# TMA vs MMA Revisited, A different type of debate.



## The Master (Jan 7, 2007)

We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
It's a never ending arguement.

So why reopen it?

Because, this is not intended to be that arguement, and I will thank those who can't get enough of it for staying on this topic and not turning this into yet anothr flame fest in advance.

So what is this then?

Simple.

It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
What are the benefits of each approach?
Which one develops key skills better?
Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.

This is not a "which is best" overall argument.  I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence, and maybe even some true life tales.

Can you do it? Or, will we be condemned to be tossed into the Great Debate with the other pointless and perpetual turd fest?

I Thank you.


----------



## exile (Jan 7, 2007)

The Master said:


> ...the discussion...of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
> 
> What are the benefits of each approach?
> Which one develops key skills better?
> Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.



One problem I see at the outset is that even _within_ TMA, there is a huge range of training styles. You get everything from the standard kihon across-the-floor robotics to kumite/one-steps/three-steps, which people for some reason confuse with combat training, to the kata-based `sparring' that Abernethy and his crowd do with karate, which consists of close-to-streetfight levels of force delivery to train the realistic combat applications of kata, involving throws, sweeps, locks and so on, along with the finishing strikes these moves set up, at close to real-fight levels of force, where only areas like eyes, throat and temple are spared (and here, touches substitute for blinding finger thrusts and elbow strikes to the larynx). I know which of these training approaches _I'd_ vote for as the most effective for the purposes I train TKD for... but there isn't a single training method for the TMAs. There might be for MMA, it wouldn't surprise me, but people do TMAs for a very wide variety of purposes, as I've noticed, and they train quite differently within each art...


----------



## charyuop (Jan 7, 2007)

This is my point of view on the whole TMA-MMA "match".

I am not gonna say which one is better, also coz in my opinion no MA is better, no matter if it is TMA or MMA.
In MMA are taken part of TMA to make what is thought to obtain a more complete MA. Both Arts work on techniques and working on techniques means start learning on how to respond on certain situations.
Developing reflexes and quick respons to a situation depends on the practitioner, how long he/she trains and a bunch of personal qualities which differ from person to person.
I make a simple example with my Art, but of course there is more about it. I can learn 1 or 10 techniques in 1 day at the dojo, but the way I do it will change me. I can be thrown down, get up fix my Gi get ready, approach the opponent, redo the technique. Do it for 2 hours can teach you the technique, but nothing else. Same situation, but be thrown, jump up immediately and without thinking re-attack immediately. This way train body, reflexes, respons and so on. Now if I face someone who trains in the first way (whatever MA) I will tend to say his MA is not good because it provides mechanical insinct. But if I face someone who trains in the second way in the same MA, I will be very impressed because the MAist will have good skills.

IMHO, the real difference between TMA and MMA it is not about skills, effectiveness or the quality which developes in the MAist, but the difference is in the word "Traditional".
As a Traditional MA there is behind years of history and thus it created a certain phylosophy which comes with the art itself. While with the MMA the subject is merely a topic of fight.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## MJS (Jan 7, 2007)

The Master said:


> We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
> The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
> It's a never ending arguement.
> 
> ...


 
The MMAs, IMO, have opened the eyes for many, as to the importance of certain areas of training.  First and foremost, I'd have to say grapplers showed how key it is to have at the minimum, a basic understanding of the ground and some basic defense/escapes.  I'd have to say that resistance/aliveness is also right up there.  

There may be some TMAs that are so traditional, that they refuse to look at anything outside of their training methods.  Looking outside the box is never a bad thing.  

I'd have to say that while the MMAs could be used in a street altercation, their primary focus is the ring.  That being said, their training methods are geared to the ring.  Taking possible street scenarios into their training, would make them even more well rounded.

Depending on how they're trained, both arts have the potential to develop key skills.  

MMAists have tremendous stamina.  Cardio is a big focus.  Again, this is not to take away from TMAs, as their workouts can be pretty tough.

The lists can go on and on, but the bottom line is, is that each has something to offer.  It all depends on what the goal is.  

I too, hope that this discussion can be productive.


----------



## Rook (Jan 8, 2007)

The Master said:


> Because, this is not intended to be that arguement, and I will thank those who can't get enough of it for staying on this topic and not turning this into yet anothr flame fest in advance.


 
I'll do my best.  



> It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
> What are the benefits of each approach?
> Which one develops key skills better?
> Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.
> ...


 
Here we immediately encounter a problem.  This argument (and one will probably emerge although we will try to not to make one) is fundamentally about what we choose to count as proof.  MMA and TMA CANNOT, IMO, be equal.  If TMA systems claims are true, then MMA fighters are foolish for overlooking the most effective techniques available - if those claims are false, then TMAists are training far outside the optimum practices.   

You should look at the following threads: 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41662
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34688
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35356&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38565&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32843&highlight=middle+ground+mma+tma


----------



## MJS (Jan 8, 2007)

Rook said:


> I'll do my best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Apparently the discussion is already going off topic! First off, pretty much every thread you linked, is pointing to discussions in which the OP was hoping to avoid. Second, I see nothing in your post that even remotely talks about their approaches to training. I'll give an example.

You stated:



> If TMA systems claims are true, then MMA fighters are foolish for overlooking the most effective techniques available - if those claims are false, then TMAists are training far outside the optimum practices.


 
however, the OP stated this:



> We have all seen the never ending argument on which is better.
> The arguments of tradition vs effectiveness vs street vs cage.
> It's a never ending arguement.
> 
> So why reopen it?


 
Maybe I'm just misreading, I don't know. As for an argument errupting...well, there are many other threads, such as the ones you listed, that contain those arguments, so if someone feels the need to continue beating the dead horse, why not just go back to those threads?  Perhaps before we hit the send button, we should read and re-read what we type.  If its not falling into the guidelines, an edit may be in order.

Mike


----------



## The Master (Jan 8, 2007)

I'm not looking for the argument. MMA guys and TMA guys do what they do because they believe it's the right thing. Trying to convince them otherwise is like teaching a pig to sing. It don''t work, and just annoys the pig.

There are a couple different ways we can explore things.

Pick an attribute or skill set.  Say, kicking.  If I want to learn to kick realy well, what should I look for regardless of art-type, then what arts really teach that? 

Or punching?  If I want to throw killer punches, again, what should I look for in general, then specifically where should I look?

How about building up my lower back or working on strengthening my knees?
What should I look for, what should I specifically avoid, and which arts are better or worse for that?

I'm looking at this from a number of different ideas. Sport fighter, street fighter, self defense, hobbiest, fitness buff, etc.

For example, lets go back to kicking.
Strong kicks, Muay Thai.
Fancy kicks, TKD/Savate
Solid kicks, Karate/MT.
What else should I know about kicking? Doing it safely, training without blowing out my knees or hips or back? Other arts to cross train in, etc.


----------



## exile (Jan 8, 2007)

The Master said:


> I'm not looking for the argument. MMA guys and TMA guys do what they do because they believe it's the right thing. Trying to convince them otherwise is like teaching a pig to sing. It don''t work, and just annoys the pig.
> 
> There are a couple different ways we can explore things.
> 
> ...



OK, so specifics. Well, you need three things for good kicking: balance, power and accuracy. Three different training modes, therefore:

*balance*: I'm assuming a concommitant strength-training program for your legs, because strength is implicated in balance: you can't get in a balanced configuration if you aren't strong enough to maintain your limbs through the component well-balanced positions of the kick. Assuming you have the strength, you have to train balance so that you can count on it without having to use momentum to keep you upright (because in a real fight, the momentum of your delivery can be interrupted any number of ways. Minimizing reliance on momentum means slowing the kick way down. So the best balance exercises for kicking, I've found, involve execution of kicks at a variety of heights in good (ideally perfect) form at arbitrarily slow speeds. Eventually you should be able to freeze your kicking leg in any position in the trajectory of the kick and maintain it there for, say, 15 seconds minimum. When you can do that, try to learn to do it _with your eyes closed_.  Drill high kicks, not because you should be using them in real combat, but because they stress balance skills severely.

Around 100 kicks per day of each basic type (turning, front snap, rear leg side kick, slide side kick) with each leg.


*power:* Kick a heavy swinging bag under various conditions. Swing the bag, and nail it at mid height, or lower, early in the swing, at midpoint, and at the end, trying to stop it dead in its tracks each time. Another good exercise: do a slow `balance-drill' style kick, but at the very end, drive your leg into the bag as hard as possible. Only allow yourself a few inches. Then give yourself a few more nches and do the same thing, etc. 

*accuracy* Focus mits (with a partner, who's continuously changing the position of the mitts, which should be as small as possible) or removable marks on a bag. to give yourself a target.

A program built along these lines will yield very good kicking skills if carried out consistently over many months. But there is a fourth training mode for kicks, as part of realistic combat training, where all the apps will involve low or lower-mid kicks, as reflected in the orginal forms of the katas and TKD hyungs. If you look at the poomse for Korean arts, they have very few kicks relative to hand techs and those kicks are waist high at the highest. Probably originally they were all low...

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 8, 2007)

The Master said:


> It is for the discussion, note I said discussion not insult fest, of the pros and cons of each approach to training.
> What are the benefits of each approach?


all of the following is JMHO, OK?

As I see it, the MMA have "re-introduced" something TMA's seemed to have largely forgotten - a superior base level of physical fitness and live training.  This is what I thank the MMA's for doing / accomplishing in the world of MA.

TMA's have the benifit of history behind them - they are a complete system - a way of life that creates a quality human being.  They are also historically proven to be effective else they wouldn't be here - the practitioners would all be dead way back in the day.




> Which one develops key skills better?


Both develop key skills. The question isn't which is better, but which is better for the application?  MMA tends to develop a core set of skills very rapidly, but those skill sets are still primarily sport based.  They work great and are translatable into "practical" fighting very easily, but MMA is still judged by ring success, so that is still the primary focus of training.

TMA's tend to develop skills at a slightly slower pace, but within a complete framwork.  That is, you are not just learning the technique, you are learning philosophy, forms, history, etc.  The goal is to create an entire lifestyle. My personal *opinion* is that MMA neglects the "Art" aspect of Martial Arts to focus on the Sport and Combat aspects.  These are not the same things to me and without starting _that_ argument again, I 'll leave it as my opinion.



> Which one develops endurance, stamina, free thinking, improves response time, etc.


Both, if you train properly - there is no advantage to either one here as this is entirely up to the indivduals effort in training.  However, this was where TMA's had gone down the wrong road.  They had allowed physical training to fall by the wayside in pursuit of other aspects of training and the reality of combat / sport is that you need to train HARD!  MMA's do this.  Good TMA schools do this.



> This is not a "which is best" overall argument. I would like to see some hard data, some real evidence, and maybe even some true life tales.


 
Not sure what you mean here - you don't want facts to support which is best - what should the facts support?  

truew life tale - I've got 26 years in a martial art that is a kind of bastard half breed between the two and while I have spent the last ten years focusing primarily on the TMA aspects, I went through my competitive years at the start of the Ultimate fighting phenominon when EVERYBODY wanted to fight on the ground.  I trained with many people and I did very well as a striker with a few key skills on the ground (amazing what a good sprawl can do - just ask Chuck Liddel  ) due to the fact that sooo many people were starting off with a much poorer level of physical fitness than me (I had been kickboxing competitively for two years by this time).  As the fitness level went up, my success went down - so I started training harder in our (python) ground techniques.  Who knows where it might have gone if I hadn't fallen in love with the Kukri and cane and decided to focus on that instead?  The point is, that level of training is important if you want to master the techniques against a live opponent.



> I Thank you.


Thank you as well for this thread.


----------



## still learning (Jan 8, 2007)

Hello, The closer your training gets to real fighing the better you will be prepare for the real thing!

Both MMA and TMA : like two different weapons - both can kill! 

Real fights are fast, furious, and NO RULES.....Do you train this way? 

Remember both MMA and TMA...teaches -  eye pokes, throat strikes, breaking techniques, among all the other striking and blocking stuffs.

If both are equal in skills?   UM?  should be equal...if one is better than the other...than one is going to win?  

How do you measure a person skill levels?  for MMA or TMA 's  (belts and ranks do not mean a thing in a real fight)

Measurements: 2x4, 2x6's, 1 ton, 7 oz, 1 quart,two gallons,  which one are you?

MY measurements : slow, older, 5x9, 3/4 ton, half gallon.   .......Aloha


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 8, 2007)

How about if everyone just assume that whatever someone wishes to claim about the art they practice is true?  None of us has studied everything, and neither has anyone studied under *every* good teacher in the art(s) that we do practice.  So we can assume that to some degree, we are all missing SOMETHING in the art that we train.  Given this, none of us are really in any position to dispute what someone else does.  

If you claim your stuff is great, how can I argue against that?  I haven't studied your art, so I don't know enough about it to dispute your claim.  Even if I studied your art, I haven't studied under your teacher, so again, how can I possibly dispute your claim?  Maybe you have something that I didn't learn, and vice versa.

So if you say it works and works well, OK, I accept that.

So then what can we discuss?  How about you take your art and talk about what you believe it does well, how it is done, maybe admit to what you perceive as its weaknesses (that may be inherent in the art, or simply in yourself).  We don't need to establish which art is "better" (it's impossible to agree upon anyway), but we can look at the different arts thru how people here present them, describe their methods and their approach to training.  Everyone is welcome to decide for themselves if what they see described here makes sense to them.  Just remember: something that doesn't make sense to you, or that doesn't work for you, might still work tremendously well for someone else.  That's the beauty of all this.  Everyone is different, different body type, different skills and talents, strengths and weaknesses, psychology, likes and dislikes.  Of course there is no one single art that is indisputably the "BEST" single art for everyone.  Instead, everyone needs to find what is best for him/herself.

So I'll go first, and describe my favorite art, Tibetan White Crane.  This art was supposedly developed by Tibetan Lamas back in the 1400s.  It was brought into Southern China later on, and became counted among the Southern Chinese arts.  It is a fast-moving, hard-hitting, unusual longfist method, and there are legends of its proponents in the past defeating scores of challengers and leaving their bodies stacked like cordwood.  Of course I take those legends with a grain of salt, but they are fun to know.

The Tibetan White Crane is completely different from Fukien/Southern Shaolin White Crane, and any other White Crane art.  They are entirely different in technique and history.

The art combines a full body pivot and torque, combined with a relaxed swing to throw some really devastating hand strikes.  They land like sledgehammers.  We tend to avoid a grappling situation, and instead hit and run.  We charge in and throw punches from every direction until something lands and the enemy goes down.  It is fast and explosive and can be very difficult to deal with on the receiving end.

The art contains many very long forms that must be done at high speed and high energy.  It is not an art for someone who is very out of shape.  If you don't last long enough to get into shape, you will probably not last long in the practice.  It develops a high level of conditioning and stamina, and teaches you to relax in your delivery to hit harder while working less hard.  As I mentioned earlier, we rely on a relaxed swing and pivot to deliver power, not muscular force, yet the art requires a lot of stamina to practice.

The art is very aggressive.  Either you deliver a full-out blizzard of punches, or you don't do anything.  It's pretty tough to only go halfway.  It is not effective at a reduced level of intensity.

Defensive movements are hidden within the offensive movements.  they do exist, but the attack takes higher precedence.

The art seems to focus primarily on hit-and-run, and not grappling and certainly not wrestling (at least in how I learned it).  There is definitely chin-na in the art, but the focus is on pummelling the enemy into the dirt.  that's OK with me because it fits my interests better.  I personally don't have much interest in the wrestling arts.  I recognize that leaves a hole in my knowledge, but that is a choice I make.  I simply don't find myself attracted much to the wrestling arts.

Speed is very important in executing these techniques.  Because of the unusual nature of the longfist punches that we do, they can leave you somewhat open in between strikes.  Speed is used to overcome this, minimizing the moment when you are open, while forcing the enemy to deal with the raining blizzard of attacks.  The need for this speed is what makes it difficult to master.  

Anyway, this is a start.  I would be happy to answer any questions about the art, and look forward to seeing other's contributions and discussions about their own methods.


----------



## exile (Jan 8, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I'll go first, and describe my favorite art, Tibetan White Crane... It is a fast-moving, hard-hitting, unusual longfist method...



Great post, Michaelsounds like something I'd really enjoy! Nice vivid description, and it has the ring of truth, as if you've really captured the essence of the art.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 8, 2007)

cool - i'll jump in.

Although it's origins stem back well over 2000 years, Bando as it is practiced today in the American Bando Association has only been in existence since the end of World War One.  Much of this ancient art had been lost or broken down into smaller subsets of skills such as Banshay (weapons use), Thaing (self defense), Naban (wrestling), or Bama Lethwei (the brutal Burmese counterpart to Muy Tai boxing).


A War Veteran and director of Physical Education for the Burmese Education Ministry named U Ba Than Gyi was unsatisfied with the state of Burma's once complete Martial system. At his invitation, Masters from all over Asia came to Burma to demonstrate their skills . However, they were not interested in just studying Chinese Kung-Fu or Indian wrestling. They were interested in the only thing that mattered to soldiers--what worked in real combat situations.


After gathering the few remaining masters of Burmese fighting arts together, the Athletic club, under U Ba Than Gyi's guidance, sought to fill in the missing gaps of knowledge with the skills and teachings of the other Asian Martial Arts. No system or style was excluded as long as they had something practical to contribute. This approach was summed up by U Ba Than Gyi in a saying that has become a central tenet of Bando; 



"No one nation has a monopoly on sunlight; no one system has a monopoly on the truth."


As a result of this work, Bando has again become a complete martial system. Practitioners of modern Bando employ a wide variety of skills including Kicking and punching, knees and elbows, trapping and throwing, and grappling and groundfighting. The Modern Bando Student also trains in various weapons such as the short stick, long staff, Dha (sword), knife, and the soul of the Bando warrior, the Kukri. Upon reaching higher rankings, the Bando student may then begin studying one of up to sixteen animal systems. The nine animal systems of the American Bando Association are the Tiger, Eagle, Cobra, Viper, Boar, Bull, Python, Scorpion, and Panther.


Bando came to America with Dr. Maung Gyi, U Ba Than Gyi's son.   Dr. Gyi taught at Ohio University in Athens Ohio and started a Bando Boxing club in the late 1960's.   Later, that group was to form the American Bando Association. 

To me, Bando is far too vast to simply describe what it looks like, but I will try to describe how it looks up to Black belt level.  From there, the student has the option of either choosing an animal style or weapon to study for the rest of his / her life.

The philosophy of bando is to totally develop three aspects of martial living: Combat, Sport, and Art.  Combat is taught in drills and is augmented through Sport - which is Full contact Kivckboxing, middle style free sparing, and forms competitions.  The Art is in the forms and philosophies taught throughout the students life.  Refining the movements till the weapon (body, blade, whatever) is free from thought is the goal of the Art - to transcend the purpose of the movements (to kill) until the movements instead create beauty and peace of mind.

The core of Bando (white through black belt) utilizes primarily striking techniques in it's empty hand fighting.  The body sways as opposed to squared off styles such as TKD.  Every block is a strike and vicea versa.  Bando hurts.  When first training, you will give your self bruises.  A lot of them.  Strikes are delivered through the target with intent to crush and bruise.  In combat, the targets are life support and mobility.  A bando preactitioner is taught initial evasion followed by an attack to the entire body of the opponent in a nonstop attack until the opponent is rendered totally incapacitated.

As the student learns the fundamentals of good footwork and balance, more and more grappling and trapping is introduced.  The Bando Practiotioner is an in close fighter comfortable at all ranges.  Strikes are performed with open and closed fist, fingers, elbows, head, shoulders, hips, knees, shins, and feet.  Early training is heavily influenced by our kickboxing lineage.  In Bando, you expect to get hit, but try to minimize the damage as much as possible (obviously) and continue the attack to the end.

In our weapons, the sway of the boody remains to develop crushing power. speed is important, but not at the expense of crushing force.  Our forms and drills tend to break even the hardwood longstaffs quite often in training.  I have no idea how many long staffs I have gone through in 26 years - around 50-100 I would guess.  the goal is to destroy the enemies weapons.

Fancy is a word that has never once been used in the same sentence as Bando forms and weapons.  We consider ourselves the Jeep of the MA world - utilitarian - function over form.

Hopefully, by the time your looking at black belt, you've got a good idea of what you're natuarlly good at and what interests you.  At that point you can begin looking at the animal systems that contain what you are looking for.  Each one is a complete system in and of itself that you can study for the rest of your life and most do just that.  My instructor happend to be exposed to many animal styles and learned a gereat deal of the Cobra, Panther, Boar, Bull, Tiger and Eagle.  I in turn was exposed to these animals as well, but it would take all night to explain these styles.

This great diversity is what I love about Bando, buit it is also it's big weakness.  The Python guys might kick *** on the ground and because of their five plus years getting to black belt, they have a solid stand up skill set, but the Boar guys are BRUTAL in the ring.  Their favorite quote is "Fighting in a phonebooth" - think Bama Lethwei with more elbows and stomps. and you are taking your life in your hands if you let 'em clinch ya.  I am very glad that i was exposed to most animal styles in the way that I was.  To try to sample the styles is at best a waste of time cause of their complexity, but thankfully, Bando is still so combat oriented that every style has drill sets that you can learn to develp the core skill sets - it's less art than combat training.

For example - the Tiger style as taught in ABA has a form that ends in a neck break for every single set.  I trained in entries to that neck break as a drill.  It took about an three hours to learn the entries and after training in them for about a month I was very proficient.  Do I know the Tiger?  Hell No!  But I can use the primary attack well.

It is because of these drills and my belief in them that I train my students in drills from Tiger, Panther, Boar, and Cobra (I was blessed by the opportunity to train with Cobra master, Master Suskind for a while before became painfully obvious I didn't have the ability to ever be a master at the fastest and most target specific style) when they reach Brown belt, and employ python, wrestling and ground fighting skills from other arts in their early training.

After I reached black belt, I trained in Cobra, but really spent most of my time fighting until I reached the point that I found my calling - I'm a weapons guy.  I focused on the Longstaff, Kukri, and Cane, though the short stick and knife were never neglected. The core principles remain for weapons as does the philosophy of contiuous attack, every block a strike, and body sway.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 8, 2007)

tradrockrat said:


> cool - i'll jump in.
> 
> Although it's origins stem back well over 2000 years, Bando as it is practiced today in the American Bando Association has only been in existence since the end of World War One...


 
Cool.  I apparently have absolutely no knowledge or familiarity with Bando, because everything you described was completely new to me.  thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2007)

Well. First I wanna say anything we say is a generalization.  TMA runs the gambit from Sport Taekwondo to Kali, to South Mantis, to Taijutsu, which all have different "skillsets" and are not all easily lumped into a catagory just because of their long history... Saying a Tournament Sparring School of TKD is the same as a school of say Yagu Shinkage Ryu sword is assinine... so bear with my "generalizations"

 I think MMA develops good athletes.  The fighters it creates are fit, have the endurance for the long fight and are good at taking a hit, can hit hard most of them are good on the ground, and resiliant to the point of being able to be injured (as opposed to hurt) and keep fighting... they would dominate in a ring under the set of rules they train under, much like a boxer would.

TMA? First off, I think TMA in general develops more... passive... fighters than MMA, the mindset not being "YEAH LETS KICK SOME ***" but "Lets have a peaceful day, help others, and use my art as a last resort".  Id say TMA does more weapons work both with the use and defense of weapons, works more often on multiple attackers, situational awareness, and skills for dealing with things outside the ring. (an example would be how many TMA schools teach what to do if an attacker grabs your purse, vs How many MMA schools teach that kind of thing.)

But again, its all generalization... I know some TMA guys who, sadly couldn't survive a street fight against an angry 12 year old girl, but I know some TMA guys who I seriously believe would **** up an MMA guy if they were on the street, and HAVE ****ed up average street thugs.  By the converse, I know there are MMA guys who look for street effectivness, and balance their training for both, and have taken care of buisness in the bar... and there are MMA guys who would be all over your Joe TMA guy in the ring, but probably die if they faced a determined mugger, or serious TMA guy with a knife...


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 9, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Well. First I wanna say anything we say is a generalization. TMA runs the gambit from Sport Taekwondo to Kali, to South Mantis, to Taijutsu, which all have different "skillsets" and are not all easily lumped into a catagory just because of their long history... Saying a Tournament Sparring School of TKD is the same as a school of say Yagu Shinkage Ryu sword is assinine... so bear with my "generalizations"
> 
> I think MMA develops good athletes. The fighters it creates are fit, have the endurance for the long fight and are good at taking a hit, can hit hard most of them are good on the ground, and resiliant to the point of being able to be injured (as opposed to hurt) and keep fighting... they would dominate in a ring under the set of rules they train under, much like a boxer would.
> 
> ...


 

:asian: :asian: :asian: :asian: :asian: :asian:


----------



## Stan (Jan 9, 2007)

I think that the very question assumes the perspective of MMA.  Meaning, you take one thing, moder, sport-oriented, heavily grappling influenced so-called "Mixed Martial Arts", and you contrast it with everything that is not that, and call it "Traditional Martial Arts."   You could just as well say "Wing Chun vs. everything that is not Wing Chun."  See my point?  The categories are drawn from a biased perspective to begin with.  

Competition-based martial arts are nothing new.  Are traditional English pugilism and American Catch Wrestling traditional or mixed martial arts?  What is Gracie JuJitsu, on it's own?  

Within the category of "Traditional Martial Arts" exists several categories that could easily stand on their own as something distinct.  There's, within Japanese martial arts, Koryu and Gendai Budo.  Wouldn't the difference between, let's say Kano's Judo and Takeda's Daito Ryu be at least as great as the difference between "Traditional and Mixed"?  I think so, and I think that differnce is more meaningful.  

A martial art can be stripped of all cultural and historical context, claim to incorporate "whatever works", use colloquial, descriptive names for techniques and train in a milquetoast manner, resulting in little combat effectiveness.  Another can have centuries of tradition, incorporate a complete philosophy and lifestyle, have roots in a particular culture, and emphasize the physical and mental ability to actually make the art work.  Which one is "Traditional"?  

"Mixed Martial Arts" is a training methodology that produces very good fighters on a consistent basis.  It is not a martial art or a category of martial arts.  Within that methodology, any number of things can be taught.  Traditional Martial Arts can be hundreds of different styles, trained in countless different ways.  

I just think that the question itself leaves much to be desired.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 9, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> But again, its all generalization... I know some TMA guys who, sadly couldn't survive a street fight against an angry 12 year old girl...


 
Have you ever faced an angry 12 year old girl?  terrifying...:xtrmshock 

great post


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2007)

tradrockrat said:


> Have you ever faced an angry 12 year old girl?  terrifying...:xtrmshock
> 
> great post



She was 13 and I took her DOWN...


----------



## Rook (Jan 9, 2007)

Stan said:


> I think that the very question assumes the perspective of MMA. Meaning, you take one thing, moder, sport-oriented, heavily grappling influenced so-called "Mixed Martial Arts", and you contrast it with everything that is not that, and call it "Traditional Martial Arts." You could just as well say "Wing Chun vs. everything that is not Wing Chun." See my point? The categories are drawn from a biased perspective to begin with.


 
Ussually we speak of arts as divided into sport arts, TMAs, and RBSD systems. One particular sport art is MMA, one particular TMA is Wing Chun.  I see nothing biased about comparing one art to a category of others arts, even arts that are quite varied even if they have integral simularities.  



> Competition-based martial arts are nothing new. Are traditional English pugilism and American Catch Wrestling traditional or mixed martial arts?


 
They would be sports arts that are not themselves MMA.  



> What is Gracie JuJitsu, on it's own?


 
GJJ.  



> Within the category of "Traditional Martial Arts" exists several categories that could easily stand on their own as something distinct. There's, within Japanese martial arts, Koryu and Gendai Budo. Wouldn't the difference between, let's say Kano's Judo and Takeda's Daito Ryu be at least as great as the difference between "Traditional and Mixed"? I think so, and I think that differnce is more meaningful.


 
Well, within the sport arts there is a simularly large difference between boxing and catch wrestling, so I see little reason why there is a problem.   



> A martial art can be stripped of all cultural and historical context, claim to incorporate "whatever works", use colloquial, descriptive names for techniques and train in a milquetoast manner, resulting in little combat effectiveness. Another can have centuries of tradition, incorporate a complete philosophy and lifestyle, have roots in a particular culture, and emphasize the physical and mental ability to actually make the art work. Which one is "Traditional"?


 
The second.  The first, minus the part about "combat effectiveness" describes any sport art.   



> "Mixed Martial Arts" is a training methodology that produces very good fighters on a consistent basis. It is not a martial art or a category of martial arts. Within that methodology, any number of things can be taught. Traditional Martial Arts can be hundreds of different styles, trained in countless different ways.
> 
> I just think that the question itself leaves much to be desired.


 
MMA ussually describes a specific training set.  Think of MMA as just a name that covers a modern hybrid martial art that consists of either the big four (western boxing, western wrestling, muay thai, BJJ) OR any combination of arts that results in approximately the same techniques and training practices as those four arts.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2007)

I continue to have this problem with the cookie-cutter mentality when it comes to martial arts training no matter its variety.

The consistent arguments are that BJJers or MMAers are in best physical condition when that may or may not be true, that all TMAs are based on a laundry list one checks off before each grading which may or may not be true, that all TMAs are training in archaic techniques, the use of which have been outgrown or outlearned, etcetera.

The TRUTH is that each class is basically different, that every teacher is unique and there are GREAT TMA teachers teaching their ART and extra RBSD material out of a gym or a garage because they don't care about money, they care about teaching what works.  There are MMA centers that only care about money and tournament and do no better than the infamous mcdojos.

I've said it more than once and I'll say it a thousand times more; train for your need, train for your passion and train responsibly.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 9, 2007)

Rook said:


> Ussually we speak of arts as divided into sport arts, TMAs, and RBSD systems.


 
First if you divide into traditional martial arts and reality based self-defense you do realize you are making the statement that all TMA is not based in reality.

Also if these are the categories where does Sanhou fall in this category and where does non-sport sanshou fall in this category and where does Xingyiquan fall in this category and where do Judo, TKD, Jujitsu, Ninjutsu, kravmagna, etc fall in these 2 categories?


----------



## Rook (Jan 9, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> First if you divide into traditional martial arts and reality based self-defense you do realize you are making the statement that all TMA is not based in reality.


 
I prefer to think of the terms sport, traditional and reality based as just another way to tell arts apart, not as a name that conveys an accurate reflection of all that is contained in an art.  

Let me put it this way, if I study an open hand art that I feel is both hard and soft, would that mean I can say I study Goju ryu karate - after all the name literally means "Hard-Soft empty hand?"  I see this division as being no different.  Sport arts like wrestling may have strong traditions and be well founded for use in reality self defense, but are still considered sports arts.  Traditional arts like shui chaio can be practiced in sports settings and may also be useful in reality, but are still considered traditional.  




> Also if these are the categories where does Sanhou


 
Sport art.  



> fall in this category and where does non-sport sanshou fall in this category


 
Don't know enough about non-sport sanshou to tell you.  

[quote and where does Xingyiquan[/quote]

Traditional.  



> fall in this category and where do Judo,


 
Sport.



> TKD,


 
Some sport, but mostly traditional.  



> Jujitsu,


 
Traditional.  



> Ninjutsu,


 
Traditional.  



> kravmagna,


 
RBSD.  Sometime heavily influenced from either sport or traditional..  

 etc fall in these 2 categories?[/quote]

Hopefully that helps clear it up.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2007)

Categorize schmategorize. Train for what you need from whom you need it.


----------



## The Master (Jan 10, 2007)

Got this "Stupid idea for a thread."
Most likely someone incapable of understanding the question. 

Back on topic.
I think most of you have got it.  
I'm not looking for someone to say that "X" is the best, greatest, whatever.
I also asked in the self defense forum for a reason.

There are numerous traditional arts that are beautiful arts. But in todays world, they no longer are defensive arts, and they make no claim to be so. Kendo, Kyudo to name 2.
Other arts tend to be blurry, and I won't even get into the "defensive arts of Tae Bo" here. 

Taken at it's core, in a physical confrontation, one of your goals is to incapacitate your attacker. Bowing, salutations, and koans don't do that, only technique does.  The MMA community be they sport or street minded, tends to seek that which works, and weed out the rest. Many TMA practitioners subconciously do that as well, focusing more on the modern effectives while trying to preserve the ancient.  Other TMA people will cross train seeking to compensate or compliment as they see fit. A Kenpoist for example will often cross train in the Filipino arts due to their focus on stick and knife work, or BJJ for the focus on ground work. Many martial artists own firearms and enjoy their use, yet train in arts that have little to anything to do with defense against firearms. The sport mindset for example has no training for weapons, since weapon use in the ring is not allowed. Street fighter techniques, ring rules and battlefield mindsets are not a good combination, in my opinion.

So the question is poised, and the thread is intended to be a sort of free flow, to explore different mindsets, different arts and techniques, and allow the reader to answer for themself questions like "If I wanted to learn how to use and defend against a blade, is Bando something I should look at?" without having to know in advance, that Bando even existed.


Some background: I cross train. I hold rank in several arts, but do not worry about it as I will ask an instructor to teach me something that solves a current problem, even when it may be some levels higher than my current rank. I wanted to learn how to punch better, harder, faster. I was told :Talk to a boxer. I wanted to add diversity to my punches yet maintain the previously mentioned skills. I was told : Karate.etc.

So, after reading large tracts of "my art is better than your art", and seeking a self defense based approach, and realizing that its all self defense, though the level is different, I asked. After all, regardless if one is seeking to avoid confrontation, block a point from being scored, stop a friend from doing harm, or handling a 10 on 1 pile on, it's all a defensive action, right? Just that the techniques used, and level of reply will vary.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2007)

The Master said:


> Taken at it's core, in a physical confrontation, one of your goals is to incapacitate your attacker.


Is it?  What about if a slap on the wrist (quite literally) or in the face is enough?  And why does that matter?

See, here's the thing - it's oh-so-easy to say that you want to incapacitate anyone who has committed to a physical attack on your person.  In TMA we use the term "neutralize the attack" which means you use only what you have to use and no more.  Some people think that's a fearful way to approach the situation and would rather break an arm or a leg or knock/choke someone out so the 'victim' no longer has the worry.  But I'll take this money to the bank - overdo it and you're going to jail no matter what the bad guy did to you.

The application of martial skills requires responsible discernment and every single citizen is accountable for what they know and how they use it no matter what "it" is.  If a dood tries to take your old lady's purse, you scoop the leg, slam him down and dislocate/break his knee and choke him out so he doesn't go anywhere until the cops get there, you're likely to be brought up on unnecessary violence charges or out-and-out assault. 

Of course there is the famous saying, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" ... well, friend, you'd better be DAMNED sure it was a death threat because nowadays they even question L.A. cops.




> Bowing, salutations, and koans don't do that, only technique does.



Bowing *correctly* can train attitude and humility.  Salutations remind one that this is serious business, not just sport and point.  Koans challenge one to look within and self-examine, find beauty so that we remember what we value and defend so very passionately.  These cultivate spirit and why is that important?  Because killing and maiming machines end up in the mental ward at the state pen.



> So the question is poised, and the thread is intended to be a sort of free flow, to explore different mindsets, different arts and techniques, and allow the reader to answer for themself questions like "If I wanted to learn how to use and defend against a blade, is Bando something I should look at?" without having to know in advance, that Bando even existed.


Hopefully we can refrain from the usual degradation into "my mucky-muck is better than your mucky-muck."



> Some background: I cross train. I hold rank in several arts, but do not worry about it as I will ask an instructor to teach me something that solves a current problem, even when it may be some levels higher than my current rank. I wanted to learn how to punch better, harder, faster. I was told :Talk to a boxer. I wanted to add diversity to my punches yet maintain the previously mentioned skills. I was told : Karate.etc.
> 
> So, after reading large tracts of "my art is better than your art", and seeking a self defense based approach, and realizing that its all self defense, though the level is different, I asked. After all, regardless if one is seeking to avoid confrontation, block a point from being scored, stop a friend from doing harm, or handling a 10 on 1 pile on, it's all a defensive action, right? Just that the techniques used, and level of reply will vary.


Approach is everything.

Good luck.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2007)

I dunno, a properly applied slap can incapacitate an attacker. 
Sometimes they might even say "Thanks I needed that"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 10, 2007)

Rook said:


> Sport arts like wrestling may have strong traditions and be well founded for use in reality self defense, but are still considered sports arts. Traditional arts like shui chaio can be practiced in sports settings and may also be useful in reality, but are still considered traditional.


 
So then is RBSD defined as one that originated as sport or just one that can be done as a sport?


----------



## zDom (Jan 10, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I dunno, a properly applied slap can incapacitate an attacker.
> Sometimes they might even say "Thanks I needed that"



A slap can kill.

My sister dated a guy whose dad (a big, burly biker type) did time for manslaughter after learning that the hard way.


----------



## Rook (Jan 10, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> So then is RBSD defined as one that originated as sport or just one that can be done as a sport?


 
Neither.  "RB"SD is a marketing term that denotes systems that are neither traditional nor sport.  Ussually they claim to prepare you for the "street" very quickly using "simple, effective techniques that anyone can learn."  They tend to focus on using gross motor skills in scenario training.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 10, 2007)

Rook said:


> Neither. "RB"SD is a marketing term that denotes systems that are neither traditional nor sport. Ussually they claim to prepare you for the "street" very quickly using "simple, effective techniques that anyone can learn." They tend to focus on using gross motor skills in scenario training.


 
Thank you


----------



## MJS (Jan 10, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Is it? What about if a slap on the wrist (quite literally) or in the face is enough? And why does that matter?
> 
> See, here's the thing - it's oh-so-easy to say that you want to incapacitate anyone who has committed to a physical attack on your person. In TMA we use the term "neutralize the attack" which means you use only what you have to use and no more. Some people think that's a fearful way to approach the situation and would rather break an arm or a leg or knock/choke someone out so the 'victim' no longer has the worry. But I'll take this money to the bank - overdo it and you're going to jail no matter what the bad guy did to you.
> 
> ...


 
Good points.  And yes, this goes right back to the original question...how people train and how the techniques are applied.  I feel that MMA is capable of controlling.  Hell, we see it all the time, when the two fighters are stalling.  But, as you said, a takedown thats going to slam the person to the ground, may, in the long run, do more harm than good.


----------



## Rook (Jan 11, 2007)

MJS said:


> Good points. And yes, this goes right back to the original question...how people train and how the techniques are applied. I feel that MMA is capable of controlling. Hell, we see it all the time, when the two fighters are stalling. But, as you said, a takedown thats going to slam the person to the ground, may, in the long run, do more harm than good.


 
Part of the beauty of sports techniques is that many of them can be done at various levels of effect.  

For almost any takedown, you can control whether you simply unbalance them enough that they fall or slam them with doubleweighting.  This is true of anything from wrestling takedowns to judo thows to grecoroman.  A proficient grappler can even slow down the other persons fall if she or he chooses to.  

You can blood choke someone long enough to weaken them, long enough to make them pass out without  damage, and long enough to kill depending on what is necessary.  The only different for a blood choke is how long you choose to hang on.  That is not true of the trachea chokes, which take much longer to achieve a choke out, cannot be fine tuned for different effects, and risk windpipe damage if you don't know what you are doing and use the appropriate amount of force.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2007)

Rook said:


> Part of the beauty of sports techniques is that many of them can be done at various levels of effect.
> 
> For almost any takedown, you can control whether you simply unbalance them enough that they fall or slam them with doubleweighting. This is true of anything from wrestling takedowns to judo thows to grecoroman. A proficient grappler can even slow down the other persons fall if she or he chooses to.
> 
> You can blood choke someone long enough to weaken them, long enough to make them pass out without damage, and long enough to kill depending on what is necessary. The only different for a blood choke is how long you choose to hang on. That is not true of the trachea chokes, which take much longer to achieve a choke out, cannot be fine tuned for different effects, and risk windpipe damage if you don't know what you are doing and use the appropriate amount of force.


 
Another pro is that there are quite a few submissions that can be done from a standing position.  Slight adjustments may have to be made, but they still work. :ultracool


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 12, 2007)

Yes they do! I see it done every weekend--LOL!


----------



## pankration (Jan 14, 2007)

There seems to be one point many debaters on this topic overlook: how much punishment can you take? When it comes to technique neither TMA or MMA is better as both have teachers and practitioners who teach mediocrity or perfection. Any martial art works ; it just depends on the circumstances. However, in my experience, boxers, kickboxers and MMA practitioners spar more often at a full contact pace than TMAs do. It may not make them tougher but it does get them used to getting hit. How many fighters win just because they outlasted their opponent?


----------

