actually be.


 
While everyone legitimate has something to offer, some of that is better than others.  Sometimes people should be encouraged to pass and focus on what they are looking for rather than trying to justify what they already do as the ultimate style.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Anything which helps deal with the adrenalin dump and the shock of getting hit. Full contact sparring matches, tournaments, competitive fights, previous 'streetfight' experience, some types of security or LEO work, etc. Obviously some are better than others, but they are all an advantage in some measure.



The point I was trying to make was that you can get this in TMA or MMA as long as the instructor knows how to teach it, and the student knows how to train for it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> There are several points to make to this.
> 
> 1. Everyone realizes that the Gracies were not able to get the best opponents in the earliest UFCs. These people were "Champions" of some sort or another, but were rarely at the top of the heap. However, many very high level MAists have competed.
> 
> ...


 
Actually Cung Le is not MMA he is CMA but I do not know if Sanshou/Sanda would be classified as TMA. He is so far doing well in MMA. 

I have said this before TMA, CMA, JMA, people do not fight in MMA for the same reason Boxers do not. They have thier own competitions, basically MMA does not matter to them. In the case of CMA it is sanshou and as I also stated before in the most recent international Sanshou competition in Vietnam the Woman's silver went to a Tai chi person and the men's bronze also went to a Tai Chi person. 

And if you do not think these matches are real you are seriously mistaken. The bronze medalist ended up in surgery because of an injury received related to the match.

And if you go to Chinese national competitions, they can get extremely brutal.

I am not trying to take away from MMA here; I would not even begin to believe I would last very long in an MMA ring. But using the argument that if TMA is so good why don't they fight in MMA is baseless. If MMA is so good why don't they fight in Sanshou? Reason, they are different, period, not better or worse, just different.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

I fall back to my stand that the big issues with TMA comes from the McDojos and that in essence their is no arguement over MMA vs TMA. The reality is that sport fighting won't save you in the street and neither will the tae-bo the McDojos teach as fighting arts...


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> Actually Cung Le is not MMA he is CMA but I do not know if Sanshou/Sanda would be classified as TMA. He is so far doing well in MMA.


 
Sanshou is ussually not considered a TMA.  It is a sport competition, often practiced in gym settings, lacks kata/forms, and its practitioners pressure test their skills.  Sanshou is as traditional as kickboxing, which came out of "full contact karate" in the same manner.  



> I have said this before TMA, CMA, JMA, people do not fight in MMA for the same reason Boxers do not. They have thier own competitions, basically MMA does not matter to them. In the case of CMA it is sanshou and as I also stated before in the most recent international Sanshou competition in Vietnam the Woman's silver went to a Tai chi person and the men's bronze also went to a Tai Chi person.


 
Now follow Cung Le, a very skilled real fighter, in MMA rather than staying there.  Sports fighting in non-MMA events should give a good idea of how good a person is in a particular aspect of fighting (in Sanshou it is standup and to a lesser extent takedowns... just add groundwork and your in business).  



> And if you do not think these matches are real you are seriously mistaken. The bronze medalist ended up in surgery because of an injury received related to the match.


 
Don't mistake heavily injured competitors for quality victors, although I do highly respect good competitive Sanshou - its an excellent base for MMA when done right.  



> And if you go to Chinese national competitions, they can get extremely brutal.


 
They will be well prepared for the standup and takedown components.  THat is good.  



> I am not trying to take away from MMA here; I would not even begin to believe I would last very long in an MMA ring. But using the argument that if TMA is so good why don't they fight in MMA is baseless.


 
Huh?  



> If MMA is so good why don't they fight in Sanshou?


 
Some people like to fight in all ranges of combat - including the ground.  Lots of good fighters want the groundwork component with the less restrictive rules of MMA.  Also, MMA still pays better, although it doesn't pay highly, which keeps pro athletes going to MMA and kickboxing.  



> Reason, they are different, period, not better or worse, just different.


 
MMA allows all of what Sanshou does plus more - ie the ground.  People who suceed under less restrictive rules are the better proven fighters.


----------



## trueaspirer (Jun 21, 2006)

I think it depends. Any style can be used any way, its how you practiced it. If you practiced it in a single-move way, it won't work, but if you practiced practically, it should work. Even though all mas are different, they are similar enough that any style should work if you apply it right.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Sanshou is ussually not considered a TMA. It is a sport competition, often practiced in gym settings, lacks kata/forms, and its practitioners pressure test their skills. Sanshou is as traditional as kickboxing, which came out of "full contact karate" in the same manner.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And since you have entirely missed my point. I am not trying to prove anything is better here because I do not believe any of them are. If you are trying to prove this to me, I suggest you move on to prove it to someone else, you are wasting your time.

And I do not take an injury as a sign of a good match, it was an example.

You should see a Chinese sanshou match before you infer that it is a good base for MMA. They would probably say just the opposite. And of course the expected response will be, well if they are so good why dont they fight in MMA.

Point, which you seem to have completely missed. They do not fight in MMA because they do not care about MMA. As surprising as this may come to an MMA person, MMA very likely matters little to them. They have there own matches that are equally as good and or taxing. And there are take downs in international matches and Chinese matches, if you can actually get close enough to take one down that is.

And aadditinal point, sanshou/sanda has a non-sport side as well that has everything you are talking about in MMA and more that does not follow rules. It is the preferred style taught to the Chinese Police and Military. And if you do not think they are effective

I do not understand the need to prove superiority whether that comes from a CMA guy or am JMA guy or a MMA guy or a TMA guy.

As for the Sanhou women's silver, I also posted before something that shows that she was apparently effective in the street as well. I frankly do not make the distinctions, to me it is all martial arts and it can all be very effective, it all depends on the practitioner and the situation they are in.

I am very tired of the MMA, CMA TMA JMA argument. Believe what you will.


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2006)

Wow, this is certainly turning into an interesting thread!:ultracool   Lots of great posts here, and most importantly, considering the nature of the topic, we're all remaining civil!:ultracool 

I guess we can look at a few things here.

A) We hear "You fight like you train" so if we look at the rules list and the do's and don'ts, I think some may think, "Well, if the MMA fighter doesn't normally train for an eye shot or groin kick and the TMA guy does, they may stand a better chance.  The other side of the coin is the counter argument that yes, the MMA guy will be capable of doing those things.

B) What about weapons and mult. attackers?  I haven't been to my BJJ classes in a while, but as of the last time I was there, we didn't focus on gun, knife or mult attacker scenarios.

C) If a TMAist did not cross train or cross reference other arts, are they still going to hold up in a confrontation?

D) Is the average person that is going to try and mug us, steal our wallet, try to attack our wife or girlfriend, going to be on the same skill level as a fighter that you'd see in a MMA match?

Just for clarification, the above comments are not necessarily ones that people have said in this thread, but they're simply the usual comments that come up in discussions like this.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2006)

trueaspirer said:
			
		

> I think it depends. Any style can be used any way, its how you practiced it. If you practiced it in a single-move way, it won't work, but if you practiced practically, it should work. Even though all mas are different, they are similar enough that any style should work if you apply it right.


 
Right on!!!  My point exactly!!  As I said earlier, unless we know how every single art out there trains, how can someone say that a TMA is useless?  It all comes down to how things are trained.

Mike


----------



## pstarr (Jun 21, 2006)

I agree COMPLETELY with what Dark said regarding McDojos.  But traditionalists probably loathe them even more than the MMA crowd simply because they tout themselves as "traditional martial arts" and give all of us a bad name.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, unless we know how every single art out there trains, how can someone say that a TMA is useless? It all comes down to how things are trained.


 
Exactly. :asian:


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 21, 2006)

MMA showed that a rounding of the tools improved results. And conditioning that lacks in some store front M/A schools.  Most TMA,s have certion amounts of ground work When trained more they can deal better. Look at todays UFC . people are beeter rounded at there game. Can TMA,s compete there now. Yes if thats what you want you train it to work in the MMA events. But you have to remember condition is a big part also. And training means you put in the resistive training. MMa and TMA both work is one better. one test results more. BUt TMA can test more often making the use come out better. Where did MMA come from. It came from other arts. Its still M/A


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> And since you have entirely missed my point. I am not trying to prove anything is better here because I do not believe any of them are. If you are trying to prove this to me, I suggest you move on to prove it to someone else, you are wasting your time.


 
Simply by making the discussion public makes it possible to convince people not directly involved in the conversation. 



> And I do not take an injury as a sign of a good match, it was an example.


 
Fair enough.  



> You should see a Chinese sanshou match before you infer that it is a good base for MMA. They would probably say just the opposite. And of course the expected response will be, well if they are so good why dont they fight in MMA.


 
In the years to come, I strongly suspect that many of them will fight MMA.  If not, it may be that they are more interested in other things than what MMA offers.  Thats fine, so long as no one is under the impression that this is superior to MMA in fighting.  



> Point, which you seem to have completely missed. They do not fight in MMA because they do not care about MMA. As surprising as this may come to an MMA person, MMA very likely matters little to them. They have there own matches that are equally as good and or taxing. And there are take downs in international matches and Chinese matches, if you can actually get close enough to take one down that is.


 
I've seen some of the matches on the web.  They have good kickboxing skills and some of them have solid takedowns.  



> And aadditinal point, sanshou/sanda has a non-sport side as well that has everything you are talking about in MMA and more that does not follow rules. It is the preferred style taught to the Chinese Police and Military. And if you do not think they are effective


 
There are lots of things not intended for full fighting, but rather for the restraint without injury of incompetent or outnumbered opponents.  Thats fine. 



> I do not understand the need to prove superiority whether that comes from a CMA guy or am JMA guy or a MMA guy or a TMA guy.


 
So long as no one claims superiority they don't have, thats fine.  



> As for the Sanhou women's silver, I also posted before something that shows that she was apparently effective in the street as well.


 


> I frankly do not make the distinctions, to me it is all martial arts and it can all be very effective, it all depends on the practitioner and the situation they are in.


 
I'm going to steal an idea that someone posted on Budoseek a while back.  Lets say I practice a really bad style, lets say its called "Ultraspin-jutsu" and consists entirely of spinning backkick variations.  The actual technique of a spinning backkick is applicable even in MMA, where it occassionally used against a weakened opponent.  If I practice this limited style at the level of an Olympic athlete and never get caught in close space or fight someone with skill at a more effective style, then yes, I could hypothetically beat most of the population in unarmed fighting.  Should we just say "Hey, if I train hard enough I can make the most worthless throw usefull by muscling over my opponent, etc" and therefor any possible style is utterly equal to all other styles?  

In the early and middle UFCs, JJ practitioners beat many people who were superior athletes, not to mention larger.  If training time could overcome all problems, then the ring would have every possible array of human motion working with relatively equal sucess.  



> I am very tired of the MMA, CMA TMA JMA argument. Believe what you will.


 
Fair enough.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 21, 2006)

I know I basically said I was going to let this go, but some of the things you said make no sense to me and I need some clarification



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Simply by making the discussion public makes it possible to convince people not directly involved in the conversation. .


 
I have no idea what you are referring to here?



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> In the years to come, I strongly suspect that many of them will fight MMA. If not, it may be that they are more interested in other things than what MMA offers. Thats fine, so long as no one is under the impression that this is superior to MMA in fighting.


 
I do not know about them, but I never said anything was superior to MMA. However I did say MMA was not superior to any other MA as well





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> I've seen some of the matches on the web. They have good kickboxing skills and some of them have solid takedowns.
> 
> 
> There are lots of things not intended for full fighting, but rather for the restraint without injury of incompetent or outnumbered opponents. Thats fine.


 
How do I put this.... The police and military in China...well they are not exactly concerned about restraint without injury. If you push a police officer in China.. You will get hurt. If you are crazy enough to mess with the military.. you are lucky if you only get hurt. 

They do not train Sanda for restraint. 




			
				Rook said:
			
		

> So long as no one claims superiority they don't have, thats fine.


 
who is claiming superiority, if you think it is I you definitely have missed my point




			
				Rook said:
			
		

> I'm going to steal an idea that someone posted on Budoseek a while back. Lets say I practice a really bad style, lets say its called "Ultraspin-jutsu" and consists entirely of spinning backkick variations. The actual technique of a spinning backkick is applicable even in MMA, where it occassionally used against a weakened opponent. If I practice this limited style at the level of an Olympic athlete and never get caught in close space or fight someone with skill at a more effective style, then yes, I could hypothetically beat most of the population in unarmed fighting. Should we just say "Hey, if I train hard enough I can make the most worthless throw usefull by muscling over my opponent, etc" and therefor any possible style is utterly equal to all other styles?


 
Sorry, but I have no idea how this applies. 



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> In the early and middle UFCs, JJ practitioners beat many people who were superior athletes, not to mention larger. If training time could overcome all problems, then the ring would have every possible array of human motion working with relatively equal sucess.


 
Once again I have no idea how this applies to anything I said.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Fair enough.


 
Sorry, I just had to respond, let me reiterate. I am NOT saying MMA is a lesser art. I AM saying it is an equal art. I am NOT saying MMA is superior to anything, nor am I saying TMA is superior to anything.

I am saying the argument of "if they are so good why don't they compete in MMA" is pointless and groundless. They have their own competitions and many of them are not in the least bit interested in MMA. 

Many of the Chinese sanshou fighters never leave China. First they live there, second they work there and third they see no reason to test their skills against anyone else. They may in fact believe they are superior, I have no idea. I know they are serious and they kick, punch, throw, and ground fight, etc. They also train multiple points on their bodies to hit you with, generally by hitting trees and rocks, and they do not train with pads or gloves. And if what I have seen in early non-sport sanda is any indication of hitting power, they can hit hard with just about anything. 

Also many of the people in the Chinese Sanda matches are police and military. Although their base is non-sport, they enjoy the sport competition too.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 21, 2006)

Sorry to respond late, but I only have a computer at work, and I work the 3rd shift (a fight in itself).

Thanks everyone for the answers.

The debate at work was that, not so much that MMA was better, but, that it took the MA's in general up a level, just as the American/Hawaiian sytyles did to the TMA's. We were reviewing the altercations on the jobs--Grappling situations, and fast stand up, with "ugly" boxing attempts. The one big punch was absent--for the most part. They were saying that the TMA's were stiff and rooted, with no flow. The MMA's teach all to Flow better and look more closely to what a real situation was. Think of MMA without any of the rules, and mixed with a MA mindset. What also came up was how many instances the "Karate" guys got trashed, easily by these untrained thugs.


----------



## Rook (Jun 21, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I know I basically said I was going to let this go, but some of the things you said make no sense to me and I need some clarification


 
Ok.  



> I have no idea what you are referring to here?


 
If I don't convince you, I might convince someone who is reading but not writing anything on this thread.  



> I do not know about them, but I never said anything was superior to MMA. However I did say MMA was not superior to any other MA as well.


 
This is the equality of styles arguement that I responded to later.  




> How do I put this.... The police and military in China...well they are not exactly concerned about restraint without injury. If you push a police officer in China.. You will get hurt. If you are crazy enough to mess with the military.. you are lucky if you only get hurt.
> 
> They do not train Sanda for restraint.


 
Police versions of Sanda, like most other police arts, include techniques for restraining (ie bringing under control) individuals who are not at a level to resist those restraining techniques.  




> who is claiming superiority, if you think it is I you definitely have missed my point


 
If not superiority, then perhaps a mistaken equality.  




> Sorry, but I have no idea how this applies.


 
This is a response to the "equality of styles" arguement you posited earlier.  I made up a hypothetical style that might work somewhat, but is very impractical in order to illustrate the idea that all possible styles are not inherantly equal.  



> Once again I have no idea how this applies to anything I said.


 
If, as you suggest or assert, all possible styles are equally effective, then it shouldn't matter how one moves.... you should be able to pull off all movements with equal combat effectiveness - clearly this is not the case.  Some styles are more effective than others.  



> Sorry, I just had to respond, let me reiterate. I am NOT saying MMA is a lesser art. I AM saying it is an equal art. I am NOT saying MMA is superior to anything, nor am I saying TMA is superior to anything.


 
Ok.  



> I am saying the argument of "if they are so good why don't they compete in MMA" is pointless and groundless. They have their own competitions and many of them are not in the least bit interested in MMA.


 
Thats fine so long as no one is under the impression that they are equally or more effective than equivalent MMAists.   



> Many of the Chinese sanshou fighters never leave China. First they live there, second they work there and third they see no reason to test their skills against anyone else. They may in fact believe they are superior, I have no idea. I know they are serious and they kick, punch, throw, and ground fight, etc. They also train multiple points on their bodies to hit you with, generally by hitting trees and rocks, and they do not train with pads or gloves. And if what I have seen in early non-sport sanda is any indication of hitting power, they can hit hard with just about anything.
> 
> Also many of the people in the Chinese Sanda matches are police and military. Although their base is non-sport, they enjoy the sport competition too.


 
Ok.  I stand by my expectation.  Sambo was similarly a sport utilized to train military and police and has been used with great sucess by Eastern European competitors whereas once it was a national security secret in the USSR.  In time, I suspect top Sanda competitors, like top Soviet Sambo competitors, will filter into MMA.  Some won't, just as most Sambo champions are content with their own art.


----------



## Dark (Jun 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Sorry to respond late, but I only have a computer at work, and I work the 3rd shift (a fight in itself).
> 
> Thanks everyone for the answers.
> 
> The debate at work was that, not so much that MMA was better, but, that it took the MA's in general up a level, just as the American/Hawaiian sytyles did to the TMA's. We were reviewing the altercations on the jobs--Grappling situations, and fast stand up, with "ugly" boxing attempts. The one big punch was absent--for the most part. They were saying that the TMA's were stiff and rooted, with no flow. The MMA's teach all to Flow better and look more closely to what a real situation was. Think of MMA without any of the rules, and mixed with a MA mindset. What also came up was how many instances the "Karate" guys got trashed, easily by these untrained thugs.


 
No self-respecting karateka is gonna step up in a tournament or the cage. The reason isn't the BS propaganda allot of Big Organizations spit out but simply the intent of it all. My old Shotokan Sensei fought in Japan back in the 70s. They are had no pads and less rules the earily UFCs, he got his back and knee broken in those fights.
His Sensei almost kicked him out for "cheapening" the art to a sport, he felt that karate was about learning to fight so you don't have to fight type stuff. Which as been water downed to the we aren't even gonna spar and learn 60 katas till shodan crap we see with the larger MA franchize organizations. Who wants fries with their black belt? lol

Allot of the competition in MAs are good, but they don't equal to the real thing in life. You see this wall of propaganda from both sides TMA don't do fittness or spar and the MMA are just sports and arent designed for the real world. All of which is lies from both sides of the fence. I've had some guys come in and roll with use from other schools and it was fun, all the propaganda is like the he said she said crap from jr. high and hold s about as much water...


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 21, 2006)

I'm sorry if I confused anyone. We weren't talking about the MMA's as a sport, but rather the strategies (?) and how they apply to real encounters . Such as knowing how to grapple, which a lot a TMA people don't practice regularly, and where you end up, ususally, for real (Why the trashing I talked of above ocurred). Also, the flat footed stances in the TMA's and hard blocking, too slow and stiff for real. It was more about the MMA's were the "bridge" to the MA's to the real world.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Just for the record,

I think both sides are useful in a self defense situation.


----------



## Dark (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if I confused anyone. We weren't talking about the MMA's as a sport, but rather the strategies (?) and how they apply to real encounters . Such as knowing how to grapple, which a lot a TMA people don't practice regularly, and where you end up, ususally, for real (Why the trashing I talked of above ocurred). Also, the flat footed stances in the TMA's and hard blocking, too slow and stiff for real. It was more about the MMA's were the "bridge" to the MA's to the real world.


 
I once broke a guys wrist with a low block, it was accidental he pushed me from behind and I turned lol Sorry flash backs and all. Everything is a matter of context. It depends on how and why the arts train.

I still spar without pads and I'm actually surprised I have all my teeth. Allot of the older styles of MA have been watered down. You have to realize that allot of styles were practiced on dirt or grass and thus the flat footed stances, though actually flat foot is incorrect since the weight is suppost to be maintained on your toes amking th stanec seem flat footed. On the blocking thing, TMAs include all manner of blocking techniques I'm assuming your looking at mostly karate? As the bridging thing is common in JJJ and Judo as well as Greeko-Roman Wrestling. So your gonna have to specific on the arts your lookig at for TMAs.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Sorry 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  I guess I would go with the "karate" systems as the TMA's in this argument, and the BJJ JJ and wrestling as part of the MMA's side.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> HS, this is a good question. I would agree - having *never once* encountered anyone in a real live situation who came at me with a recognized TMA strike - that nobody fights like this on the pavement. Thing is, *I* do though. I'm much happier to mold my style to the "modern" circumstance rather than run off jumping the MMA bandwagon because someone in their great wisdom deems my art outmoded and has also decreed the MMA arts the best thing since sliced bread. If that's your thing, fine. I've got no arguement that one art is better than the other.
> 
> But I don't see the point of X-training *my* art just because some street-guru says it no longer holds sway with the street-fighting fashion intelligensia - shoulder pads and Dynasty haircuts ok, but my Aikido, no. Traditional, yes it is certainly. Out of date? Well only to practitioners too lazy to refocus their techniques and instead run off looking for the arts that have the nicer t shirts or the coolest ring-boots or the highest-profile TV coverage.
> 
> ...


 
Good response from ya MI! We actually have a few Aikidoka, that sort of got left out in the debate at work. The Aikido worked fine in that element, in spite of what others might think. Both sides at the time of the original debate agreed on this. The lunging attacks were handled very easy by the Aikidoka, the grappling too, without using any of the other "stuff". The locks worked well too, for the escorts out, if you get my meaning.


----------



## Adept (Jun 22, 2006)

Kacey said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make was that you can get this in TMA or MMA as long as the instructor knows how to teach it, and the student knows how to train for it.



Which was my point as well. But adding to that, I think you are more likely to find it at a MMA gym, or even a boxing gym, than a TMA dojo.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Smack on the money. Another difference, fighting some chav on the street who's trying to half inch your wallet, or a 230lb muscleman fighting machine/*professional *fighter, massive difference in circumstances.


 
Absolutely. But, remember We were talking about LEO/ club fights. These kind of monsters, steroid freaks if you will, with the rage too, are the frequent participants. These real fights were fast and furious boxing/grappling like. The young, muscular, fast bucks so to speak. They, and the way they fight, was what supposedly the TMA guys can't handle without the help of MMA philosophies.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Which was my point as well. But adding to that, I think you are more likely to find it at a MMA gym, or even a boxing gym, than a TMA dojo.


 
That was another point brought up in the debate. The TMA guys practice what their gospel preaches, which was drop back into a flat footed stance, block then strike. The old 1, 2 method, which was argued too slow for these encounters, but fine for that drunk, with the one big swing.


----------



## Dark (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But Japanese Jujitsu is a TMA and so is Judo, so why are excluded from the TMA side of MA?

But as wish we can examine the Karate systems... Anyone specifically you want to examine?


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

No, that's getting too far into this. I know they are the TMA, but they were part of the MMA mindset (the grappling which the TMA's don't practice regularly) side of the debate. The Karate (kenpo and kungfu too)stuff was the the TMA side.


----------



## Dark (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> That was another point brought up in the debate. The TMA guys practice what their gospel preaches, which was drop back into a flat footed stance, block then strike. The old 1, 2 method, which was argued too slow for these encounters, but fine for that drunk, with the one big swing.


 
The drop back thing is misapplied by the McDojo guys, the concept of dropping back it to cause the aggressor to over extend. The same concept id taught in boxing.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Agreed, but I was speaking on their behalf of what was argued. I'd be one of the TMA'ers in this debate, but, open minded-lol.


----------



## Dark (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> No, that's getting too far into this. I know they are the TMA, but they were part of the MMA mindset (the grappling which the TMA's don't practice regularly) side of the debate. The Karate (kenpo and kungfu too)stuff was the the TMA side.


 
Sorry the facts are grappling isn't a TMA or MMA only concept it exists in both worlds of thought. Judo is a TMA Japanese Koryu Jujitsu is TMA, the arguement was TMA Vs MMA not striking Vs Grappling. Karate even teaches grappling, though we see far less of it from the modernized karate styles or the franchise organizations.

When your talking TMA are you talking old school or McDojo? If it is McDojo then we all have laundry lists of issues with them, if you are talking pure TMAs then you have to include the "old schoolers" who are all about completeness in training. As far as kung-fu goes there is plenty Chin Na grappling stystems out there. But contrary to the comericals for MMA, they aren't the only one's who grapple.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

I know. I came up in the old school way too. I was just trying to explain (poorly  I guess) of the mindsets of the people in the debate. From my experience the old school is all but extinct now a days. No money would be made from that way of training, students would quit. It seems to be mostly, not all, but, mostly watered down stuff now. That's what I tried to explain to the young bucks at work. They were obviously comparing that, what they did originally, to the MMA stuff. (which is more exciting).


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

I think that maybe a big part of the problem with the perception of traditional martial arts is that many contemporary karate/kung-fu schools no longer teach the arts as they were trained back in the day - too many are interested in student retention, ensuring that classes are "fun and sociable", and so forth.

     Old-style training was almost brutal.  It wasn't designed for student retention or the development of social skills; it was intended to train it's adherents to destroy an opponent as quickly as possible.

     I've certainly seen my fair share of "karate guys" who got their butts kicked in street fights...and everyone points to them and says, "Oh, this karate stuff is a lot of crap."
     But the truth is that these guys didn't practice the real art.  They came from a social dojo or a sport school or a school whose instructor didn't know much about the old ways.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I think that maybe a big part of the problem with the perception of traditional martial arts is that many contemporary karate/kung-fu schools no longer teach the arts as they were trained back in the day - too many are interested in student retention, ensuring that classes are "fun and sociable", and so forth.
> 
> Old-style training was almost brutal. It wasn't designed for student retention or the development of social skills; it was intended to train it's adherents to destroy an opponent as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...


 
Yep! exactly! I think this is what dominates now, and has for a while IMHO. I also thinks as I said that this is the base of their arguments. As I said I came up around the old schoolers. I remember what those BB's were like and how their training was. Definitely BRUTAL stuff!


----------



## pstarr (Jun 22, 2006)

Precisely!  I asked in another thread what could we do to bring the traditional martial arts back into the limelight, as it were, and get people enthused about training in them...?

An old karate teacher I met many years ago used the Marine-style recruiting concept, "We're looking for a few good men and women..."  Kind of a "Are you good enough to make it?" thing...and it worked.  His dojo was always full although the training was extremely...well, _vigorous_.  

In my own school, I tell people up front what they can expect from hardcore traditional training- sore, aching muscles, sweat clear down into their socks, bruises, raspberries, an occasional split lip, and if you puke or bleed on the floor you're responsible for cleaning it up...and they love it.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Absolutely. But, remember We were talking about LEO/ club fights. These kind of monsters, steroid freaks if you will, with the rage too, are the frequent participants. These real fights were fast and furious boxing/grappling like. The young, muscular, fast bucks so to speak. *They, and the way they fight, was what supposedly the TMA guys can't handle without the help of MMA philosophies*.


 
Sorry mate, couldn't disagree with you more about this. Street fights are spread across a huge amount of society, drunken homeless bums, drunken young lads, the mugger, the professional street fighter, the guy that's been dumped by his mrs and wants revenge on anybody. There are on both sides of this debate, huuuuuge generalisations. Grappling and hitting aren't the sole precluse of the MMA'tist, nor the TMA'tist. In my class, we practice without pads, at full speed, people do get hit, but it's part and parcel of the game. I'm not a professional fighter, but then I would totally dispute that the vast majority of people on the street are. I don't enter into bouts or competitions, I'm not so inclined.

However, disagreement on point aside, cracking thread and posts, good to see it being civil too.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

I agree, having come up in the inner city. (I could go on for pages about "street fights" believe me!) But, your disagreement isn't with me. That was their argument. I'm on the side of the TMA'ers. But this isn't so much about street fighting. From club security point of view apples and oranges to a mugger or criminal, or a tussel between the homeless (which I was involoved in, not too far back) . It's hard, fast combat between the "bucks", ya know the "alphas".


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

I feel, maybe I'm wrong that there is a lack of respect for "street" fighters. The tone is that they are unskilled, and barabaric, and not thought too highly of, regarding defending yourself against them. I would advise against this train of thought (if it is yours). That ability of theirs to attack in an unconventional (unskilled) manner, is what makes them dangerous.

Remember they are predators, we are the prey that defends itself. They have the mental advantage of overcoming the fear of fighting or doing something horrible to you. Don't overlook mindset--IT IS IMPORTANT FOR REAL! Also, They have more fighting experience (the real kind), another BIG quality-- CONFIDENCE. They are usually bigger and stronger than you, and have the advantage of picking the right time, place, and method. Training is one thing, doing is another.We train, they DO. Definitely more than the rest of us do. Don't sleep on them as we say here, or you'll go to sleep, maybe permanently.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I agree, having come up in the inner city. (I could go on for pages about "street fights" believe me!) But, your disagreement isn't with me. That was their argument. I'm on the side of the TMA'ers. But this isn't so much about street fighting. From club security point of view apples and oranges to a mugger or criminal, or a tussel between the homeless (which I was involoved in, not too far back) . It's hard, fast combat between the "bucks", ya know the "alphas".


 
:asian:  Humble apologies.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I feel, maybe I'm wrong that there is a lack of respect for "street" fighters. The tone is that they are unskilled, and barabaric, and not thought too highly of, regarding defending yourself against them. I would advise against this train of thought (if it is yours). That ability of theirs to attack in an unconventional (unskilled) manner, is what makes them dangerous.
> 
> Remember they are predators, we are the prey that defends itself. They have the mental advantage of overcoming the fear of fighting or doing something horrible to you. Don't overlook mindset--IT IS IMPORTANT FOR REAL! Also, They have more fighting experience (the real kind), another BIG quality-- CONFIDENCE. They are usually bigger and stronger than you, and have the advantage of picking the right time, place, and method. Training is one thing, doing is another.We train, they DO. Definitely more than the rest of us do. Don't sleep on them as we say here, or you'll go to sleep, maybe permanently.


 
I hear ya, while I don't "respect" respect streetfighters, they have my respect if that makes any sense? I don't like the bully/mugger in them, but I sure as heck wouldn't under estimate anyones fighting skills, that way lies a world of hurt.


----------



## Dark (Jun 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I feel, maybe I'm wrong that there is a lack of respect for "street" fighters. The tone is that they are unskilled, and barabaric, and not thought too highly of, regarding defending yourself against them. I would advise against this train of thought (if it is yours). That ability of theirs to attack in an unconventional (unskilled) manner, is what makes them dangerous.


 
Two major problems with your assessment, one is that untrained means unskilled. They have experience and thats the best training. Lets face it, what makes them dangerous isn't that they are unskilled, its that they are skilled in a way you don't/can't understand. The second, is the assumption that any violent encounter outside the dojo in the real world is a street fight. Its not...

There are essentually three types of encounters a criminal act, a brawl and a street fight. A brawl is that drunken soccer fight or the road rage nut, its a one time attack where you see the opponent coming. The criminal attack is the muggings and such. A street fight is an assault, often times executed repeatedly in a juvinille attempt to claim dominance. The "if I attack you I no longer become the victim" mentality...


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 22, 2006)

Last I checked, the laws of physics were still valid.  

A punch is still a punch.  A kick is still a kick.  A throw is still a throw, and a choke hold is still a choke hold.  

Whoever has a better mindset for a real life encounter,has the better skills, experience, and attributes, is going to win.  It doesn't really matter, TMA vs MMA.  You can't really look at the things we see on television, and say that one is going to be better than the other, since they're all still sporting events, and not a life / death situation where there are no rules, and certainly no sportsmanship aspects.  

If someone believes that he can be in the best situation for life / death encounters by training in MMA, then more power to him.  If another person believes that a TMA system would help him more, then so be it.  Each of these systems are merely tools, and it's the man wielding the tools that will be the ultimate determinant as to how good of job he'll do.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Last I checked, the laws of physics were still valid.
> 
> A punch is still a punch. A kick is still a kick. A throw is still a throw, and a choke hold is still a choke hold.
> 
> ...


 
Damn that's a good post. True words of wisdom, yet more rep points for you methinks.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now I understand, no one can claim superiority to MMA but yet you are claiming MMA is superior to all others. 

As for your knowledge of Sanda and police/military training in China, it is severely lacking. You should probably know for starters that it started in Military/Police first and then was changed for sport, the military and police versions are a bit more violent and hostile. And since you seem to completely ignore the military side. Military trains for war, not sport and not restraint.

And since you are obviously stuck in the MMA dogma any further discussion on the subject with you is pointless. You will not see any other side nor will you ever see any other martial art as even equal to MMA.

And I know this is very difficult for some MMA people to except, but MMA does not matter all that much too many Martial artists. And as much as you do not want to believe this Mixed Martial Arts by definition has been around for many many years and it actually use to include weapons. As for the TMAs you seem to look down on, many of them were designed for war, not ring fighting. Have they changed over the years, yes they have, look at Japanese arts called &#8216;jitsu&#8217; as compared to &#8216;do&#8217;

As for your suspicion about Chinese Sanshou people from China filtering into MMA, it is possible one or 2 might, but it is HIGHLY unlikely many will. They do not get enloved in international Sanshou competitions because they do have a sense of superiority so I doubt they will ever filter into MMA.

Any further discussion on this topic between you and I would fall under the heading of playing a lute to a cow. You will never listen to anything but MMA praise and I will never listen to MMA dogma. We are both wasting our time in this discussion.

And since this discussion of MT argument while at work is rapidly degrading into an MT argument while on MT

My best to you and I hope your MMA never fails you.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> *At this point, MMA is the best we have and other systems should either prove that they are still competitive or stop pretending to be able to fight more effectively.  *
> 
> In China, lei fights occured for hundreds of years.  A martial artist would set up a platform and ask people to fight him under a ruleset he created (his platform his rules).  Challenge matches were common, often with agreed upon rules.  These one-on-one prearranged fights were considered as the top indicator of fighting prowess and when a fighter was victorious over a rival, the loser's students would often go over to the winner or at very least leave him.
> 
> ...



I'd dispute that MMA is a system by itself. It's plain and simply an amalgamation of existing arts for the ring. Cross train by all means but please don't kid me that MMA is something it isn't. So instead of "is MMA better than TMA blah blah blah", perhaps a more apt debate would have been, "is it better to cross train in order to have more complete understanding of fighting/self defence". Then we could have a discussion/disagreement on the relative merits and disadvantages of doing that. 

Although your point about combatative knowledge not remaining static is spot on. Still doesn't mean to say that TMA are ALL static and that NONE of them improve or try to upgrade themselves, this isn't the sole ownership of MMA, what MMA boils down to is taking ring MA, putting them together across the board, and fighting in a ring. That's great, but as previously mentioned, this is starting to turn into a "big willy" fight, so kinda pointless from here on in.


----------



## Rook (Jun 22, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> I'd dispute that MMA is a system by itself. It's plain and simply an amalgamation of existing arts for the ring. Cross train by all means but please don't kid me that MMA is something it isn't. So instead of "is MMA better than TMA blah blah blah", perhaps a more apt debate would have been, "is it better to cross train in order to have more complete understanding of fighting/self defence". Then we could have a discussion/disagreement on the relative merits and disadvantages of doing that.
> 
> Although your point about combatative knowledge not remaining static is spot on. Still doesn't mean to say that TMA are ALL static and that NONE of them improve or try to upgrade themselves, this isn't the sole ownership of MMA, what MMA boils down to is taking ring MA, putting them together across the board, and fighting in a ring. That's great, but as previously mentioned, this is starting to turn into a "big willy" fight, so kinda pointless from here on in.


 
Cross training in multiple styles is fine and well, but if the crosstraining is simply in multiple TMAs, it likely still won't work effectively against MMA fighters.  This sort of thing bothers me.  If it is simply a matter of crosstraining, or making sure to include all ranges of combat, than by now we should have seen someone with, say, Northern Mantis and JJJ win a major fight by now.  It just still hasn't happened, and I don't think it will soon.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 22, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Cross training in multiple styles is fine and well, but if the crosstraining is simply in multiple TMAs, it likely still won't work effectively against MMA fighters.  This sort of thing bothers me.  If it is simply a matter of crosstraining, or making sure to include all ranges of combat, than by now we should have seen someone with, say, Northern Mantis and JJJ win a major fight by now.  It just still hasn't happened, and I don't think it will soon.



So what is MMA? Where did it come from? Did it just magic from out of the void? The clue is really in the title. "Mixed Martial Arts". To me that suggests a , well, mix of martial arts. JJJ as opposed to BJJ? Again, nothing SO revolutionary as to define it as utterly different. If I trained Wing Chun and BJJ, would I be doing MMA, or would I be X training? MMA is simply a concept, a name for mixing your arts.  Is BJJ a MMA? Or Hapkido? Or JJJ because they contain elements of all types of fighting? This is where MMA is NOT something along the lines of a brand spanking new invention, it simply isn't, if you think it is, then you've been had by marketing mate. Your choice though. 

In the end if someone trains in Northen Mantis and JJJ, as someone has mentioned, a kick is just a kick, a punch just a punch, and so on ad infinitum. I train at the moment in Wing Chun. Supposedly renowned for fast short range linear attacks. Does that mean that we never ever hook if the chance presents itself? Or use elbows? Or knee strikes? Of course not. We use whatever we can to win. A knee or elbow strike isn't solely owned by the likes of Muay Thai, many/most/all arts have common links, human physiology dictates the limit of what we do in a fight, certain arts may use them more than others and build a rep for it, but by the same principle MMA isn't the only time you'll see a multitude of strikes, grapples or throws. We use basic WC tenets in SD/fighting, but use other great weapons in our "main arsenal" such as knees, kicks, elbows. Does that mean I'm not doing Wing Chun as a result, perhaps not to purists, who are equally as close minded, but I don't care about offending those with a closed mind. Don't mean to sound callous, and I agree with various points you make mate, I just don't see MMA as the be all and end all, just in the same way I don't see any art as that. 

For me now, although I don't mind watching the likes of the UFC, it bores me silly. Essentially what it comes down to now is 200lb musclemen with incredible genetics, who train all day every day, weights, sparring, fighting, and have a background in several ranges/arts. I much prefer a sanshou bout, ok, not "normally" as bloody, but I find it more entertaining. 

This debate has also gone slightly off topic and gone to a "no pure TMA guy has ever won a MMA competition" again.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 22, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> than by now we should have seen someone with, say, Northern Mantis and JJJ win a major fight by now.


 
"And I know this is very difficult for some MMA people to except, but MMA does not matter all that much too many Martial artists."

Why have I not seen an MMA guy beat a Sanshaou guy or a boxer or a Sumo wrestler, etcetera etcetera etcetera

This is an old, pointless and baseless argument that can be used by anyone that fights any sport professionally. 

For that matter why have I not see an MMA guy win a track and field event? This is the logic of the statement you are making.

I drive a Buick and all other cars are nothing compares to my Buick and if you drive anything other than a Buick you are just practicing to drive a Buick. Because my Buick is better than anything else. And if your Chevy was so good why isn't it sold in a Buick showroom. Why don't Buick mechanics work on it?

Or NASCAR is better than Drag racing and if Drag racing was so good why don't they race in NASCAR. The argument is pointless, but it is all you have so you stick with it. 

MMA is no better or worse than Northern Mantis and Northern Mantis is no better or worse than Wing Chun and Wing Chun is no better or worse than Jujitsu and Jujitsu is no better or worse than Mauy Thai and Mauy Thai is no better or worse than Shuaijiao . It is the practitioner that makes the difference. And to claim its superiority based on your argument or the fact it is on TV is not only wrong it is prejudice and elitist.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 22, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Two major problems with your assessment, one is that untrained means unskilled. They have experience and thats the best training. Lets face it, what makes them dangerous isn't that they are unskilled, its that they are skilled in a way you don't/can't understand. The second, is the assumption that any violent encounter outside the dojo in the real world is a street fight. Its not...
> 
> There are essentually three types of encounters a criminal act, a brawl and a street fight. A brawl is that drunken soccer fight or the road rage nut, its a one time attack where you see the opponent coming. The criminal attack is the muggings and such. A street fight is an assault, often times executed repeatedly in a juvinille attempt to claim dominance. The "if I attack you I no longer become the victim" mentality...


 
I said the exact same thing in my second part. I was using the wording that I felt was being conveyed by others, it wasn't my assessment. 

I would respectfully disagree with one thing. All of the above are criminal acts, so there are not 3 there is only one side--illegal. Other than that it's a legal, law abiding citizen. All 3 end the same way, an attack against you. That's the important thing, motives and what happens after are irrelevant if you survive the attack. However, in my scenario with the alphas, they are also the ones that do these 3 things you described, so again--it's all the same. Fighting them is fighting them.

Besides, my quote that you quoted was just a warning (from one with experience on both sides of the fence) to my fellow martial artisits. I didn't want to get into a semantic fight or side track the thread. It was just a dangerous mind set that I felt was present that I wanted to impart some helpful knowledge. (sorry, communicating with others is one of my weak points--but, working on it)


----------



## Last Fearner (Jun 23, 2006)

Hi everyone!

I have taken the time to read all of the earlier posts in this thread, and I must say there is some great stuff there!  Many have said things I agree with, while some have made comments or expressed points of views that I do not, but I do not want to nitpick.

Let me share some points that I believe are relevant.  Traditional Martial Art training (or TMA as it is referred to here) was the way things were done from the beginning of this concept known as the "Martial Art."  Bearing in mind that the vast majority of complete "Martial Art" training is about life, one's personal development, and enhancing their enjoyment, experience, and appreciation of life.  Defense of one's self, and the preservation of life is only a small portion of the full curriculum, but an important part.

Any Martial Artist, and any Martial Art self defense training needs to be only *one* thing - - effective.  If anyone knows of any genuine, Traditional Martial Art that was not designed to be "effective," please let me know.  Were they effective?  Yes.  Consider the movie "Last Samurai" with Tom Cruise (I know, its just a movie, but...).  When the samurai fought in battles, it was those who were good that survived, and returned home.  Those were the ones who taught the next generation..... and they taught what works.  This was true for all Traditional Martial Art, and should hold true today.

In the Army, I was trained by drill sergeants who had fought in Viet-Nam, and survived.  They knew how to prepare you for combat, but, of course, nothing prepares you for combat quite like combat itself.  In any case, we did not have privates who had never fought in combat teaching new recruits.  The problem with many Martial Art schools is that there are privates, who somehow got promoted to generals, and are teaching without knowing what they are talking about.  These are not "traditional Martial Artists," even if they claim to be.

"MMA," stands for "Mixed Martial Art!"  Mixed what?  Over time, as traditional Martial Art has been imitated, with less qualified instructors, and sport oriented curriculum, many schools who claim to be "Traditional" are teaching portions of the whole.  Over the centuries, the true, traditional Martial Art has been ripped apart, taylor made for everyone's personal desires, and the pieces have crumbled to the ground.  Then, some people with limited training starts picking up these pieces, putting them back together, and claiming to have created something new, superior, or the "light" and the "connection" between the Martial Art and street defense - - not so.

If they are lucky, they will find all of the pieces, and re-assemble what already existed in Traditional Martial Art.  Often times, they discard pieces themselves, and claim to use only what works - what works for them.  The "true" Traditional training has remained intact all along, yet continues to modify and adapt to modern situations - as the Martial Art was originally intended to do.  It is a false notion to think the this so-called "MMA" is the link, connection, or completion of an effective self defense system.  It is modern re-invention of the wheel.  It already exists.  Those who call themselves "Mixed Martial Artists" *can* be effective in real-life encounters, the same as any other *skilled* Martial Artist.

As to competition, there are skills that come from participating in these events which can carry over into street defense, and give that fighter an advantage in most real-life situations.  However, we know that being good in any type of competition does not automatically equate being successful in the street.  Example:  I have competed in the past, and often done well in tournaments.  However, at age 46, with 41 years of Martial Art training, and 28 years of teaching Taekwondo, if I were to compete in a tournament and lose a match to a twenty-some year old 2nd Dan, it would be a mistake for him to think that if we met outside (and he had an attitude, and wanted to kick my butt), that the result in the street would be the same as just happened in the ring - - not likely!  

The notion that Traditional Martial Artists are "stiff," "flat footed" in their stances, or "slow" to respond and don't flow smooth can only come from observing those who are not trained *properly* in "TMA."  The basics that teach solid stances, firm blocks, and powerful counter attacks are a foundation that many novice never move beyond.  Advanced "traditional" training is smooth, quick, and light on the feet.  Those textbook stances and blocks are to be used in certain circumstances, and should flow into the advance skills.

Those who would respond with such rudimentary basics are not applying advanced Traditional Training Methods.  Just as the Aikidoka successfully uses a parry, restraints, and controls in the LEO scenarios, so should any other TMA (Taekwondo, with an inclusion of Hapkido, and Hoshinsul, does this.  This is not "Mixed" or "Cross-Training" in Korean Martial Art, but the culmination of what the total package of Korean Martial Art should be under the heading of Taekwondo).

[Note: Just to qualify some of my statements, I worked 5 years as a police officer, 7 years as the security director of a night club with a staff of 10 - 12 (some off duty-police, and several Martial Artists), and about 28 years in and out of the security industry, including currently training executive protection officers].

This thread is a good dialogue about a serious topic with deep-rooted opinions.  I commend those for expressing your views with respect to others.  I hope I have done the same without offending anyone!  

Sincerely,
CM D. J. Eisenhart


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 23, 2006)

Thank you sir!


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Very well said!


----------



## Cirdan (Jun 23, 2006)

Insightful :asian:


----------



## Hand Sword (Jun 23, 2006)

Thinking about this topic, now some time after, would it be safe to say, that, maybe not being revolutionary, the MMA's haveadded life to the MA's in general? Speaking from the old school point of view, things turned into this watered down world, where it had stayed stagnated for years. The MA's have been reduced to soccer mom status, something the kids do just to keep them out of the parents hair, or like a daycare center. Look at the commercial on tv now, the mom is driving the kids to lacross, dancing and karateeeeyah! This Mc Dojo syndrome has all but, extinguished the old way of doing things, and leaving the younger generations (at my work and younger) as the only source of reference of the MA"s. For them, the MMA stuff and methods is "new" and exciting. Part of the passion expressed here is because we are all serious about the arts, so, the MMA side of the argument is upsetting. But, maybe, just maybe, the MMA's have peaked the interest of the newbies, so that they will train hard and bring respectability back to the arts, and finally break the McDojo hold.

In reality, if you are a serious artist, both sides of this issue are saying thinking and doing the same thing, IMHO, which is training hard and for real. Both ways are very well equipped for real. The TMA's- proven many times. The MMA's-Boxing, groundfighting, and kickboxing (muay thai) surely helpful for real, if skilled in it.

respect to all!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Cross training in multiple styles is fine and well, but if the crosstraining is simply in multiple TMAs, it likely still won't work effectively against MMA fighters. This sort of thing bothers me. If it is simply a matter of crosstraining, or making sure to include all ranges of combat, than by now we should have seen someone with, say, Northern Mantis and JJJ win a major fight by now. It just still hasn't happened, and I don't think it will soon.


 
MMA is not combat but sport fighting.  There is a distinct differance.  While MMA has proven to be very, very effective in a ring, one on one.  It has yet been effectively proven on the battlefield.  That does not mean that over time it might not be proven to be the best on the battlefield but as of yet it has not accomplished that.  Your above statement about all ranges of combat is not quite right either.  MMA generally works in Kicking, Hand Striking and Grappling.  It rarely deals with trapping or locking while standing up nor does it address weapons.  Now having said the above, weapons, kicking, hand striking trapping and grappling are not ranges but areas of combat.  Ranges are Long, Medium and Short.  So if someone is firing a rifle at me from a distance of say 100 meters he is at a long range in comparison to me.  MMA generally covers medium to short range. (striking and grappling generally included here)  While I love MMA both watching and training it is important to understand that in order for someone to refer to it as combat then one would have to add weapons training and standing locking and trapping into the mix.  Only then would it be defined as a combat art.  Training for the ring and training to survive on the street or in a war zone are two completely different things.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2006)

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Thinking about this topic, now some time after, would it be safe to say, that, maybe not being revolutionary, the MMA's haveadded life to the MA's in general? Speaking from the old school point of view, things turned into this watered down world, where it had stayed stagnated for years. The MA's have been reduced to soccer mom status, something the kids do just to keep them out of the parents hair, or like a daycare center. Look at the commercial on tv now, the mom is driving the kids to lacross, dancing and karateeeeyah! This Mc Dojo syndrome has all but, extinguished the old way of doing things, and leaving the younger generations (at my work and younger) as the only source of reference of the MA"s. For them, the MMA stuff and methods is "new" and exciting. Part of the passion expressed here is because we are all serious about the arts, so, the MMA side of the argument is upsetting. But, maybe, just maybe, the MMA's have peaked the interest of the newbies, so that they will train hard and bring respectability back to the arts, and finally break the McDojo hold.
> 
> In reality, if you are a serious artist, both sides of this issue are saying thinking and doing the same thing, IMHO, which is training hard and for real. Both ways are very well equipped for real. The TMA's- proven many times. The MMA's-Boxing, groundfighting, and kickboxing (muay thai) surely helpful for real, if skilled in it.
> 
> respect to all!


 
I think that MMA has definately added a peaked interest to the martial arts and no doubt it has been very, very good for martial arts in general.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> So what is MMA? Where did it come from? Did it just magic from out of the void? The clue is really in the title. "Mixed Martial Arts". To me that suggests a , well, mix of martial arts. JJJ as opposed to BJJ? Again, nothing SO revolutionary as to define it as utterly different. If I trained Wing Chun and BJJ, would I be doing MMA, or would I be X training? MMA is simply a concept, a name for mixing your arts. Is BJJ a MMA? Or Hapkido? Or JJJ because they contain elements of all types of fighting? This is where MMA is NOT something along the lines of a brand spanking new invention, it simply isn't, if you think it is, then you've been had by marketing mate. Your choice though.
> 
> In the end if someone trains in Northen Mantis and JJJ, as someone has mentioned, a kick is just a kick, a punch just a punch, and so on ad infinitum. I train at the moment in Wing Chun. Supposedly renowned for fast short range linear attacks. Does that mean that we never ever hook if the chance presents itself? Or use elbows? Or knee strikes? Of course not. We use whatever we can to win. A knee or elbow strike isn't solely owned by the likes of Muay Thai, many/most/all arts have common links, human physiology dictates the limit of what we do in a fight, certain arts may use them more than others and build a rep for it, but by the same principle MMA isn't the only time you'll see a multitude of strikes, grapples or throws. We use basic WC tenets in SD/fighting, but use other great weapons in our "main arsenal" such as knees, kicks, elbows. Does that mean I'm not doing Wing Chun as a result, perhaps not to purists, who are equally as close minded, but I don't care about offending those with a closed mind. Don't mean to sound callous, and I agree with various points you make mate, I just don't see MMA as the be all and end all, just in the same way I don't see any art as that.
> 
> ...


 
While there is substantial overlap between styles, including traditional styles and modern MMA, the strategy and training combined with the techniques of MMA has so far proven pretty much totally dominent over virtually all comers.  

Having the same techniques or similar techniques may indicate similar arts, it doesn't mean the same training methods, strategy, tactics, or position.  BJJ has a positional hierachy on the ground that has largely been adopted by everyong who fights MMA today, whereas previous systems, such as JJJ, emphasized an immediate submission from where you found yourself OR, alternatively, from a particular position.  It also differs from the positional hierachy in western freestyle wrestling, for instance. 

I will gladly expand on this is it remains unclear.


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> "And I know this is very difficult for some MMA people to except, but MMA does not matter all that much too many Martial artists."
> 
> Why have I not seen an MMA guy beat a Sanshaou guy or a boxer or a Sumo wrestler, etcetera etcetera etcetera
> 
> ...


 
Look, you're confusing personal enjoyment with combat effectiveness.  For instance, if your favorite car is a buick you could argue its the "best" car in the world.  However, if you claim it is the fastest, you will swiftly find Formula 1, dragracing, and Nascar fans pointing out that their cars are PROVEN faster.  Not the same as better, perhaps, but definitively faster.  

Likewise, you can claim any art to be the "best" (most fun, enjoyable, fullfilling whatever).  However, I don't think you could credibly claim an ability to beat MMAist in a fight lacking rules with equivalent size and training.


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> MMA is not combat but sport fighting. There is a distinct differance. While MMA has proven to be very, very effective in a ring, one on one. It has yet been effectively proven on the battlefield. That does not mean that over time it might not be proven to be the best on the battlefield but as of yet it has not accomplished that. Your above statement about all ranges of combat is not quite right either. MMA generally works in Kicking, Hand Striking and Grappling. It rarely deals with trapping or locking while standing up nor does it address weapons. Now having said the above, weapons, kicking, hand striking trapping and grappling are not ranges but areas of combat. Ranges are Long, Medium and Short. So if someone is firing a rifle at me from a distance of say 100 meters he is at a long range in comparison to me. MMA generally covers medium to short range. (striking and grappling generally included here) While I love MMA both watching and training it is important to understand that in order for someone to refer to it as combat then one would have to add weapons training and standing locking and trapping into the mix. Only then would it be defined as a combat art. Training for the ring and training to survive on the street or in a war zone are two completely different things.
> 
> Brian R. VanCise
> www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


 
Well, do you expect that MMAists lose their ability to fight like the biblical story of Sampson getting his hair cut the moment they step out of the cage?  

As I pointed out earlier, in the earlier days of teh UFC, before it became an established sport, many of the practitioners were streetfighters as opposed to athletes or TMAists.  Virtually every UFC was followed by (as well as sometimes preceeded by) a fight in the hotel as well as surounding areas.  Sometimes, these were one on one, other times they turned into mass brawls.  Do you think these people suddenly said "Hey, all our streetfighting and ring fighting is useless outside the cage, lets all go study to be ninjas?"


----------



## Kensai (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Look, you're confusing personal enjoyment with combat effectiveness.  For instance, if your favorite car is a buick you could argue its the "best" car in the world.  However, if you claim it is the fastest, you will swiftly find Formula 1, dragracing, and Nascar fans pointing out that their cars are PROVEN faster.  Not the same as better, perhaps, but definitively faster.
> 
> Likewise, you can claim any art to be the "best" (most fun, enjoyable, fullfilling whatever).  *However, I don't think you could credibly claim an ability to beat MMAist in a fight lacking rules with equivalent size and training.*



That is pure speculation. Where's the empirical evidence for that? A counter question of equal absurdity would be "would a MMA beat a TMA in a fight 100% of the time?" This is ONLY, PURELY, SIMPLY, a "I've got a bigger **** than you" with regards to MA. Utterly pointless debate now.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 23, 2006)

Double post.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Look, you're confusing personal enjoyment with combat effectiveness. For instance, if your favorite car is a buick you could argue its the "best" car in the world. However, if you claim it is the fastest, you will swiftly find Formula 1, dragracing, and Nascar fans pointing out that their cars are PROVEN faster. Not the same as better, perhaps, but definitively faster.
> 
> Likewise, you can claim any art to be the "best" (most fun, enjoyable, fullfilling whatever). However, I don't think you could credibly claim an ability to beat MMAist in a fight lacking rules with equivalent size and training.


 
What are you talking about????

I never said anything about being the best or something was best.

And you have entirely missed my point all together whether intentionally or accidentally. 

You avoid some things I say and attack things I didn't say. The only person that seems to be claiming superiority her is you in regards to MMA. 

I have only a couple of more things to ask

How long have you trained MMA and how many matches have you fought?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2006)

Mr. Eisenhart

:asian:


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> What are you talking about????
> 
> I never said anything about being the best or something was best.
> 
> ...


 
I don't train MMA.  I train in karate for my own entertainment and not expecting either combat effectivenss or spiritual development.  

If not superiority, lets go with your claim of "equality" among styles.  Lets go back to you're Buick example.  If you say "All cars are equally fast it just depends on who is driving, therefore my Buick is just as fast as a Formula One racer" anyone with a stopwatch, radar gun, or access to a TV could tell that you are measurably wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I don't train MMA. I train in karate for my own entertainment and not expecting either combat effectivenss or spiritual development.
> 
> If not superiority, lets go with your claim of "equality" among styles. Lets go back to you're Buick example. If you say "All cars are equally fast it just depends on who is driving, therefore my Buick is just as fast as a Formula One racer" anyone with a stopwatch, radar gun, or access to a TV could tell that you are measurably wrong.


 
You don't train MMA, but you are saying things like Sanshou is a good starting point for MMA (And you also don't train Sanshou, which would explain your lack of knowledge of it). You don&#8217;t train MMA and yet you are arguing for it against all other styles. You don't train MMA and you do train Karate and you are judging CMA by what? The TV show kung fu and movies. 

As for the Buick example, you have already entirely missed my point, so changing it to fit your argument is at this point... well&#8230; pointless

okie dokie, nuff said, were done.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Well, do you expect that MMAists lose their ability to fight like the biblical story of Sampson getting his hair cut the moment they step out of the cage?
> 
> As I pointed out earlier, in the earlier days of teh UFC, before it became an established sport, many of the practitioners were streetfighters as opposed to athletes or TMAists. Virtually every UFC was followed by (as well as sometimes preceeded by) a fight in the hotel as well as surounding areas. Sometimes, these were one on one, other times they turned into mass brawls. Do you think these people suddenly said "Hey, all our streetfighting and ring fighting is useless outside the cage, lets all go study to be ninjas?"


 
What your missing is that people who study for combat or war due not study for fighting.  They are different animals altogether.  Someone who trains MMA does not lose their ability to fight once outside of the ring.  However, outside of the ring their are no rules to protect them.  People who train for real world conflict due not play by rules and therefore their training is more geared toward reality.  You defend how you train, so to speak.  As a MMA person if you train for the ring that will carry over in how you defend yourself on the street.  Most MMA's are geared towards the ring and towards a fight, so to say.  Combtive martial arts are not geared towards fighting but in surving a violent encounter.  There are differances between the two.  Could an MMA guy or girl be successful in defending themselves on the street, *sure*!  Does it mean that they will be successful in the real world just because they study MMA, no!  

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook,

Understand that I enjoy MMA as well as the next guy.  I just see the limitations involved when training for a sport.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 23, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> MMA is not combat but sport fighting.  There is a distinct differance.  While MMA has proven to be very, very effective in a ring, one on one.  It has yet been effectively proven on the battlefield.  That does not mean that over time it might not be proven to be the best on the battlefield but as of yet it has not accomplished that.  Your above statement about all ranges of combat is not quite right either.  MMA generally works in Kicking, Hand Striking and Grappling.  It rarely deals with trapping or locking while standing up nor does it address weapons.  Now having said the above, weapons, kicking, hand striking trapping and grappling are not ranges but areas of combat.  Ranges are Long, Medium and Short.  So if someone is firing a rifle at me from a distance of say 100 meters he is at a long range in comparison to me.  MMA generally covers medium to short range. (striking and grappling generally included here)  While I love MMA both watching and training it is important to understand that in order for someone to refer to it as combat then one would have to add weapons training and standing locking and trapping into the mix.  Only then would it be defined as a combat art.  Training for the ring and training to survive on the street or in a war zone are two completely different things.


Where does that leave most TMA's? They haven't been proven in combat, and certianly haven't been proven in the ring. You open a Pandora's box if your definition of a combat art has to include all elements of modern battlefield combat. How many MA's include anti-aircraft tactics? Get what I mean? As a few people have said, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, regardless of it happens in the ring, the street, or Iraq. 

The reason MMA style training is more effective then that of most TMA's is it requires resistance training. MMA is a competition, and one can only prepare for it by training with resistance. Even if you don't plan to compete, by training in an MMA style enviroment you will be exposed to this method and greatly benefit from it. I don't mean to hijack this into another "aliveness" thread, but understanding this basic principle behind MMA is key to understanding its success.

EDIT: Damn, I guess I should have read your link before I posted! Now I know what you refer too when you talk about limitations in MMA. I concede the point, MMA does not include chainsaw training. It doesn't even include grass training. Hell, I don't even know what grass training is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2006)

Rules or no rules, there is no doubt real MMA people train hard, very hard and they are good fighters becasue of it. And if a TMA or CMA or JMA person trains as hard they are good fighters too.

I am admittedly a dinosaur, but when I first started in MA it was Japanese Jujitsu and we trained hard and there were no pads or protective gear then so you learned you to be hit as well hit and you needed to know how to block so you wouldnt get hit and then there was throwing and falling, no mats. 

I do not see this type of training in MA today so to some extent I can see the point of some MMA people. However I do not see it as better than anything else or the culmination of all martial arts. It is a good fighting art, but so are many Wing Chun schools as well. It is, at least to me, as I have said previously, all up to the practitioner as to how good and or effective they want to be.


----------



## funnytiger (Jun 23, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Where does that leave most TMA's? They haven't been proven in combat, and certianly haven't been proven in the ring.


 
What do you mean TMA have not been proven in combat? When they were first conceived it wasn't just to pass the time away...

And by ring you mean MMA ring. I think Sanshou would count as being in a ring and thats been adequately covered here already...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 23, 2006)

Battles that happend hundreds or thousands of years ago don't count much in my opinion. There is too much legend and myth involved in stories of martial arts in ancient times to cite them as accurate evidence. If something fails to work well today, I see no reason why it would have succeeded 1000 years ago.

As for Sanshou, I consider it far closer to MMA then to most traditional arts I have seen. The reason is that competition is an important part of the art and competition requires resistance training.


----------



## funnytiger (Jun 23, 2006)

Believe it or not, but some TMA's were conceived in as little as 150 years ago. Does that count in your "hundreds of thousands"?


EDIT: Okay, I realize that came off as being a little snide, and I just want to apologize if it does. This whole MMA is the best bull is just so old and tiring.


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

funnytiger said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, but some TMA's were conceived in as little as 150 years ago. Does that count in your "hundreds of thousands"?
> 
> 
> EDIT: Okay, I realize that came off as being a little snide, and I just want to apologize if it does. This whole MMA is the best bull is just so old and tiring.


 
TMAs have been concieved for quite a while and if you look around, there are plenty of people founding new imatations of them today.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Anyone who thinks that traditional martial arts have never been proven in combat needs to study martial arts - because he obviously has never done so.

This is part and parcel of the problem.  People who know little or nothing of the real traditional martial arts (not the McDojos) make untrue or inaccurate statements/assessments and then get into a urinating competition about whose daddy is tougher.

The traditional martial arts developed out of combat where there's no second-place trophies or cash awards.

What's being called "MMA" developed out of competition where both contestants get to go home after the bout.

One is a sport, one is not.  The two cannot be compared.


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Battles that happend hundreds or thousands of years ago don't count much in my opinion. There is too much legend and myth involved in stories of martial arts in ancient times to cite them as accurate evidence.


 
Question for you.  If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate?  If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system?  I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?




> If something fails to work well today, I see no reason why it would have succeeded 1000 years ago.


 
Are you talking about working in the ring?



> As for Sanshou, I consider it far closer to MMA then to most traditional arts I have seen. The reason is that competition is an important part of the art and competition requires resistance training.


 
Another question for you.  Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring?  I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.  

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.  I'm a big fan of the UFC and give the fighters alot of credit for what they do.  However, it still has its limitations, so I wouldn't go so far as to say its complete.

Mike


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> You don't train MMA, but you are saying things like Sanshou is a good starting point for MMA (And you also don't train Sanshou, which would explain your lack of knowledge of it).


 
Sure.  The standup is generally a fairly effective kickboxing style, the takedowns work consistantly, and most importantly, those Sanshou practitioners that have switched to MMA have generally done fairly well.  



> You dont train MMA and yet you are arguing for it against all other styles. You don't train MMA and you do train Karate and you are judging CMA by what? The TV show kung fu and movies.


 
So far, I've judged CMA by the ineffective practitioners they have sent to fight in the ring.  If you people are to have any hope of being taken seriously, you will need to send some better people rather than snipe from the internet that some hypothetical master in the mountains could kill us all at will with his chi but doesn't feel like it.  



> As for the Buick example, you have already entirely missed my point, so changing it to fit your argument is at this point... well pointless.


 
I think your point was that judgements about "best" are subjective.  I was trying to point out the limitations in that arguement.  



> okie dokie, nuff said, were done.


 
Nice talking to you (I'm not being sarcastic; this was interesting).


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> What your missing is that people who study for combat or war due not study for fighting. They are different animals altogether. Someone who trains MMA does not lose their ability to fight once outside of the ring. However, outside of the ring their are no rules to protect them. People who train for real world conflict due not play by rules and therefore their training is more geared toward reality. You defend how you train, so to speak. As a MMA person if you train for the ring that will carry over in how you defend yourself on the street. Most MMA's are geared towards the ring and towards a fight, so to say. Combtive martial arts are not geared towards fighting but in surving a violent encounter. There are differances between the two. Could an MMA guy or girl be successful in defending themselves on the street, *sure*! Does it mean that they will be successful in the real world just because they study MMA, no!
> 
> Brian R. VanCise
> www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


 
I still don't get how this works.  

If someone can run, they should.  This is generally agreed upon by most everyone.  If you can't run, you may have to fight.  Again, generally agreed upon.  I see no reason that the abilities of a "cagefighter" should be anything other than more effective in this situation than any other style.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> If you people are to have any hope of being taken seriously, you will need to send some better people rather than snipe from the internet that some hypothetical master in the mountains could kill us all at will with his chi but doesn't feel like it.


I think TMA practitioners in general are taken seriously, unlike the small percentage of arrogant MMA practitioners that feel the need to thump their chests and bash anything different from their training. Also, what makes you think a serious TMA practitioner gives a rat's *** about how he/she is viewed by those chest-thumpers?


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> Anyone who thinks that traditional martial arts have never been proven in combat needs to study martial arts - because he obviously has never done so.
> 
> This is part and parcel of the problem. People who know little or nothing of the real traditional martial arts (not the McDojos) make untrue or inaccurate statements/assessments and then get into a urinating competition about whose daddy is tougher.
> 
> ...


 
The arguement revolves around modern fighting (ie right here right now).  There is an irratating tendancy among some individuals to claim the achievements of a great master in the past means that they automatically inherit his (or her) fighting prowess or some fraction of it by studying his art.  In point of fact, the master in the past likely fought opponents not at the level of modern sportsfighters and the practitioners often are not able to emulate past sucess against modern fighters.  

Let me see if I can give another example.  For more than five thousand years bladed weapons won and lost wars across Europe, Asia and a good part of Africa.  With gunpowder, the effectiveness of these weapons on the battlefield decreased dramatically.  Many people practice swordwork today, but I hear no one say that their sword is a superior battlefield weapon to the gun.  The gun may be a young weapon by comparison, but in almost every comparison between a gun-weilding army and one without guns, those with the firearms have won, including instances of dramatic differances in number (Cortez's expedition being a prime example).  

If we argued weapons the same way we argued unarmed styles, someone would say "Well, there is a five thousand year history to the sword."  Or they would mention a famous swordsman and proclaim his ability to cut down any modern soldier armed with a gun.  Of course, they then would decline to test their theory in any form.  

One needs be neither a master swordsman ("you can't know anything about our style unless you've studied it for twenty years" and nonsense of that sort) or an expert marksman to see the huge flaws in this arguement.  

The analogy is imperfect.  I'll try another one later.


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I think TMA practitioners in general are taken seriously, unlike the small percentage of arrogant MMA practitioners that feel the need to thump their chests and bash anything different from their training. Also, what makes you think a serious TMA practitioner gives a rat's *** about how he/she is viewed by those chest-thumpers?


 
I doubt they care much at all.  That is irratating, in that it give rise to endless internet arguements in the place of testing their assertions by actually facing off with one another.


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Question for you. If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate? If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system? I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?


 
Accurate history arose rather later in terms of eastern martial arts than it did in other realms of history.  Some history is disputed other parts are generally accepted by mainstream historians.  

Some rather fanciful accounts of the exploits of the martial arts masters of the past are best not taken at face value.  

For instance:

1.  Yang Luchan was attacked by a man with a spear.  He twisted the shaft of the spear and the man was thrown onto the roof of a five story building.  

2.  Fuk Yi was in India.  Attacked by an elephant, he pushed it off balance and iron palm slapped it once on the ear.  It died.  

3.  Bak Mei came upon a man trying to assault a woman.  He punched through the man's chest and rib cage with his hand coming out the man's back, killing him instantly.  

Many talented martial artists have had their prowess greatly amplified by unlikely stories.  This continues into the present day with men like Rickson Gracie (400-0) and Mas Oyama (did he kill one, two, 52, or "more than sixty" bulls, and what happened to his Judo and Shorinji Kenpo credentials?) whose records are perhaps less amazing than they first appear.  




> Are you talking about working in the ring?


 
Or in a video recorded challenge match or something of that sort.  




> Another question for you. Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring? I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.


 
Sure.  However, all claims not recorded are potentially suspect.  The next best thing is having talented martial artists who vouch for you (like Mikhail Ryobko, Hatsumi and Bruce Lee have).  The third best is credible explanations from a person himself/herself.  



> Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm a big fan of the UFC and give the fighters alot of credit for what they do. However, it still has its limitations, so I wouldn't go so far as to say its complete.
> 
> Mike


 
I hope I didn't misunderstand.  

I think MMA is limited in some ways, in that it is focused on a certain goal and doesn't do things outside that.  For instance, MMA doesn't train techniques for restraining low-level fighters without injuring them, nor does it have offensive weapons work, nor does it have spiritual practices.  Thats fine, one just has to go to a style that specializes in those things if they are desired.  Including them in MMA would, IMHO, take away from what it is focused on.


----------



## Dark (Jun 23, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I still don't get how this works.
> 
> If someone can run, they should. This is generally agreed upon by most everyone. If you can't run, you may have to fight. Again, generally agreed upon. I see no reason that the abilities of a "cagefighter" should be anything other than more effective in this situation than any other style.


 
The basic structure of the human learning curve is to reflexively fall back on your most common experiences. Is this an exceptable fact for you? Because if it isn't what I'm gonna say isn't gonna mean much.

We do what we see the most, we do what we hear the most and we do what we have done the most. Thats the basic memory pattern and recall structure. Meaning if you train in application of a cross arm abr you will be effective at applying it and recall it better based on habit and repetition. Can we agree on this?

I'll explain in better detail once I know your tracking where I'm going... There is more to come...


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

I know of many highly skilled practitioners of Chinese martial arts and none of them have the vaguest interest in competing in any kind of full-contact type match.

Your analogy about swords and firearms seems to miss the point.  Are you trying to say that what you call "MMA" is the new "modern firearm" of the martial arts world and that the traditional martial arts are the outmoded swords?  If so, your thinking is seriously skewed.  Very seriously.

MMA have never been used on a battlefield.  They were developed for competition.  It's a GAME!  Losers go home.  

Traditional martial arts were developed not from a sports base, but from a combative base.  NOT a game.  Losers get buried or left to rot.

If someone wins in the ring, he's a better fighter _within the context of the rules forced upon him by the game._

     Take away the rules - all of them - and allow virtually anything (with no referees), and watch the fun.

     The famous boxer, Joe Louis, was once approached in a bar by a smaller man who made it clear that he wanted to fight.  Louis was used to this "fastest gun in the West" syndrome and tried to put the little fellow off but the challenger was having none of it.
     In desperation, Louis finally agreed to a fight.  He turned to face his opponent who brought his fists up in a typical boxer's stance.
     Louis kicked him in the balls.  End of fight.
     Louis later told the press that "boxing is a sport and fightin' is fightin'."

Doe this make any sense to you?


----------



## Rook (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I know of many highly skilled practitioners of Chinese martial arts and none of them have the vaguest interest in competing in any kind of full-contact type match.


 
Ok.  



> Your analogy about swords and firearms seems to miss the point. Are you trying to say that what you call "MMA" is the new "modern firearm" of the martial arts world and that the traditional martial arts are the outmoded swords?


 
Thats pretty much the gist of it.  



> If so, your thinking is seriously skewed. Very seriously.


 
Prove me wrong...



> MMA have never been used on a battlefield. They were developed for competition. It's a GAME! Losers go home.


 
Actually, the Army-wide US military combatives program is now heavily based on BJJ, and the US Marines basic training also has heavy new influences from BJJ in the last 10 years.  Several MMA fighters and coaches have worked as military consultants.  

(It should be noted that designing part of the combatives system is different than teaching on a particular base.  Ussually teaching on a particular base is done at the request of a commander of somesort and attendance is often either optional or only partial.)  



> Traditional martial arts were developed not from a sports base, but from a combative base. NOT a game. Losers get buried or left to rot.


 
Yet have been totally unable to kill any skill sportsfighter.  Given the claimed lethality, these traditional martial arts should have found at least a couple sucesses by now against MMAists...



> If someone wins in the ring, he's a better fighter _within the context of the rules forced upon him by the game._




What about tournaments with no rules, like the three AFC tournaments?   What about the Vale Tudo where Gerard G. legally eyegouged a guy and still lost (you may remember Gerard as the guy who bit Royce to no effect in the last round of UFC 1)?  What about the couple of Russian "Combat Sambo Total" tournaments with nothing but fines for eyegouges and biting, or the early UFCs, which permited anything but eyegouging and biting and only fined $1,000 for those?  Where were these invincible rule-less warriors?  Matter of fact, where are they now? 



> Take away the rules - all of them - and allow virtually anything (with no referees), and watch the fun.


 
See above.  There have been 4 AFCs and 1 Vale Tudo tournament with no restricted techniques at all... none of them won by TMA practitioners.  

Also, there are still lots of opportunities to fight without rules if you go to many MMA training halls, declare your art and ask for a fight with no rules.  Youtube will likely crash under the number of videos of people getting annilated in "no rules" challenges to MMAists.  And then there's that Gracie challenge....



> The famous boxer, Joe Louis, was once approached in a bar by a smaller man who made it clear that he wanted to fight. Louis was used to this "fastest gun in the West" syndrome and tried to put the little fellow off but the challenger was having none of it.
> In desperation, Louis finally agreed to a fight. He turned to face his opponent who brought his fists up in a typical boxer's stance.
> Louis kicked him in the balls. End of fight.
> Louis later told the press that "boxing is a sport and fightin' is fightin'."


 
And in a fight where groin kicks are allowed (most of the UFCs, virtually every Combat Sambo tournament, Finnfight, the AFCs, the IFCs, and loads of small tournaments), what excuse then?  



> Doe this make any sense to you?


 
Sure.


----------



## matt.m (Jun 23, 2006)

I have been in bona fide combat in Haiti as well as other places.  I was there in 1994 while in the Marines.  Sorry, using hapkido (punching, kicking, cane, wrist and clothes) techniques are quite effective.

You know I have seen all the UFC and Pride stuff.  Honestly it is judo randori with puching.  I don't care what anyone says.  It is not that I am not open minded, I am.  The deal is I have been in scenarios where I knew I could die plain and simple.  Pride and UFC are contests with rules, not a fight.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 23, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Question for you.  If we go with the above statement, would you then say it would be safe to assume that anything that happened in the past would possibly be inaccurate?  If thats the case, whats the sense of having a US History class in the school system?  I mean, if there isn't going to be any truth in anything, why teach the kids a bunch of false info.?


Rook pretty much covered this, but I'll answer anyway. There is a big difference between modern history and martial arts history. One is well known and researched and the other is a niche field at best filled with false information. Look at historical accounts of martial arts victories and then look towards comon sense. For example: _A war was fought in China in the year so and so _(fair enough and historicaly true) _in which five shaolin monks with sticks defeated 1,300 swordsmen and saved then Emporer_ (total nonsense). Most often such claims are trotted out as argument winners and claims of effectiveness, and most often they are complete bs. 

That is one of the biggest reasons for MMA success. It removed all mystisicm from the martial arts and let people decide what works and what doesn't based off of observable fights, not silly stories. If something works poorly now, why should anyone believe it worked better however many years ago?


			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Are you talking about working in the ring?
> Another question for you.  Why does the effectiveness of something always fall onto its success in the ring?  I can train 'alive' without having to step into the cage.


I don't think a person has to compete in MMA to prove there worth as a martial artist. I don't do it and never plan to, and the same is true for 99% of people. I value the training method more the the actual sport, because i think that is how real skill is best developed. However when certain arts are consistently unable to provide any practitioner able to be competitive in MMA I have to question that art. The same is true when someone from those arts does compete, but uses little to nothing of what their art teaches and instead relies on standard MMA operating procedure.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

Tell you what, Rook...

I'm a damned fine combat shooter.  Not only have I trained extensively, I've been in the game for real.

Wanna strap on your favorite handgun and give me a try?

No?

Most traditional martial artists have virtually no interest in going into any school and seeing who's got the biggest peepee or who can beat their chest the hardest.  That's childish and it's pointless.

They have no desire to enter MMA competition to show people like you how tough they are.

Tell you what - if you're so upset about all of this why don't you find a real, traditional martial arts school and walk in and challenge them to a knock-down drag-out fight?

Oh yeah - and just because the U.S. military teaches BJJ or whatever to their recruits doesn't lend it any credibility whatsoever...any more than the legendary "O'neil System" did back in the 60's and 70's.  I can feature a trooper with full gear rolling around on a battlefield wrestling an enemy soldier.

     Not for long, Bucko.

     Even the military admits that it doesn't teach this stuff to it's soldiers with any expectations that they'll ever use it on the battlefield.  So the fact that it's taught in the military is meaningless.

     I know that MMA people train hard for their sport.  They are justifiably proud of what they do and that's fine.

     But you need to mature a bit and understand that there's a whole world of very dangerous, highly-trained martial arts practitioners out there who don't care one whit about competing or proving how strong they are.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 24, 2006)

Saying most traditional MA's don't want to do MMA is just as bad as saying most of them do. Personally I'd suspect most secretly do, though not seriously. After all MA's are about fighting, and MMA is the most visible fighting forum these days. Between that and all the smack talk the MMA people lay down I suspect alot of people wish they could do it. Then again this post is about how generalizations are stupid, so I should stop before I sound hypocritical.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 24, 2006)

I disagree.  None (count 'em, zip) of the traditional martial arts practitioners I know have any interest whatsoever in competing in MMA - just as they have no interest in climbing into a boxing ring.

Martial arts aren't entirely about fighting - if that's the case, I suggest we all uproot our makiwaras, hang up our uniforms, and strap on a solid .45.

No, traditional martial arts (those that are referred to as "do") are about developing character as well as combative skill.

They're not about winning championships or proving who's the better fighter.

The competition ring is.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 24, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I doubt they care much at all.  That is irratating, in that it give rise to endless internet arguements in the place of testing their assertions by actually facing off with one another.



Precisely the way your _*total *_inability to see anyone else's POV is starting to seriously get up my nose. 

You and Mardi Gras Bandit are the guys that give the MMAtist a bad name, you're all right, and everyone else is wrong. Congratulations, you've moved away from reasoned discussion/debate, to "you're all wrong and we're right". You're worse than Phil Elmore, much worse. FFS....Typical muscleman wannabees. What's next, "wanna come round and see who's the hardest"? Why not go into the nearest Gents toilet, and whap it out, like someone else has mentioned, see who's the biggest?!?


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Accurate history arose rather later in terms of eastern martial arts than it did in other realms of history. Some history is disputed other parts are generally accepted by mainstream historians.
> 
> Some rather fanciful accounts of the exploits of the martial arts masters of the past are best not taken at face value.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for taking the time to reply.   I'll be the first to say, that I'm far from a History expert.  Personally, that was one of my subjects that I was less interested in.  Anyways...that being said, I'll go with you on that one, considering there probably is some inflated records out there.  I'll use Rickson as an example.  Now, I'm certainly not saying that the man is a push over, as he'd tie me up like a pretzel in a few seconds, but I've heard question on his 400-0 record as well.  400 ring fights or any time he rolled with a student during training, was that counted too?






> Or in a video recorded challenge match or something of that sort.


 
Here is where I'll say we'll probably have to agree to disagree.   I could enter a grappling event such as MASS Destruction or Naga.  I could have the opponent wipe the mat with me.  I could fight that same person outside and win.  The roles can be reversed as well, I could beat him in the ring and he could beat me outside.  My point is, what is that proving?  Everyone is going to have their good and bad days, but if I'm fighting him in the ring, where my tools are limited, and lose, does that mean that my training, be it my ground game or my stand up game is useless?  The rules are in place so that everyone goes home at the end of the event.  Outside, I may not end up going home if I make a mistake.






> Sure. However, all claims not recorded are potentially suspect. The next best thing is having talented martial artists who vouch for you (like Mikhail Ryobko, Hatsumi and Bruce Lee have). The third best is credible explanations from a person himself/herself.


 
As I said, I give the MMA guys a ton of credit for what they do.  Personally, I have no desire to enter events like this.  I do my best to gear my training to be alive.  I'm sorry, but I just don't see how taping myself, having a record, etc. is going to matter when someone is trying to cause me bodily harm.  I do my best to avoid fights and as long as I walk away from the confrontation safely, thats all that matters to me.  I don't brag about anything and I have no reason to inflate anything I do.





> I hope I didn't misunderstand.
> 
> I think MMA is limited in some ways, in that it is focused on a certain goal and doesn't do things outside that. For instance, MMA doesn't train techniques for restraining low-level fighters without injuring them, nor does it have offensive weapons work, nor does it have spiritual practices. Thats fine, one just has to go to a style that specializes in those things if they are desired. Including them in MMA would, IMHO, take away from what it is focused on.


 
No sir, you're not misunderstanding anything.   At least we're both admitting that it has its weaknesses.  However, going on what you said, I'm doing just that.  I've been a big advocate of cross training or cross referencing for a long time now.  While I don't enter MMA matches, I as well as my instructors and training partners, take the ideas that these guys use, and include them into our training.  

Thanks for the discussion.

Mike


----------



## Kensai (Jun 24, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Where does that leave most TMA's? They haven't been proven in combat, and certianly haven't been proven in the ring. You open a Pandora's box if your definition of a combat art has to include all elements of modern battlefield combat. *How many MA's include anti-aircraft tactics? Get what I mean?* As a few people have said, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick, regardless of it happens in the ring, the street, or Iraq.
> 
> The reason MMA style training is more effective then that of most TMA's is it requires resistance training. MMA is a competition, and one can only prepare for it by training with resistance. Even if you don't plan to compete, by training in an MMA style enviroment you will be exposed to this method and greatly benefit from it. I don't mean to hijack this into another "aliveness" thread, but understanding this basic principle behind MMA is key to understanding its success.
> 
> EDIT: Damn, I guess I should have read your link before I posted! Now I know what you refer too when you talk about limitations in MMA. I concede the point, MMA does not include chainsaw training. It doesn't even include grass training. Hell, I don't even know what grass training is.



I'm sorry, I forgot the bit in the UFC where MMAtist's train for anti-aircraft techniques. Hmmm... Fighting aircraft with your bare hands. We have resistance training in Wing Chun, in my class, we put pads on and knock the bejesus out of each other, is that MMA? We've drawn blood and snot, does that make us better? Meaner? Getting punched is getting punched, it hurts whether it's been done to you before. The problem I'm starting to find in this free for all now, is that minds are closed, and lines are drawn up. I will say it one. last. time. MMA is good. Great in fact, but it. isn't. the. be. all. and. end. all. of. all. martial. arts. Is that clear enough? <---- See that? That's the sound of a relatively open mind well aware of the advantages of "mixing your martial arts", now please try and show some similar sentiment, and agree to disagree.


----------



## MJS (Jun 24, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Rook pretty much covered this, but I'll answer anyway. There is a big difference between modern history and martial arts history. One is well known and researched and the other is a niche field at best filled with false information. Look at historical accounts of martial arts victories and then look towards comon sense. For example: _A war was fought in China in the year so and so _(fair enough and historicaly true) _in which five shaolin monks with sticks defeated 1,300 swordsmen and saved then Emporer_ (total nonsense). Most often such claims are trotted out as argument winners and claims of effectiveness, and most often they are complete bs.
> 
> That is one of the biggest reasons for MMA success. It removed all mystisicm from the martial arts and let people decide what works and what doesn't based off of observable fights, not silly stories. If something works poorly now, why should anyone believe it worked better however many years ago?


 
Yes, I think this issue has already been summed up pretty good. 



> I don't think a person has to compete in MMA to prove there worth as a martial artist. I don't do it and never plan to, and the same is true for 99% of people. I value the training method more the the actual sport, because i think that is how real skill is best developed. However when certain arts are consistently unable to provide any practitioner able to be competitive in MMA I have to question that art. The same is true when someone from those arts does compete, but uses little to nothing of what their art teaches and instead relies on standard MMA operating procedure.


 
I too, value the training aspects, and as I stated to Rook, I include some of those ideas into my own personal training.  I can't or really don't want to speak for other people or arts, so I'm just speaking for what I do, but I do my best to keep my training alive, add in some resistance, but still do my best to make what I train in, work under the added conditions.  

Thanks for taking the time to reply. 

Mike


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 24, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I forgot the bit in the UFC where MMAtist's train for anti-aircraft techniques. Hmmm... Fighting aircraft with your bare hands. We have resistance training in Wing Chun, in my class, we put pads on and knock the bejesus out of each other, is that MMA? We've drawn blood and snot, does that make us better? Meaner? Getting punched is getting punched, it hurts whether it's been done to you before. The problem I'm starting to find in this free for all now, is that minds are closed, and lines are drawn up. I will say it one. last. time. MMA is good. Great in fact, but it. isn't. the. be. all. and. end. all. of. all. martial. arts. Is that clear enough? <---- See that? That's the sound of a relatively open mind well aware of the advantages of "mixing your martial arts", now please try and show some similar sentiment, and agree to disagree.


Did you bother to read any part of that post besides the line you highlighted?  My point wasn't that I think MMA is the be all end all of martial arts, but that I value the training method as an important part of learning how to fight. If you are doing Wing Chun and sparring, then good for you. Sparring is the best thing one can do to learn. 

Before someone says "MMA didn't lead to the creation of sparring, it's been around forever", of course it has. Anyone can spar, but many TMAs don't for whatever reason. Some even claim they can't spar, or that it is not a useful method of training. By contrast MMA and the arts associated _always _spar, it is an inherent part of training.

EDIT: 





			
				Kensai said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I forgot the bit in the UFC where MMAtist's train for anti-aircraft techniques.


When they are fighting Rumia Sato and the slickest flying armbar the world has ever seen.:ultracool


----------



## Rook (Jun 24, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> I disagree. None (count 'em, zip) of the traditional martial arts practitioners I know have any interest whatsoever in competing in MMA - just as they have no interest in climbing into a boxing ring.
> 
> Martial arts aren't entirely about fighting - if that's the case, I suggest we all uproot our makiwaras, hang up our uniforms, and strap on a solid .45.
> 
> ...


 
Thats fine so long as they make clear the limits of their combative elements.  I respect alot of the traditionalists who do martial arts for cultural or spiritual reasons.  I respect the MMAists who do martial arts for fighting.  I don't understand people who claim unproven superiority of their system.


----------



## Rook (Jun 24, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll be the first to say, that I'm far from a History expert. Personally, that was one of my subjects that I was less interested in. Anyways...that being said, I'll go with you on that one, considering there probably is some inflated records out there. I'll use Rickson as an example. Now, I'm certainly not saying that the man is a push over, as he'd tie me up like a pretzel in a few seconds, but I've heard question on his 400-0 record as well. 400 ring fights or any time he rolled with a student during training, was that counted too?


 
The gist of my comment is that these people, from Yang Yuchan, Fuk Yi, Bak Mei, Rickson Gracie and Mas Oyama are all very talented martial artists who should be taken seriously but whose records are exadurated greatly.  




> Here is where I'll say we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I could enter a grappling event such as MASS Destruction or Naga. I could have the opponent wipe the mat with me. I could fight that same person outside and win.


 
Well, most grappling tests only one component of fighting - the ground grappling part.  In the street, you might be able to strike standing up, strike on the ground (ie gnp) or such and thus change the outcome of the match.  Mostly grappling contests are admittedly designed to test one part of the skill set, just like a kickboxing match is only designed for standup striking.  



> The roles can be reversed as well, I could beat him in the ring and he could beat me outside. My point is, what is that proving?


 
Well, it proves who is better in that one aspect of fighting.  There are fully resistant matches in all the big four (boxing, muay thai, western wrestling and BJJ) as well as specialized matches in all ranges (kicking, punching, clinch, ground).  Dominance in one of them might not reflect weaknesses in other areas.  



> Everyone is going to have their good and bad days, but if I'm fighting him in the ring, where my tools are limited, and lose, does that mean that my training, be it my ground game or my stand up game is useless?


 
Not useless.  It means someone is better at that portion of fighting.  



> The rules are in place so that everyone goes home at the end of the event. Outside, I may not end up going home if I make a mistake.


 
True.  However, the line between choking someone out and choking them to death is rather thin and likewise with the neck crank.  In the street, it would be easy to continue until the opponent is dead rather than releasing these holds.  

Likewise with the short differance between an armbar and a broken arm.  Lots of videos exist for those that doubt it will happen.  



> As I said, I give the MMA guys a ton of credit for what they do. Personally, I have no desire to enter events like this. I do my best to gear my training to be alive.


 
Ok.  



> I'm sorry, but I just don't see how taping myself, having a record, etc. is going to matter when someone is trying to cause me bodily harm.


 
That was directed more towards proving claims.  If you don't make outlandish claims, people won't ask for proof.  The people who claim great abilities are ussually asked to substantiate.  



> I do my best to avoid fights and as long as I walk away from the confrontation safely, thats all that matters to me. I don't brag about anything and I have no reason to inflate anything I do.


 
That puts you in the mainstream of society.  Most people, MMA, TMA, RBSD, no training, would rather avoid a fight than get in one and have no desire to trumpet a massive nonexistant record.   



> No sir, you're not misunderstanding anything. At least we're both admitting that it has its weaknesses. However, going on what you said, I'm doing just that. I've been a big advocate of cross training or cross referencing for a long time now. While I don't enter MMA matches, I as well as my instructors and training partners, take the ideas that these guys use, and include them into our training.
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.
> 
> Mike


 
Sounds good.  Thanks.


----------



## Rook (Jun 24, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Precisely the way your _*total *_inability to see anyone else's POV is starting to seriously get up my nose.
> 
> You and Mardi Gras Bandit are the guys that give the MMAtist a bad name, you're all right, and everyone else is wrong. Congratulations, you've moved away from reasoned discussion/debate, to "you're all wrong and we're right". You're worse than Phil Elmore, much worse. FFS....Typical muscleman wannabees. What's next, "wanna come round and see who's the hardest"? Why not go into the nearest Gents toilet, and whap it out, like someone else has mentioned, see who's the biggest?!?


 
Well, the POV I see alot here is one that goes a little like 

 "I can jump 100 feet in the air whenever I feel like it"  
"So do it"
"Well, I don't feel like it, but trust me, I can."

One should not make claims that can't be substantiated.  If someone claims to have a large organ, then they should either be ready to show it or shouldn't make such claims.  Either way is fine.  Making claims and then just asking that the claim be taken at face value because someone said so is not likely to work well.


----------



## Kensai (Jun 24, 2006)

Right all. Apologies for the angry nature of my last few posts, I've come home this morning to find the front wall of my house smashed down, and one of our front windows has had a brick put through it. The wonders of CHAV Britain. Was venting. Shouldn't have been at you guys. Been "trying" to get hold of the Police for the last several hours, (there are "apparently" no community coppers available at the moment) to be told if I do find the little ***** that did this "if you do aprehend them yourself sir, or in any way touch them, we will be coming round to see you". WTF is that about? Can't defend yourself, can't defend your own home. Absolute joke. Still think this debate has reached it's zenith, just wanted to clear up my last few posts. 

Peace.


Jude


----------



## still learning (Jun 24, 2006)

Hello, You can train in MMA,TMA,Boxing,Kick boxing....train all your life...walk outside and get shot by a gun? ambush with a knife attack and die....?

or kill in a car accidents....which art is the best?    Life will give you hundreds of choices..no one art will work for everything....soldiers in wars...are train fighters.....they still get kill/injury.....

Life is short..enjoy it..enjoy your art...enjoy your time here.....

as there is so many martial arts...each of us will find what we enjoy doing..

so many sports..each person can choose..

some rather read a book...watch TV...or go walking....

DOES IT MATTER THE ART? ....just my thoughts....the ART of  learning...is endless..............Aloha


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 24, 2006)

Kensai said:
			
		

> Precisely the way your _*total *_inability to see anyone else's POV is starting to seriously get up my nose.
> 
> You and Mardi Gras Bandit are the guys that give the MMAtist a bad name, you're all right, and everyone else is wrong. Congratulations, you've moved away from reasoned discussion/debate, to "you're all wrong and we're right". You're worse than Phil Elmore, much worse. FFS....Typical muscleman wannabees. What's next, "wanna come round and see who's the hardest"? Why not go into the nearest Gents toilet, and whap it out, like someone else has mentioned, see who's the biggest?!?


 

Dang Kensai! This thread was going well until you mentioned Dull Phil. Good thing he isn't a member anymore. He would come in here and tell all of us we are wasting our time unless we practice flashlight-do and eyebrow fu.

Sorry to hear about your home being vandalized.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 24, 2006)

Why does everyone always fight about this pointless comparison?
What is all of this talk about "combat effective"? How many UFC fighters have been in REAL combat, where a determined enemy was actively trying to kill them? How many Traditional MAer's, besides Matt, who has already address this POV? I know that I for one have not. 

People who want to fight, go enlist. When you see what mankind does to each other when the combat is real, you just may lose it's cool to fight attitude. Go see what real tough guys are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, then come back and tell us how important debate this.


----------



## funnytiger (Jun 24, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Many people practice swordwork today, but I hear no one say that their sword is a superior battlefield weapon to the gun.



For the love of Pete... Do me a favor Kevin. For the sake of argument, please post quotes from anyone on here who has said that TMA is BETTER than MMA. I think that will help us all understand your argument a bit better.



> The analogy is imperfect.  I'll try another one later.



I agree. I look forward to a better analogy. This time I want more drama and perhaps a little sex... but just a little.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 24, 2006)

This is a recurring argument and we have many others on this very topic on MT.

Let's remember to keep our conversation civil.


----------



## Kensai (Nov 6, 2006)

Also, if you're gonna leave negative feedback, at least have the guts to leave your name, so whoever it was that gave me mine, at least admit it? PM me if you like, whatever. Just have the balls to do it. I suspect one or two people though.


----------



## matt.m (Nov 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Hello all,
> 
> A big, and long debate went on with me and coworkers about the martial arts. We are all pratitioners, or have been, both with the MMA's, and TMA's.
> (I'll consider, for the sake of argument, the "eclectic styles" TMA's as well. They've been around long enough)
> ...


 
Sorry if I sound overly opinionated but people fight the same way they did 200 years ago.  Think of indian wrestling etc. etc.  Most fights ended up on the ground then to.  Judo, Jiujitsu, and similiar arts have been around for 200 yrs. as well.  They are TMA's.  Hapkido and Aikido came from Daito Ryu Aiki Jiujitsu.

I am not going to get into a big "MMA is a sport" argument or anything like that.  However, I think your friends at work are debating on little knowledge or factual data.  Just my .02.

While I served in the Marine Corps, I was part of the detachment of Marines that were there for riot control and house to house fighting.  That was 12 years ago.  I found that side kicks, hapkido cane techniques, throwing and locks worked very well considering.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 10, 2006)

I can't really blame them. All they know is the reality of their lives. For them, The TMA's are what they are now, and the "real stuff" is what the MMA shows. All they have as representation of the TMA's is what is seen in the fights at work, in mixed competition, and in their watered down material. It's not their fault. They have no idea of what the training used to be for the TMA side of things. From their argument, I think they are at least correct on the assumption that the MMA's have given a nice wake up call to the state of the TMA side, in terms of how it is now.


----------



## makavilli68 (Nov 21, 2006)

well i only got one post but i dont think TMA are practical for a street fight and im not just talking about Mcdojos sure theres exceptions...theres exceptions to everything...but TMA have a lot of set moves that are complex and complicated

if you guys have ever been in a street fight you would know that you get a big adrenaline rush and cant move properly besides trying to swing hard...i think moves from boxing and muay thai are easy enough and practical to use in a street fight plus they hit very hard

of course if you train for 30 years in this TMA of your just trying to use it in a street fight im sure you will be able to handle the adrenaline dump by then but you can learn to fight much better with more practical arts i believe


----------



## exile (Nov 21, 2006)

makavilli68 said:


> well i only got one post but i dont think TMA are practical for a street fight and im not just talking about Mcdojos sure theres exceptions...theres exceptions to everything...but TMA have a lot of set moves that are complex and complicated



Makavilli--Whoa, hang on a second there! TMAs work _fine_ in real combat. Just ask the Korean Marines who decimated a much larger force of North Vietnamese infantry at the Battle of Tra Binh Dong in possibly the bloodiest hand-to-hand combat of any modern war (an account of which appears in the U.S. _Marine Corp Gazette_, reproduced in Stuart Anslow's new book on combat applications of ITF TKD forms). Those ROK Marines were trained in military combat applications of TKD in the form set forth by Gen. Choi, which included unarmed defense techniques against bayonet attacks and knife attacks, among other things. The Black Tigers were considered the most fearsome agency of the ROK military during the Korean war. They learned the ITF patterns _and their combat applications_, and inflicted tremendous damage on the North Koreans, fighting behind the NK lines in many cases. No one is saying you apply these poomsae moves literally---like the kata in karate, you need to know how to read them, because they were deliberately disguised. How many people who learn a chamber as part of a down block are taught that that chambering movement may correspond to an elbow strike to the assailant's head, or an arm bar strike on an attacker's grabbing arm trapped by the so-called `chamber' of the `retracting hand', which is retracting not to power up a punch, but as part of a hold on the attacker's trapped wrist? Or that the `down block' motion itself isn't a block, but a strike on the trapped arm, or the carotid sinus, or part of a throw imposed by imposing pressue on the attacker's throat while his arm is trapped? You are saying that these moves are _ineffective_?



makavilli68 said:


> if you guys have ever been in a street fight you would know that you get a big adrenaline rush and cant move properly besides trying to swing hard...i think moves from boxing and muay thai are easy enough and practical to use in a street fight plus they hit very hard



By your reasoning, if you hand a Glock 9 to someone for self-defense purposes who's never used a pistol, and that person comes under deadly attack, starts shooting wildly and panics, you are allowed to conclude from that that the Glock is an ineffective weapon. Because you start off talking about TMAs and suddenly switch to problems with _training_ the techniques which TMAs comprise. But those are two different things, just as the effectiveness of a Glock 9 and someone's ability to apply that potential effectiveness are different things. You cannot justify a claim about the inherent effectiveness of any given art---TMA, MMA or anything else---based on traning practice. Because the same art can be trained effectively or ineffectively. Do you want to say that if those TMAs are trained effectively, they still aren't any use in a make-or-break combat situation? Think you could convince those ROK Marines that their TMA was useless because of the `complex and complicated moves' in ITF poomsae?



makavilli68 said:


> iof course if you train for 30 years in this TMA of your just trying to use it in a street fight im sure you will be able to handle the adrenaline dump by then but you can learn to fight much better with more practical arts i believe



You mean, training for real combat, using a training protocol which aims specifically at working with the adrenal shock wave using the toolkit of fighting  techniques for some TMA (the way Iain Abernethy trains combat-effective apps of traditinal karate, say), will be less effective than training BJJ or whatever using the same protocol? Can you give some _evidence_ for this claim?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 21, 2006)

makavilli68 said:


> well i only got one post but i dont think TMA are practical for a street fight and im not just talking about Mcdojos sure theres exceptions...theres exceptions to everything...but TMA have a lot of set moves that are complex and complicated


 
Ummm .... NO! You're way off on that one. Traditional strikes are way more damaging than punching fists, to an opponent. Besides that, the TMA stuff, Say Karate, for example, are very basic and explosive. Nothing at all complex about it.



makavilli68 said:


> if you guys have ever been in a street fight you would know that you get a big adrenaline rush and cant move properly besides trying to swing hard...i think moves from boxing and muay thai are easy enough and practical to use in a street fight plus they hit very hard


 
First, there is an adrenaline rush, however, once you start moving, you're good. Besides that, training is training, striking and kicking is what it is TMA or MMA. If you train correctly, you'll move fine. You can't have it both ways. If one group can swing hard without problems, then another group can too. If your theory of it not being possible to swing and hit hard, while adrenaline is present, then it would apply across groups.



makavilli68 said:


> of course if you train for 30 years in this TMA of your just trying to use it in a street fight im sure you will be able to handle the adrenaline dump by then but you can learn to fight much better with more practical arts i believe


 
Strikes are strikes, kicks are kicks, It comes down to how a person trains. With the right training, it doesn't take thirty years. Boxers aren't that good right off the bat either. They need time too, as does everyone.


----------



## exile (Nov 21, 2006)

Handsword---glad to see that we are of one mind on this! :cheers:


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 21, 2006)

It's always good to have company in the Asylum!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







I'd also bring up another point which may, or may not be valid, How about types of people? I noticed early on that the Schools (The TMA side of this argument) used to be dominated by Fighters. It was all about self defense, very few women, and kids, mostly men. You could call them the quieter alpha males. As time went on, the schools would get populated by those that would get bullied by the alpha males. They would be the smaller, weaker, less coordinated, people. For them, it would take more time to get up to speed than the alphas, who are the natural athletes. These lessers became and are for the most part the population of the Dojos. The Alphas are the ones in the MMA/boxing gyms. Their personalities fit the training, as they did, when TMA training was hard core. Same reason why, at least from my life experience, street fighters always trashed (still do) the "Karate guys". The thugs are really the alphas, big, mean, agressive, and with a lot of fighting experience. Even with the training, the personalities/bodies of most TMA'ers now, are outgunned.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you have to compare apples to apples. A computer "geek" TMA, or MMA doesn't stand up well to the "fighters" (nature's assigned version). It takes the same types to match the same types. On that, TMA and MMA people hold their own just fine.


----------



## exile (Nov 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> It's always good to have company in the Asylum!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a _really_ interesting take... in a sense, you're saying that there's a built-in problem with comparing TMA/MMA practitioners, in that the choice of MA isn't symmetrical, but is skewed in terms of how comfortable the practitioner is with all-out fighting: those who kind of love it and are happy with it gravitate to MMAs these days, while those who don't really like it and learn MAs so that at the last resort they'll be able to come out in one piece are drawn to TMAs... that _could_ be a big factor! Another great breakthrough for the Asylum! :wink1:

Can you think of any way that this idea could be further tested out to see how well it jibes with the way the world is?


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 21, 2006)

I can only think of the peole in the dojos, we all know some, the ones that could beat the hell out of the ones that win in contests, on a regular basis. There the ones that you say "If I have to throw, I want them with me!". They are similar to the ones that I remember coming up, and at workplaces. They always took the TMA's, but, trained in them, focussing on the "real" applications. I remeber them doing just fine against boxers, and street fighters at the time. Even at work, I know Aikidoka that "represent" all the time, applying their "passive stuff" just fine, against some of the "scaries".

I only thought of this, because I see and remember some of the "lessers" training, getting into fights, and still losing, even against the "untrained". The studs are the studs, training aside. Unless you're one of them, you'll always be out gunned. Training helps a little to even it out, but, personality types plays a huge role IMO.


----------



## exile (Nov 21, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> I can only think of the peole in the dojos, we all know some, the ones that could beat the hell out of the ones that win in contests, on a regular basis. There the ones that you say "If I have to throw, I want them with me!". They are similar to the ones that I remember coming up, and at workplaces. They always took the TMA's, but, trained in them, focussing on the "real" applications. I remeber them doing just fine against boxers, and street fighters at the time. Even at work, I know Aikidoka that "represent" all the time, applying their "passive stuff" just fine, against some of the "scaries".
> 
> I only thought of this, because I see and remember some of the "lessers" training, getting into fights, and still losing, even against the "untrained". The studs are the studs, training aside. Unless you're one of them, you'll always be out gunned. Training helps a little to even it out, but, personality types plays a huge role IMO.



HS, I really think you're on to something there. And it's probably personality more than body-ability---a different mindset in the same body could have a really formidable result in many of the cases you're talking about. But there's that fundamental aversion to `getting down to it'... it's true: if it turns someone off, fundamentally, that person is just not going to do well in combat against those who have a bit of bloodlust. I suppose that with enough relentless training someone could catch up a bit... but I can also see someone of the kind you're alluding to just not _wanting_ to train that way. 

So once again, what you're showing from another angle is that it's not the art, it's the training _along with_ the personality of the trainer (which determines to a large extent what kind of training they seek out)...

Very nice, very very nice point!


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 21, 2006)

That could be so. My friend who's 150 pounds soaking wet, (rope man, he calls himself) wins quite a bit. It's definite the alpha male personality. he's always outsized etc.. but, mind set is everything.


----------



## Last Fearner (Nov 22, 2006)

Hi makavilli68,

First of all, welcome to the Martial Talk Boards! I think it would be a good idea for you to go to the "meet and greet" section of the forums lists, and post an introduction of yourself to everyone. You can tell a little more about yourself than what is in your profile, and make a good impression on other MT members.

Now, as for your comments about "TMAs." I'll try to be polite yet very direct. Your impression of the content of the Traditional Martial Art curriculum and its effectiveness in real combat is not accurate. This is either due to a misunderstanding of Traditional training due to lack of personal experience in it, or being misinformed by others whose opinions you have heard and are now repeating as your own.



makavilli68 said:


> i dont think TMA are practical for a street fight ...TMA have a lot of set moves that are complex and complicated


Traditional Martial Art education always starts with basics, not complex and complicated moves. The beginner can become proficient and effective with self defense within a few months, and by one to two years should prevail in most average self defense situations. By the time they are Black Belt (3 - 5 years) they are perfecting the basics and beginning on the advanced, "complex" moves, however these moves are not "complicated" for those who have worked their way up through the basics.

None of these moves are "set," as you say, in the sense that they are rigid or stagnate in the learning process or application. After many decades of teaching, I know of the effectiveness from personal experience (what I was able to do in my youth as a beginner and how some of my students have performed, as beginners, when attacked in real life self defense situations). So this is not a guess, or I "think" Traditional Martial Art works well, it really does, and I'm not talking about the "exceptions" or the long time experts.



makavilli68 said:


> if you guys have ever been in a street fight you would know that you get a big adrenaline rush and cant move properly besides trying to swing hard...i think moves from boxing and muay thai are easy enough and practical to use in a street fight plus they hit very hard...


Personally speaking, yes, I have been in street fights, and I find your comments about adrenaline rushes to be more of your personal experience than the general rule of Martial Artists. In my early training, I felt very little adrenaline or nervousness during a street encounter, and had virtually no limitations on my movements. Each individual is going to be different as to the "fight, flight, or freeze" syndrome, but an instructor can prepare a student to deal with the adrenaline and still perform with speed and power. If your personal experience has been that you "can't move properly" or "swing hard" when you are confronted with an attacker, then I submit that your training has not prepared you in the way that the "Traditional Martial Art" that I am familiar with does. If it is not you that has experienced these problems, but you are getting this feedback from others, then I would question the source, and credibility of their TMA training.



makavilli68 said:


> of course if you train for 30 years in this TMA of your just trying to use it in a street fight im sure you will be able to handle the adrenaline dump by then but you can learn to fight much better with more practical arts i believe


 
Handsword and exile have made some excellent points, and brought up some insightful questions into the mind-set, and personality of those training more than the Art itself, but I also contend that proper instruction is designed to bring the "non-fighter" personality type up to par with the "alpha-male" to level the playing field. This can be done in a short time if the weaker, or less aggressive person is training, and the "alpha" person is not. However, if they both start training at the same time, it might take a bit longer for the less aggressive person to be able to match a trained alpha type.

In time, I believe the training equals all aggressive behavior out, and the alpha type no longer has the advantage. In fact, they might have a disadvantage if they do not learn to control the aggression. For instance, if you give the two types of people fencing foils, a small amount of basic fencing skills, and put them in a contest, the aggressive alpha type might become very frustrated with the fact that the finesse of the less aggressive opponent prevails. If Traditional Martial Art skills are taught correctly, size, strength, and aggression will give no advantage, and will most often prove to be detrimental.

Perhaps, makavilli, it boils down to what exactly is your definition of what a "TMA" is, what are its characteristics, and what points of skills you believe are lacking. With a little more research, I believe you will find that genuine Traditional Martial Art (when taught correctly by a qualified Master) is not lacking in effectiveness, even for a beginner, and their really is no such thing as a "more practical art" than TMA.  Adrenaline, and complexity seem to be your main points of argument, and neither one are really a inhibiting factor in proper TMA training.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 22, 2006)

Last Fearner....Awesome post!


----------



## exile (Nov 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Last Fearner....Awesome post!



Ditto to that!


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

First, Exile, that was an excellent post!  



exile said:


> Just ask the Korean Marines who decimated a much larger force of North Vietnamese infantry at the Battle of Tra Binh Dong in possibly the bloodiest hand-to-hand combat of any modern war (an account of which appears in the U.S. _Marine Corp Gazette_, reproduced in Stuart Anslow's new book on combat applications of ITF TKD forms). Those ROK Marines were trained in military combat applications of TKD in the form set forth by Gen. Choi, which included unarmed defense techniques against bayonet attacks and knife attacks, among other things.



I have always heard about how tough the ROK Marines were but I never knew much about them.  I know a few military veterans who were there and spoke highly of their effectiveness!  Great information, thanks for sharing! 



exile said:


> By your reasoning, if you hand a Glock 9 to someone for self-defense purposes who's never used a pistol, and that person comes under deadly attack, starts shooting wildly and panics, you are allowed to conclude from that that the Glock is an ineffective weapon.



That is a great analogy.  I will have to remember that one.



exile said:


> You mean, training for real combat, using a training protocol which aims specifically at working with the adrenal shock wave using the toolkit of fighting  techniques for some TMA (the way Iain Abernethy trains combat-effective apps of traditinal karate, say), will be less effective than training BJJ or whatever using the same protocol? Can you give some _evidence_ for this claim?



I agree with you.  I believe this article is great and may be of interest since it seems related to this discussion.  Coach Sonnon isn't a doctor or scientist but he draws on known information. 

The Media Myth of the Flinch Reflex



> Reflex-based approaches in martial art offer physical preparedness in the shortest time possible. No other approach can render their speed of preparing effective combatants. All so-called "adrenaline-based/reality-based" systems are based on this. Any approach deliberately activating in training and platforming off of the endocrine system (adrenaline/epinephrine, norepinephrine, endorphin, aldosterone "dump" - deactivated by cortisol) are reflex-based systems.  These systems seek to convert the 'fight, flight or freeze' reflex to a few select gross motor, high percentage 'techniques'. However, these approaches remain limited by their own basic doctrine (read belief system): gross motor only, platform off of so-called "hard-wired" reflexes, striking more effective, proactive aggression superior, et cetera. Their belief system creates their method of training, which in turn also reinforces their beliefs.
> No action hard-wires your organism. Every behavior remains subject to the Laws of Conditioning. Platforming off of (and reinforcing) a reflex imposes upon the reality of the situation and thus never truly 'responds' to the event as it unfolds. If you only have a short amount of time, then this is a valid consideration.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 22, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I agree with you. I believe this article is great and may be of interest since it seems related to this discussion. Coach Sonnon isn't a doctor or scientist but he draws on known information.
> 
> The Media Myth of the Flinch Reflex


 
Hmmm. Not sure I agree with all that. He makes some good points, but the problem with having multiple possible reactions is still the slow down speed, of Hicks Law, ie the more reactions you have, the longer it takes your body to choose between them. You also have the issue that during any aggressive conflict, determining specific techniques used against you will prove difficult, and you're better off learning the general motor response for attacks coming from a cetain direction rather than for specific techniques themselves.
However, I do agree with him that its not enough to leave it there, and instead you these gross motor skills as your basic armour as it were, and then further develop your tools or weaponry from there. I still think simplicty should be the over-riding principle of any technique or tool though.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 22, 2006)

No matter how you have trained, when the moment of truth arrives YOU alone are the one that must make the choise to defend yourself. No system or technique or reflex or wathever will do this for you. Period.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 22, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> No matter how you have trained, when the moment of truth arrives YOU alone are the one that must make the choise to defend yourself. No system or technique or reflex or wathever will do this for you. Period.


 
Wondefully deep and all, but not really much to do with the debate :uhyeah: 
Ah, Im just messing.
Yes, you have to choose to defend yourself. But the manner in which you've trained will determine you're ability to do so, and having firmly developed a couple of gross motor tools as your reflex will be one of the better ways of creating that ability.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Wondefully deep and all, but not really much to do with the debate :uhyeah:
> Ah, Im just messing.
> Yes, you have to choose to defend yourself. But the manner in which you've trained will determine you're ability to do so, and having firmly developed a couple of gross motor tools as your reflex will be one of the better ways of creating that ability.


 
I am not so sure of that. It seems to me this approach leaves very little room for adaptation and that, in my opinion, is second in importance only to your will.

However what does not work for me may work for someone else..


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 22, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> I am not so sure of that. It seems to me this approach leaves very little room for adaptation and that, in my opinion, is second in importance only to your will.
> 
> However what does not work for me may work for someone else..


 
Well thats the thing, unless you're conditioned to perform a response, its highly likely that you'll perform it under pressure. So unless you try condition that response into your system, then when conflicit occurs, you won't be able to utilise any coherent reaction, instead what occurs is a sort of a mix between a flinch and a half-remembred reaction.
On the other hand if you condition too many responses, then your reaction time will suffer, and possibly crash because its been overloaded.

I find that the best way for the body to develop responses is instead focus on a few general reactions, which are direction specific, rather than technique specific. So instead of having different responses for each individual technique, you have a few solid ones for the direction instead, ie for strikes coming forward, or from the upper right or left etc

That way you have a solid set of armour as it were that will hold up under attack, and from there you can adapt your response outwards to better suit the situation.
But that foundation is essential.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> On the other hand if you condition too many responses, then your reaction time will suffer, and possibly crash because its been overloaded.




IMO, that is only for conscious thought.  It takes far too long to process  consciously all the pieces of information or data that is ever changing in a confrontation and formulate a response in time enough to deal with it.  However, the subconscious mind is quite fast and can analyze far more data and formulate a plan of action far faster than the conscious mind.  This is usually expressed in a "feeling" for the shape of the attack.  The body will naturally and quickly respond to this feeling.  

For instance, if you were to accidentally put your finger on a hot burner you will move it immediately without conscious thought.  One doesn't consciously go through steps like:

1.  Wow that is hot
2.  I need to move my finger
3.  Moving finger now

You will do it without conscious thought.  In my opinion, it is this ability that takes time to get good or proficient at.  If one focuses on a handful of gross motor skills then they can consciously analyze and implement them somewhat effectively, but they will be limited in their abilities under pressure.  

Just my opinions and view points.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 22, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> IMO, that is only for conscious thought. It takes far too long to process consciously all the pieces of information or data that is ever changing in a confrontation and formulate a response in time enough to deal with it. However, the subconscious mind is quite fast and can analyze far more data and formulate a plan of action far faster than the conscious mind. This is usually expressed in a "feeling" for the shape of the attack. The body will naturally and quickly respond to this feeling.
> 
> For instance, if you were to accidentally put your finger on a hot burner you will move it immediately without conscious thought. One doesn't consciously go through steps like:
> 
> ...


 
Thats not how gross motor skills work. The point of a gross motor skill is it becomes a reaction that doesn't require concsious thought. Fine motor skills are normally the ones which you have to think about.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I find that the best way for the body to develop responses is instead focus on a few general reactions, which are direction specific, rather than technique specific. So instead of having different responses for each individual technique, you have a few solid ones for the direction instead, ie for strikes coming forward, or from the upper right or left etc
> 
> That way you have a solid set of armour as it were that will hold up under attack, and from there you can adapt your response outwards to better suit the situation.
> But that foundation is essential.


 
I see your point, and it has great merit. However focusing on "a few solid ones (techniques)" as you put it is still based in techniques rather than principles. Knowing the principles of movement one can adapt without concious thought to any situation. Knowing only the technique and not the principle, any adaptation will be more of a guess than an adaptation.


----------



## rutherford (Nov 22, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> I agree with you. I believe this article is great and may be of interest since it seems related to this discussion. Coach Sonnon isn't a doctor or scientist but he draws on known information.
> 
> The Media Myth of the Flinch Reflex


 

Coach Sonnon does have a PhD.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 22, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> I see your point, and it has great merit. However focusing on "a few solid ones (techniques)" as you put it is still based in techniques rather than principles. Knowing the principles of movement one can adapt without concious thought to any situation. Knowing only the technique and not the principle, any adaptation will be more of a guess than an adaptation.


 
Principle is abstract that technique utilises. When under attack, you will not have time to concsciously decided which principles to utilise, by the time you mentally register a punch is thrown and formulate a tactic to deal with it, the punch will hit you.
On the other hand if you train a general reaction for it, your body will react without you having to analyse "This is a punch, moving might be a good idea"

Abstracts do not exist outside of our heads. You can't use one in a fight. All you can use our techniques and tactics that make use of the concept,
but you can't fight using the principle alone, it still needs to be given form.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Principle is abstract that technique utilises. When under attack, you will not have time to concsciously decided which principles to utilise, by the time you mentally register a punch is thrown and formulate a tactic to deal with it, the punch will hit you.
> On the other hand if you train a general reaction for it, your body will react without you having to analyse "This is a punch, moving might be a good idea"
> 
> Abstracts do not exist outside of our heads. You can't use one in a fight. All you can use our techniques and tactics that make use of the concept,
> but you can't fight using the principle alone, it still needs to be given form.


 
I don`t quite see how you can say that principles like the Ju of Ju Jutsu does not exist outside of our heads... unless you make the argument that nothing exists outside our heads of course. (If you are saying that any model is a simplification, then I agree.)

Of course the principle needs to be applied. However applying a principle once it is part of your every movement does not require concious thought any more than walking. It also binds your actions together in a whole rather than opplying one technique, stop, and then applying another.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

rutherford said:


> Coach Sonnon does have a PhD.



Thanks for the info.  I wasn't aware of that!


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 22, 2006)

exile said:


> That's a _really_ interesting take... in a sense, you're saying that there's a built-in problem with comparing TMA/MMA practitioners, in that the choice of MA isn't symmetrical, but is skewed in terms of how comfortable the practitioner is with all-out fighting: those who kind of love it and are happy with it gravitate to MMAs these days, while those who don't really like it and learn MAs so that at the last resort they'll be able to come out in one piece are drawn to TMAs... that _could_ be a big factor! Another great breakthrough for the Asylum! :wink1:
> 
> Can you think of any way that this idea could be further tested out to see how well it jibes with the way the world is?


I think it's more that the commercial schools are caught in a business bind.  They're in business, and they need paying students to keep the doors open.  So, they're going to adapt what they teach to what people want.  Only a small portion of people who study martial arts want to do hard, combative training.  A larger portion want to competitive sport training (sparring or forms).  A significant portion don't want anything sparring related; they want to get a work out, hang out with their buddies, and have that cachet of "being a martial artist."  Lots of that last group won't even want to hit bags or pads if they can avoid it!

So...  You've got bills to pay, and you've got a choice.  You can offer hard style, combative training and maybe make it... Or you can offer Ninja Turtle programs and after-school day care, and family programs and exciting competition teams along with cardio-kickboxing...and pull in most of the people who'd be interested.  Guess what it seems most school owners are forced to do?


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Thats not how gross motor skills work. The point of a gross motor skill is it becomes a reaction that doesn't require concsious thought. Fine motor skills are normally the ones which you have to think about.



I believe you missed my point.  I really wasn't saying gross motor skills are not used subconsciously.  Likewise, fine motor skills can be used subconsciously and under stress.  Just it takes longer to train the fine motor skills into the subconscious.  This is largely affected by tension.  More tension equals less fine motor skills.  That was one of the points in the article I posted a link to.  I was trying to point out that the subconscious mind can process large volumes of data very fast that cannot be done with conscious thought.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 22, 2006)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Thats not how gross motor skills work. The point of a gross motor skill is it becomes a reaction that doesn't require concsious thought. Fine motor skills are normally the ones which you have to think about.


 
Fine motor skills can be drilled into the subconscious and can be used when the need arises as well.  I agree with Big Shadow that is sometimes just takes longer. (depending on the individual of course)
In my personal experience when handcuffing subjects I have used both fine motor skills and gross motor skills together.  The training just brought out the reactions and I did what I had to do.


----------



## juszczec (Nov 22, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> Where does everyone stand on this?




I think MMA is one of the most positive things to happen to, at least, my MA world.  

When I started training, it was for self defense.  I didn't know from self improvement to sporting competition or anything other than "learn this and it'll be easier to stop people from doing bad things to you". Period.  

Kinda similar (I think) to the guys who developed and recorded the methods that gave rise to what we do today.

I strongly suspect the seminal methods that became todays MA looked an awful lot more like MMA than anything else.

Hey, if nothing else, I realized it ain't a bad thing to know how to "wrestle"

Mark


----------



## Rook (Nov 22, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> IMO, that is only for conscious thought. It takes far too long to process consciously all the pieces of information or data that is ever changing in a confrontation and formulate a response in time enough to deal with it. However, the subconscious mind is quite fast and can analyze far more data and formulate a plan of action far faster than the conscious mind. This is usually expressed in a "feeling" for the shape of the attack. The body will naturally and quickly respond to this feeling.
> 
> For instance, if you were to accidentally put your finger on a hot burner you will move it immediately without conscious thought. One doesn't consciously go through steps like:
> 
> ...


 
False analogy.  Heat reactions like that are "spinal flinches;" no way to train such a reaction.  YOu can train to respond instinctively, but anything you can train will still be "brain" reaction... works differently.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 22, 2006)

Rook said:


> False analogy.  Heat reactions like that are "spinal flinches;" no way to train such a reaction.



   OK, I'll pick another such as driving in heavy traffic.  When one first starts driving it is scary as hell as there is so much going on.  Years later (provided one learned) one can drive for miles in heavy traffic and often not even remember doing it.  It doesn't have to be remembered consciously as in Step 1, step 2, step 3 and so forth.  One learns to see the spaces between the cars and not the cars themselves.  One begins to feel the spaces grow and shrink as the cars move about.  If they pay attention to the cars, it can become intimidating.

Oh and be completely relaxed while doing it, making casual and smooth fluid movements and corrections.

There are lessons here that can be applied to training.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 22, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> No matter how you have trained, when the moment of truth arrives YOU alone are the one that must make the choise to defend yourself. No system or technique or reflex or wathever will do this for you. Period.


 

There is truth in that. I remember many circumstances of someone that knew his stuff very well, was beat up and never tried to defend himself. He was an "A" student, a passive personality, looked at as a "sweet heart by all of the grown ups. When asked why he didn't do anything, especially, when he could have easily done so, he responded that he never wanted to get into trouble, or be suspended.

Again, I still say that one's mindset/personality are the real deciding factors.


----------



## thewhitemikevick (Nov 22, 2006)

That'd be like putting the boxer into a TKD tournament and telling him he can't punch to the face and a kick to the head is worth two points. Who's going to win?
[/quote said:
			
		

> Lmao yep...that was pretty much my situation when i first started getting into martial arts lol. It just so happens that Tae Kwon Do was the first martial art I started learning outside of the boxing realm, too lol.
> 
> Anyways, personally it's my belief that MMA isn't EVERYTHING. It's effecient in the ring or in the Octagon, and people think that it's "proven" that its effective in fighting situations because it has been used succesfully against another martial artist in a controlled setting with a designed set of rules that the fighters must obey in their fight and are forced to conform their tactics around. It's not really a matter of which is better, it's just that they're different. MMA hasn't proven anything. It's shown us a lot, and it's been very illuminating, but throwing a Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu fighter in the octagon witha Kung Fu master and having the BJJ guy tap him with a rear naked choke doesn't neccessarily show me the "dominance" or "effeciency" of Jiu-Jitsu. Don't get me wrong, I think UFC and Pride FC and the rest of the MMA organizations out there have shown us a lot, and overall have been very entertaining and exciting, but I wouldn't neccesarily say that what they have demonstrated in the octagon has really proven anything.
> 
> TMA VS MMA. It's going to be a debate for the rest of the ages lol.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 23, 2006)

I still say, If it's about real self defense then a person should be well versed in both sides of this debate. Each side helps the other out, adding to the effectiveness of the individual's fighting skills.


----------



## Rook (Nov 23, 2006)

thewhitemikevick said:


> Anyways, personally it's my belief that MMA isn't EVERYTHING. It's effecient in the ring or in the Octagon, and people think that it's "proven" that its effective in fighting situations because it has been used succesfully against another martial artist in a controlled setting with a designed set of rules that the fighters must obey in their fight and are forced to conform their tactics around.


 
Its important that we correct this perception.  MMA is not limited to a cage or ring... most of the fights that we believe to support our position were ones fought in challenge matches without any rules at all.  Such challenge matches are still available wherever there is a Gracie.


----------



## thewhitemikevick (Nov 23, 2006)

Haha true that! Gotta love them Gracies lmao. But the only thing I ask myself is, in these fights they are working to knock someone out, or submit them or incapacitate them, but how often really are they working for the kill, which is where a lot of techniques from martial arts are centered? I'm fairly certain that there are teachings of BJJ that incorporate kill points into their techniques...but I don't think I've ever seen them used to actually try and kill someone. The problem for me is, back when most of these types of fights would have been possible, I wasn't around or wasn't a live to see it, so how will I ever know? These days, would a Gracie fight you to the death if you challenged him to a deathmatch? Haha perhaps so, they are both an honorable and a stubborn people, and that's why you've gotta love em lol. But I just don't know. There are things I wish I could have witnessed and seen for myself that would make my perception on this matter all the better.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2006)

Just read this thread in _one go! _I do MMA and I am black belt Tang Soo Do and 1st Kyu Wado Ryu. I've heard all these arguments time and time again. 
Firstly MMA is *not new.* It is as old as any TMA if not older,one of it's former names was Pankration and as such was in the original Olympic Games.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/pankration.html

I suspect that many people are judging MMA purely from the UFC which to be honest is unfair.  The vast majority of people I know in MMA don't slag TMAs off.I certainly wouldn't beat my chest (at least not without a chest guard lol) and say MMA is the one and only MA. It seems to be almost an obsession among the posters on here as to which style or art is best for street fighting! I don't believe it is the art or the style, it is the person themself who is the deciding factor as whether they can fight or not. 
 I know four fighters who competed in the UFC,I know all of them can more than look after themselves outside the ring. If you need more info I'm afraid you'll have to PM me as it's definitely not for an open forum LOL!
To be honest I think it's wasting precious training time arguing over TMA v MMA but that's me ! 
Kensai, if you still want a grappling club PM me with the area you want or how far you are willing to travel and what exactly you want to do and I will give you some club names etc.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 24, 2006)

I guess it's all moot points. Realistically speaking, the "TMA's" and "MMA's" aren't different, both ways, have punching, kicking, and grappling. Even the "street fighters" punch, kick, and grapple without any training at all, just natural instincts. Why? Because Fighting is what it is, and hasn't changed for us, since the beginning of the human race. The "arts", *as a collective whole,* are just ways of sharpening the tools needed. We're all painting the same picture, with the same tools, and materials, we're just using different brush strokes.


----------



## Rook (Nov 24, 2006)

thewhitemikevick said:


> Haha true that! Gotta love them Gracies lmao. But the only thing I ask myself is, in these fights they are working to knock someone out, or submit them or incapacitate them, but how often really are they working for the kill, which is where a lot of techniques from martial arts are centered? I'm fairly certain that there are teachings of BJJ that incorporate kill points into their techniques...but I don't think I've ever seen them used to actually try and kill someone. The problem for me is, back when most of these types of fights would have been possible, I wasn't around or wasn't a live to see it, so how will I ever know? These days, would a Gracie fight you to the death if you challenged him to a deathmatch? Haha perhaps so, they are both an honorable and a stubborn people, and that's why you've gotta love em lol. But I just don't know. There are things I wish I could have witnessed and seen for myself that would make my perception on this matter all the better.


 
It wouldn't be difficult to kill with grappling if it became necessary.  All you would need to do is continue to hold the choke until death resulted, or continue the neck crank etc.  It was never necessary for the Gracies to kill people, and I am glad it wasn't, but don't think that the style wouldn't be capable of it.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Nov 24, 2006)

This is an interesting discussion.  I tend to think this business of trying to compare styles is a futile practice.  The reason MMA is viewed by so many to be such a strong backgroud when it comes to real life fighting, is because MMA isn't a style at all, rather its a collection of variables intended to simulate a street fight while simultaneously keeping the fighters relatively safe.  For the MMA fighter, the fight is about validating all of the techniques we spend hours drilling and practicing.  MMA is not exclusive to any technique, philosophy, strategy, style or anything else, every art is given an equal chance.  What fails to deliver gets thrown out, and this is individual, GSP does a lot of kicks that would be pointless for most fighters to try.  

Its important to recognize that while the variables at play in a sanctioned MMA fight are different than the variables in a street fight, but not by so much that we can't learn about real confrontations from MMA.  MMA comes from all the TMAs available, but the fact that its real fighting means some stuff works and some doesn't.  Many TMAs are comfortable practicing a lot of technique without ever testing against a resisting opponent.  Some TMA people will even say that what they know is too dangerous to actually do in a sparring match.  Well isn't that special, the five point palm exploding heart technique of whichever style is too dangerous to do to anybody, so we should just take your word that its effective and then when we get attacked count on being able to do it.  Yeah that makes lots of sense.  I know that the next time I get mugged seems like a great time to see if my style actually works.  I don't want to sound like I'm knocking TMAs, I have lots of respect for TMAs, and TMAs that are willing to put it on the line have my utmost respect, but some people are content to think they're studying something effective without ever putting their abilities on the line because they like belts, uniforms, wooden swords and kanji...its an ego boost.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 25, 2006)

I would say that the "ego boost" you were referring to comes from willingly, and constantly getting into fights, not from Kanji, Gi's, belts and wooden swords.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 25, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> OK, I'll pick another such as driving in heavy traffic.  When one first starts driving it is scary as hell as there is so much going on.  Years later (provided one learned) one can drive for miles in heavy traffic and often not even remember doing it.  It doesn't have to be remembered consciously as in Step 1, step 2, step 3 and so forth.  One learns to see the spaces between the cars and not the cars themselves.  One begins to feel the spaces grow and shrink as the cars move about.  If they pay attention to the cars, it can become intimidating.
> 
> Oh and be completely relaxed while doing it, making casual and smooth fluid movements and corrections.
> 
> There are lessons here that can be applied to training.




Actually. I think what is being learned here is not in learning anythin really in terms of fine motor control, etc...  I think what you are simply doing is learning not to be stressed.

I'ma musician, and over the years I've played many many shows, concerts, etc...  The killer is stress, it's nervousness.  I can practice my scales and y solos for hours and hours, but the first time I get on stage, if I cannot control the rising pressure of facing all those people alone, then all those hours of practice fall apart.  Some people can..somne people can mentally go back to the place where they were practicing and ignore the audience.  Others it takes just getting up in front of peopl eover and over to get to the point that they don't make you nervous any more.

When I am in situations I'm familiar with, I am relaxed, and I play relaxed.  But I can still get stressed if I'm playing new music or if I know there is a really good muscian in the audience or something..  Then I have to work mentally against the stress because it's the rising nervousness and self-conciousness that keep my fingers from doing what I want them to do.  It has nothing to do with the training of my fine-motor skills, it's all about training my mind to stay relaxed and focused.

MA is the same.  I mean, the first time I sparred my legs felt like lead; they wouldn't go where I wanted...I breathed way to fast ad got short of breath and winded.  I mean it was a mess.  The second time I sparred, the very next week, I had not trained hours and hours to increase my motor skills, gross or fine, I simply was more relaxed because I knew better what to expect.  I was mentally more relaxed so I was physically more capable.

And that's the thing abouut MA, and about self-defense and fine-motor skill vs gross-motor skill.  It's not about teaching your body to execute under stress, it's about teaching your mind to relax and not be overcome with the pressure.  You execute because your mind is in a state of "hey, this looks familiar...' and you body can execute the same moves you've drill a thousand times, rather than your mind saying "oh, crap, I'm going to die..." which robs your body of the abililty to move.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Nov 25, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> I would say that the "ego boost" you were referring to comes from willingly, and constantly getting into fights, not from Kanji, Gi's, belts and wooden swords.


 
Lol...touche...thats a good point.  I've been thinking about this a lot since I posted yesterday and it occured to me that there must be dozens of MMA clubs full of macho fools who are all about fighting for the ego boost it gives them.  so I guess no matter what you train in, the quality of your dojo and the mentality of the people you train with must be crucial.  At my gym we all train in the spirit of fun and mutual support.  We do a lot of sparring, and occasionally one of us has a fight, but there is a difference between entering a competition and getting into a fight.  The latter implies a loss of control IMO, whereas the former can be about a lot of things.  Sure there is ego involved in fighting, winning and losing both present interesting challanges to your ego, but if you approach it in the right spirit thats not a bad thing.  Its when you let being a good fighter go to your head that the ego gets carried away.  For me, the fight is something sacred, where we put our bodies on the line in order to see how effective our skills are.  Its crude and violent, yes, but its real, and I'm not convinced you can get that kind of reality check any other way.  When I fight someone, I see it as an honor, after all, they are agreeing that I may hurt them in the interest of progressing as a martial artist.  

For the record, I just want to clarify too, that I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing TMAs, I have total respect for the traditional martial arts, I just feel like many of them are no longer practiced in a manner that actually breeds skilled martial artists.  But this gets back into what I was saying about the individual school, the people you train with and how you train.  I souned kind of judgemental in my last post, but I didn't mean to come off that way.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 25, 2006)

No worries, I got what you were saying, that's why you got the "wink". However, what you're talking about, is what I touched on earlier. When We had the original debate at work, I got that the McDojo, watered down Training, family oriented version is what they based their views of the TMA's. It's all they grew up with, and all they had to compare. (yeah!, it, and us have been around that long-lol) They didn't know what it was like back in the day. Upon comparison to the MMA's for fighting, that version of the TMA's fails miserably.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 26, 2006)

Furious George, I don't know much about the MMA clubs your side of the pond but on ours, and I know most of the clubs here, they are not in the least full of macho fools driven by their egos, far from it I would have to say! They are the least ego driven people I know. There are one or two fighters I know with large egos but trust me they are in the very small minority. I and we fight because we enjoy competing against fellow fighters, we enjoy playing 'physical chess' as Ian Freeman calls it. Call it fights or call it competing whatever, the atmosphere at shows are great, the audience knows and appreciates what is going on, we rarely have trouble and the fighters are a great bunch of people (we have several women fighters including Rosi Sexton who recently competed in Las Vegas)who go out of their way to help and encourage each other.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Nov 26, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> Furious George, I don't know much about the MMA clubs your side of the pond but on ours, and I know most of the clubs here, they are not in the least full of macho fools driven by their egos, far from it I would have to say! They are the least ego driven people I know. There are one or two fighters I know with large egos but trust me they are in the very small minority. I and we fight because we enjoy competing against fellow fighters, we enjoy playing 'physical chess' as Ian Freeman calls it. Call it fights or call it competing whatever, the atmosphere at shows are great, the audience knows and appreciates what is going on, we rarely have trouble and the fighters are a great bunch of people (we have several women fighters including Rosi Sexton who recently competed in Las Vegas)who go out of their way to help and encourage each other.


\

Did you catch my post before my last one?  I am not in any way trying to bash MMA, MMA is what I do and I have a great love and respect for it.  I was just trying to acknowledge for Hand Sword that what I am familiar with at my gym isn't necessarily how it is for everybody.  My gym, and the people I train with are exactly how you're describing, friendly, mutually supportive, etc.  And I tend to believe thats typical of the sport, but to be honest when we compete in local fights I am pretty unimpressed with the conduct of most MMA gyms in the area.  There is a lot of bravado, bad sportsmanship, etc.  I tend to think that experiences like yours and mine are typical of mma, that overall its about mutual support and growth and fun and friendly competition, but I think there are probably plenty of places where thats not the case.  I guess in the end I just think there are good places to train and bad places to train, and thats true for every faction of the martial arts.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 27, 2006)

We probabably don't have as many MMA clubs as you do but knowing and working with them I'm hard put to think of one 'bad' one. The biggest such as Wolfslair (where Bisping trains) has regular training sessions where people outside of their club can come and get more experience. London Shoot which may be the biggest club is very friendly and open, I can recommend going there if anyone is visiting London. Leigh Remedious' club is also a friendly open place to train, as is Quannum and the Northern Cartel, I wonder if the fact that we all train at each others clubs also makes for a good atmosphere? We rarely get incidents of bad sportmanlike behaviour, it simply gets squashed! Perhaps as MMA gets bigger in the UK it will change as more people we don't know get into it but at the moment its a relatively small community that is attracting so far (touch wood!) decent people.


----------

