# What Is A TMA?



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 29, 2014)

With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc.  I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?


----------



## Hanzou (Aug 29, 2014)

As I said in another thread;

The difference is training methods. One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.  TMAs incorporate feudal weapons, ancient forms, and antiquated techniques.                                                                                                                                     

MMA can also mean Modern Martial Art.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 29, 2014)

TMA can incorporates strength training and cardio...good thing you don't find such things in "Modern" Martial Arts. TMA incorporates training of strikes, kicks, take downs, ground work and joint locks....good thing you don't find any of that in "Modern" Martial Arts....by the way "Modern Wushu" would fall uunder "Modern Martial Art"

only real difference is the objective and the goal... but then it depends on which Modern Art you are comparing. Big differences between Sports Sanda and Sanda of PRC police and military. Big differences between a Sport MA and a Krav Maga. Big difference between Modern Wushu and Traditional Wushu. 


Brian I think you have a good topic here but sadly I doubt it will end well..... I'd happily discuss this all day with you in person with others there to talk but on the web....I hope I'm wrong and I hope you get a good thread here..... Old Beat Up TMA dinosaur guy is out...peace


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2014)

My definition of TMA may be different from others. A TMA should include:

- partner training to "develop" skill.
- sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
- equipment training to "enhance" skill.
- solo training to "polish" skill.

Also when you teach a technique, you should also teach

- How to counter it.
- How to counter those counters.

You should have 3 levels of training:

1. beginner level - offense,
2. intermediate level - defense,
3. advance level - combo (use one move to set up another move).

IMO, the TMA "equipment training" can be very unique such as:


----------



## K-man (Aug 29, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc.  I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?


As you have seen above, your mission is a little like attempting to herd a mob of cats. 

*Kung Fu Wang* advocated a list of training methods that would apply just as well to any martial art, traditional or not. And using antiquated equipment has nothing to do with 'traditional'.

I like *Xue*'s idea of objectives and goals but even that doesn't really differentiate between modern and traditional or even non-traditional and God help us all when Chris finds this thread. 

But to look at *Hanzou*'s post:




> Quote *Hanzou*
> "The difference is training methods"


I think this is probably closer to the truth but possibly not in the meaning he intended. There is no reason that a traditional martial art can't be trained with modern training methods. We don't need to hit rocks, trees or rope bound boards to be traditional. In traditional martial art we used pads and focus mits, we use the heavy bag. We can use all the cardio equipment in a modern gym. None of that influences whether an art is traditional or not. If you wanted to go down that track then it may be valid to say that "XYZ school trains using traditional equipment".



> Quote *Hanzou*
> "One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods."


In reality, the method of training has nothing to do with whether an art is 'traditional'. What training methods would, say, MMA use that you couldn't use in a 'traditional' school? 




> Quote *Hanzou*
> "TMAs incorporate feudal weapons, ancient forms, and antiquated techniques."


I consider Okinawan Goju to be traditional but we don't train weapons at all. Once you include weapons you are training Kobudo.

Ancient forms? Sure, some but not all traditional schools have kata or forms. How they train those kata or forms would certainly provide a massive divide between traditional and non-traditional. Then there is a massive difference in what those forms represent as I'm sure Chris will be able to provide much more eloquently than I could do. In previous posts I have often disagreed with people who dismiss forms as archaic or not relevant. To me that just illustrates that they have not experienced 'traditional' instruction even though they are training a 'traditional' style of MA.

Antiquated techniques? I invite anyone to show me an antiquated technique from my style of martial art. I presume that *Hanzou* is referring again to things like deep stances and reverse punches as demonstrated in solo training. Again it is demonstrating a lack of understanding of kihon form and application.

Now, how do I define traditional? :hmm:

i suppose you you could look at the way the the Okinawan Prefecture Karate Rengokai defines 'traditional karate' which is that to be traditional the system has to be basically the same as it was when it was developed by its creator. Hence the four traditional Okinawan styles, Goju Ryu, Shorin Ryu, Uechi Ryu and Isshin Ryu. Of these, Isshin Ryu is relatively modern but is considered traditional by definition. This definition has absolutely nothing to do with training methods.

i would suggest that the term TMA is as wide as the term 'animal'. You can have lions and tigers or rats and mice. In the current context you could represent MMA as the camel, an animal often alleged to have been designed by a committee to incorporate characteristics of a number of the other animals. 

But to label a box TMA is one thing. Finding a martial art to put in it is another. I suggested in another thread that Krav could be considered 'traditional' by some definition. Many people consider Shotokan karate to be traditional yet it is totally different to the Shotokan karate of Gichin Funakoshi.  Others say TKD is traditional. I would suggest that if you want to compare any style to a TMA you need to define what you mean by TMA in the context of the comparison. To use TMA as a generic term is way too broad.
:asian:


----------



## Badger1777 (Aug 29, 2014)

So is it:

TMA = Traditional Martial Arts
MMA = Modern or mixed Martial Arts

?

Is that about right?


----------



## Blindside (Aug 29, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> As I said in another thread;
> 
> The difference is training methods. One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.  TMAs incorporate feudal weapons, ancient forms, and antiquated techniques.
> 
> MMA can also mean Modern Martial Art.



Is a knife a "feudal weapon?"  How about a machete?  How about a screwdriver or shiv?

My kali system has no fixed forms.

Is a standing armbar an "antiquated technique?"  Rear naked choke?  Figure four?  

I certainly consider PTK to be a TMA, but I don't think it meets your criteria.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2014)




----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2014)

That actually worked a lot better than I thought it would.


----------



## Steve (Aug 29, 2014)

If you self identify as training in a TMA, it is any MA you think is good and the opposite of any MA you think is bad.

if you self identify as training in a non-TMA of any kind, it is any style you think is crap.

honestly, guys.  i think it's that subjective.  there is no rhyme or reason to it.


----------



## Reedone816 (Aug 29, 2014)

This thread makes me thinking, there's actually no distictive method to diferrentiate both.
Is it competition, equipment, training method, forms, the day it founded, philosophy or weapon?
Sent from my RM-943_apac_indonesia_207 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2014)

If you kill someone with a punch like this, will the court judge care whether you train TMA or MMA?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 29, 2014)

i really like drop bears picture post.  


> One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods[/QUOTE
> there is nothing in MMA that Alexander The Great's soldiers would not recognize as they practiced Pankration in their down time between wars.  so basicly MMA is the oldest art, dating back to 300 BC.  i have seen MMA guys holding ends of a heavy rope and using it was a work out...modern?,,,,they didnt have rope in the old days?  i can understand the meaning behind the statement but it really doesnt reflect the difference.


----------



## jezr74 (Aug 30, 2014)

How come I've never seen the term classical used to describe older training methods?

For me, traditional had meant more about the rituals and culture of the school along side classic or modern taught methods. If that makes sense.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 1, 2014)

The labels aren't very useful.  What is now considered "traditional" at one time was considered a new art at one point.

But, for the sake of the discussion.  We will consider "Mixed Martial Arts" the new sport that evolved out of the UFC in the US that used to be called "NHB" (no holds barred).  After it evolved from more style vs. style of arts into mixing various elements.

In MMA, techniques are chosen based on their success in the ring/octagon.  Look at the earlier days between Pride and UFC.  You saw different techniques being used because of the environment and ruleset.  As more and more events are sanctioned and the rules get closer and closer between organizations you will see more of the same because of this. 

As to "why" the TMA's don't do well in the ring, there are too many factors to say one reason.

1) Different goals:  the emphasis in traditional karate is civilian self-defense.  This puts it's effective range in much closer that the sporting match distance.  Most people from a TMA background don't always understand this and try to "spar" with their tools at a range they weren't meant for.

2) Different training goals:  The assumption that ALL people who take martial arts only want to fight is inaccurate.  Some people take MA's for a social outlet, the same way people do bowling.  Others use it as a vehicle of self-expression like dance.

3) Different training methodologies:  In okinawan karate, the ultimate goal of self-defense is to preserve your health into old age.  There are many karate masters in their 70's and up that move great and have great health.  MMA is a young man's sport.  It has a very short life span for it's athletes to compete in.  It will be interesting to see how these athletes transition their sport into a long term lifestyle like the TMA's.  Hurting yourself is not the goal in a TMA, but talk with any athlete that does MMA and almost all of them talk about their training injuries.  I have a friend who is a legit BB in BJJ, he is always talking about how his joints are all messed up from the training.  Why?  How does that help you into old age?  You don't need an opponent, you beat yourself up. LOL

I am not against MMA, I enjoy watching it and have trained with various people who compete in it.  It's just not for me. But, I think there is also a lot to be learned from MMA and incorporate into TMA's.  Ways to find out how to incorporate more resistance training with your partner.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2014)

Here is a diagram that I use with my karate students that I think applies to this discussion.  As far as I understand the martial arts world, I think it can logically be broken down into three categories.  

1.  Martial Art - Techniques and methods that are taught for artistic reasons or historical preservation.  This includes techniques that aren't very practical, but look awesome.  It also includes old weapon systems that don't have too much bearing on the modern world.
2.  Self Defense - Techniques and methods that are directly applicable to self defense.  
3.  Sport - Techniques and methods that are directly applicable to combat sports.

As people can see, there are a lot of crossover techniques and I think this is where a lot of people argue regarding the MMA and TMA debate. Another thing that become apparent after looking at this diagram is that it becomes very difficult to classify entire martial arts.  Most martial arts have techniques that cross over into at least two categories.  All of the martial arts I've trained in, including western wrestling, have techniques in all three.  

As a general rule, "MMA" tends to be more sport oriented, while "TMA" can be all over the diagram.  It's really difficult to classify TMA because the category is over broad and include anything from wrestling to tai chi.  It can also be very difficult to classify "MMA" when you consider Jeet Kune Do, which mixes and matches weapon training systems, sporting methods, and SD training.  

In the end, I think the MMA/TMA dichotomy is a false one.  Those two labels aren't helpful in understanding the nature of martial arts techniques.


----------



## donnaTKD (Sep 1, 2014)

to get the full effect of any MA and to get the most out of it then surely the background to it should be learnt so that a full understanding of that art is learnt as part of the package and i think that this is the difference.

in the competition side of muay thai then there is no "homework" it's just this is how you win a fight and i'm pretty sure that it's the same for the likes of sport tkd or judo or karate or any MA with a sport arm to it.

just my take on things s'all


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 11, 2014)

There should be a sticky that defines Traditional Martial Arts as a gold standard for when posting in Martial Talk, so we are all on the same page.


----------



## Steve (Sep 11, 2014)

I gave a kind of smart alec response earlier.

If I had to genuinely define TMA, it would be about the priorities of the style.  If the *most important* instructional priority at your school is that you do things as much like your instructor as possible, you are likely training in a TMA.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 11, 2014)

Would it be fair to say that traditional MA is any martial art that claims to be traditional, and tries to say that they don't fight or compete because of it?



drop bear said:


>



MMA and Wrestling are sports, not martial arts.


----------



## Buka (Sep 11, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Would it be fair to say that traditional MA is any martial art that claims to be traditional, and tries to say that they don't fight or compete because of it?
> 
> 
> 
> MMA and Wrestling are sports, not martial arts.



I believe MMA and Wrestling are both. As is boxing. And a guy that plays sports, no matter how big or strong, ain't going to kick my *** or anyone else's *** on this forum, but a guy that does MMA or wrestling, just might.


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 11, 2014)

To me it's the philosophy and spirit involved, maintaining the tradition of a martial art through the ages out of respect to the founders and people that take the years to maintain the legacy of the particular art. This does not mean it cannot change or adapt to times, adding new or adjusting old techniques each generation or teacher. Just that the principles are maintained. Roots tend to run deep.

This can include the ritual and traditional aspects as well, bowing, language, ceremony, rank etc.

What I don't think it includes is say makiwara vs. heavy bag, boxing gloves vs bare knuckle, two buckets of water on a pole vs. a barbell or running up 1000 steps vs. a treadmill. 

I've mentioned before that I think things can be done in a "classic" way. And that can extend to teaching, but the method really comes down to the individual and their ability to engage students and to me is not a traditional aspect but more teaching\learning strategy.

A modern martial art to me would be something like firearms training and modern weaponry use.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 11, 2014)

Buka said:


> I believe MMA and Wrestling are both. As is boxing. And a guy that plays sports, no matter how big or strong, ain't going to kick my *** or anyone else's *** on this forum, but a guy that does MMA or wrestling, just might.



Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 11, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc.  I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?




You may have to be the thread adjudicator, then decide the standard.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 11, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.



Of course they would. They are professional athletes. The average person doing TMA is not even close to that level of physicality.

That said, I might be able to beat an NFL kicker...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 12, 2014)

IMO, "one of the differences" between TMA and MMA is TMA may apply more "principle" in teaching/learning. 

For example, the following principles are very helpful when you teach/learn your TMA system. 

- If you miss your punch, you should not come back with empty hand. 
- Get 2 if you can, otherwise get 1 first and get the other later.
- You should give before you take.
- 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.
- Even if you don't know what you are going to do with your opponent, you keep moving around. When you are moving, soon or later, you will find some opportunity to attack.
- You should always give your opponent plenty of space to fall so your opponent won't fall on top of you.
- When you train, you let your body to lead your limbs. When you fight, you let your limbs to lead your body.
- All throwing/locking skill should be learned in pairs and in opposite direction.
- When you apply upward block and punch, your upward block should be like to raise the curtain, you then walk through under it.
- If you think about power and speed, that's not your true power and speed. When you are not thinking about power and speed, you just do it, that's your true power and speed. 
- The end of your 1st move should be the beginning of your 2nd move.
- If you punch, I'll run you down. If you kick, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- ...

I'm sure when the MMA is more developed, we will also see those kind of "principles" used in MMA gym someday.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 12, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually your average NFL football player, or Rugby player would very likely beat the crap out of the average martial artist.



This is very true.  One should never underestimate athleticism!
*
People do not want to hear it* but if you are serious about your self-defense skills then you need to train your cardio and attributes.  Running, biking, swimming, weight lifting, etc.  Train like an athlete and prepare yourself for that one or two times you might need to be at your best in a personal protection situation!


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 14, 2014)

Hmm, I missed this one&#8230; and I don't want to make K-man a liar, now, do I?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc.  I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?



I applaud your optimism, Brian&#8230; let's see what we can come up with!



Hanzou said:


> As I said in another thread;
> 
> The difference is training methods. One incorporates older methods while the other incorporates more modern methods.  TMAs incorporate feudal weapons, ancient forms, and antiquated techniques.




No&#8230; as Xue pointed out, this is completely dependant on the system in question&#8230; in other words, it's not accurate for the majority, even if it is for a minority&#8230; which renders it incorrect overall.                                                                                                                                    



Hanzou said:


> MMA can also mean Modern Martial Art.



Er&#8230; no. Not in this sense. Of course, the thread is not about what differentiates a TMA from MMA (note that there is no "a" before MMA&#8230; that's a hint as to one aspect), it's what defines a TMA in the first place&#8230; what MMA is is kinda beside the point. But still, no. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> My definition of TMA may be different from others. A TMA should include:
> 
> - partner training to "develop" skill.
> - sparring/wrestling to "test" skill.
> ...



Well, the videos have been removed&#8230; but realistically, no. None of this "should" be included in a TMA by definition, none of it is exclusive to TMA's (the idea of teaching counters is kinda essential to ground work in MMA, for example), and the structure you suggest is entirely dependant on the system&#8230; for example, it suits none of mine. And they're about as "traditional" as you can get.



K-man said:


> God help us all when Chris finds this thread.



Found it!



Badger1777 said:


> So is it:
> 
> TMA = Traditional Martial Arts
> MMA = Modern or mixed Martial Arts
> ...



Nope.

TMA does mean "traditional martial arts", yeah&#8230; and MMA refers to "mixed martial arts"&#8230; but the "modern" idea isn't actually the heart, defining, or realistically even accurate part of it.



Steve said:


> If you self identify as training in a TMA, it is any MA you think is good and the opposite of any MA you think is bad.
> 
> if you self identify as training in a non-TMA of any kind, it is any style you think is crap.
> 
> honestly, guys.  i think it's that subjective.  there is no rhyme or reason to it.



Hmm&#8230; I get the tongue-in-cheek tone, Steve, but&#8230; no, it's not that subjective. It's a categorisation&#8230; not an opinion. Of course, the issue is that the categorisation is so broad that it confounds precision in definition&#8230; 



Reedone816 said:


> This thread makes me thinking, there's actually no distictive method to diferrentiate both.
> Is it competition, equipment, training method, forms, the day it founded, philosophy or weapon?



Er&#8230; none of the above?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you kill someone with a punch like this, will the court judge care whether you train TMA or MMA?



Er&#8230; what? How is that even a part of the discussion? And "if you kill someone with a punch like this"&#8230; huh? Who, outside of comic books, is "killing with a punch like this"?!?!

You do get what reality is, don't you?



jezr74 said:


> How come I've never seen the term classical used to describe older training methods?



Come talk Koryu&#8230; "Classical" is exactly how we describe it.



jezr74 said:


> For me, traditional had meant more about the rituals and culture of the school along side classic or modern taught methods. If that makes sense.



Ah, now we're getting there&#8230; yep, that's heading in the right direction. Of course, there are plenty of rituals and culture alongside MMA as well&#8230; 



punisher73 said:


> The labels aren't very useful.  What is now considered "traditional" at one time was considered a new art at one point.



"Traditional" doesn't mean "old"&#8230; age isn't the defining factor&#8230; you can actually have a "new" art that's "traditional", and an older one that's not&#8230; 



punisher73 said:


> But, for the sake of the discussion.  We will consider "Mixed Martial Arts" the new sport that evolved out of the UFC in the US that used to be called "NHB" (no holds barred).  After it evolved from more style vs. style of arts into mixing various elements.
> 
> In MMA, techniques are chosen based on their success in the ring/octagon.  Look at the earlier days between Pride and UFC.  You saw different techniques being used because of the environment and ruleset.  As more and more events are sanctioned and the rules get closer and closer between organizations you will see more of the same because of this.
> 
> ...



Okay&#8230; but isn't that all in the other thread? This one's just about what a TMA is in the first place, yeah?



Makalakumu said:


> View attachment 18903
> 
> Here is a diagram that I use with my karate students that I think applies to this discussion.  As far as I understand the martial arts world, I think it can logically be broken down into three categories.
> 
> ...



Hmm&#8230; honestly, Maka, there's quite a lot I'd disagree with here&#8230; firstly that martial arts are able to broken down into those categories&#8230; it goes a lot further than that&#8230; and it's really not about "techniques" at all...

What I do agree with is the idea that TMA's are highly varied, to the point of not being easily defined as a single entity.



Steve said:


> I gave a kind of smart alec response earlier.



Ha, yeah&#8230; noted.



Steve said:


> If I had to genuinely define TMA, it would be about the priorities of the style.



I think that's getting at it...



Steve said:


> If the *most important* instructional priority at your school is that you do things as much like your instructor as possible, you are likely training in a TMA.



And that, I feel, is inaccurate.

In all systems, it works on a progression&#8230; "traditional", "modern", "classical", "sporting"&#8230; when you start, every system will want you to do things as much like your instructor as possible&#8230; after all, you're learning to develop the same skills and knowledge as them&#8230; and, if you don't need to focus on doing things as closely to their methodology as possible, what are you doing in their school? Obviously you already know how to do it your way&#8230; Of course, as you develop, you start to do things your own way&#8230; even the most "regulated" of systems have each senior instructor doing things in their own way&#8230; and the senior students are encouraged along the same lines&#8230; my performance of a particular kata is mine&#8230; not my instructors&#8230; however I encourage my students to follow my lead as accurately as possible&#8230; while giving the seniors approaches to help them define and establish their own approach&#8230; which will be influenced by me, sure&#8230; but won't be "me". Sporting systems just focus on it earlier, and with a different emphasis, really&#8230; but the fact that they do isn't really unique in any way.



Hanzou said:


> Would it be fair to say that traditional MA is any martial art that claims to be traditional, and tries to say that they don't fight or compete because of it?



No.



Hanzou said:


> MMA and Wrestling are sports, not martial arts.



No.



jezr74 said:


> To me it's the philosophy and spirit involved, maintaining the tradition of a martial art through the ages out of respect to the founders and people that take the years to maintain the legacy of the particular art. This does not mean it cannot change or adapt to times, adding new or adjusting old techniques each generation or teacher. Just that the principles are maintained. Roots tend to run deep.



Again, I think this is getting towards it&#8230; 



jezr74 said:


> This can include the ritual and traditional aspects as well, bowing, language, ceremony, rank etc.



And here's where I disagree&#8230; none of that is unique to "traditional" systems at all&#8230; just the way it's presented, really&#8230; 



jezr74 said:


> What I don't think it includes is say makiwara vs. heavy bag, boxing gloves vs bare knuckle, two buckets of water on a pole vs. a barbell or running up 1000 steps vs. a treadmill.



So the use of traditional training apparatus versus modern items isn't part of recognising or defining traditional arts? I think I get what you're saying (that traditional systems can use modern equipment without being non-traditional, and vice versa, so that's not a defining characteristic), but I think that's going to depend on context, really&#8230; in other words, it can be&#8230; if it wants to be&#8230; 



jezr74 said:


> I've mentioned before that I think things can be done in a "classic" way. And that can extend to teaching, but the method really comes down to the individual and their ability to engage students and to me is not a traditional aspect but more teaching\learning strategy.



And you've lost me here&#8230; can you rephrase or elaborate on what exactly you're meaning here?



jezr74 said:


> A modern martial art to me would be something like firearms training and modern weaponry use.



Firearms training? Okay:






And, of course, what about modern unarmed systems? Are they not modern because they don't train any weapons at all, firearms included?



Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, "one of the differences" between TMA and MMA is TMA may apply more "principle" in teaching/learning.
> 
> For example, the following principles are very helpful when you teach/learn your TMA system.
> 
> ...



No. Just&#8230; no.

Okay, so I guess I should say what I feel makes something a "traditional martial art"&#8230; and it's been touched on a bit here and there&#8230; 

In short, it's the order of priorities, and the emphasis on particular values. A traditional system will tend towards a priority structure of emphasising their value system first, personal benefits second, and personal achievement third. A sporting system will emphasise personal achievement first, personal benefits second, and the value system third. Now, it really can't be stressed enough that having this order to the priorities means that the third is not valued, or prioritised at all&#8230; far from it&#8230; just that, in a hierarchy, it's in that position.

It's easy to look at case studies of these&#8230; to use the oft-maligned MMA, the priority is in personal success in competition&#8230; that's the emphasis of training for contests, really&#8230; the next value is placed on personal benefits (confidence, fitness, strength, body-toning, camaraderie-building, and so on)&#8230; the last being the values of the system (or, in this case, gym). From there, we can look to Aikido&#8230; or TKD&#8230; or anything else of the same ilk&#8230; The priority is on instilling the values of the system (or founder)&#8230; many TKD schools emphasise the "tenets" of TKD&#8230; which don't really have anything to do with the physical skill set, when looked at objectively&#8230; next, they look at the personal benefits the student can gain&#8230; not too dissimilar to the ones listed earlier&#8230; and finally the value of personal achievement (gaining a particular rank, possibly success in competition, and so on).

Of course, then we get systems that have aspects of both&#8230; such as BJJ&#8230; which is both a sporting system and a traditional one, with different schools having different emphasis'&#8230; and we have "classical" systems (such as Koryu) where the priorities are more along the lines of: learn the system, be of benefit to the system, pass on the system&#8230; somewhat different, really. 

When I mention an emphasis on particular values, what I'm meaning is that a sporting system will have it's own value set (based around success in competition), and a traditional system will have a different value set entirely (such as learning leadership qualities&#8230; or being of benefit to society&#8230; or anything else, really).

To me, that's the only real difference. Of course, it can be noted that having "traditional values and/or priorities" doesn't mean that a system is old&#8230; just that they fit a particular framework&#8230; it also doesn't mean that it's only applicable to armed, or unarmed systems&#8230; or that it precludes competitive application&#8230; which is part of what makes this such a difficult thing to nail down&#8230; it can all cross boundaries just too easily.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 14, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No.



Yes.

Both Mixed Martial Arts and modern Wrestling were created for sport purposes.


----------



## Steve (Sep 14, 2014)

I don't think everyone who self identifies as training in a TMA would agree with you, Chris.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 15, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> "Traditional" doesn't mean "old"&#8230; age isn't the defining factor&#8230; you can actually have a "new" art that's "traditional", and an older one that's not&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> Okay&#8230; but isn't that all in the other thread? This one's just about what a TMA is in the first place, yeah?



Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through.  That is why I said the label isn't very useful.

Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.


----------



## K-man (Sep 15, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through.  That is why I said the label isn't very useful.


Interesting thought.  Can an art that developed at a particular point in time and continues to evolve be termed traditional? In a modern sense that could describe JKD, BJJ or Krav. All contain elements from earlier styles of fighting.

Then you have styles that take a a traditional style, take out some of the original teaching and change the emphasis to allow for competition. Here I could list Shotokan Karate and Goju Kai karate. Neither are the same as the original systems. So they are not traditional in one sense but in another sense they are the same as they were 70 odd years ago when they made that change. That puts them in the same age bracket as Krav and BJJ and a little older than TKD. Kyokoshin karate is much the same as when it started, had traditional roots yet is reasonably modern.  A lot of people would consider Shotokan, Goju Kai, JKD and TKD as traditional yet look at BJJ and Krav as modern.

People might consider Aikido traditional but Ueshiba developed that from Daito Ryu relatively recently as well. Same could be said of Judo. Yet many people think of both of these as traditional.

I don't believe there is one answer until some body sets up a set of parameters to define it. That is what the Okinawans did to define 'Traditional Okinawan Karate'.




punisher73 said:


> Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.


You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 15, 2014)

K-man said:


> You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.



Wise words!


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Yes.
> 
> Both Mixed Martial Arts and modern Wrestling were created for sport purposes.



Are you suggesting that a combative sport can't be a martial art? Way to not see past your own limited understanding there...



Steve said:


> I don't think everyone who self identifies as training in a TMA would agree with you, Chris.



That's the thing, Steve&#8230; and this is what I was addressing when you first started this idea&#8230; it really, really, really doesn't matter one iota what someone "self identifies" as&#8230; I couldn't care less&#8230; I'm concerned with what is&#8230; is someone actually training in traditional martial arts, or do they just "self identify" with the idea that they do? If the former, all cool&#8230; if the latter, then it's completely besides the point.

I'll put it this way&#8230; I could self-identify as the king of Persia&#8230; it doesn't make it true. To keep it back to martial arts, there are a number of Bujinkan practitioners who self identify as Koryu practitioners&#8230; they're not, and no amount of self identification changes that&#8230; here's a thread showing someone else who self identified as a Koryu practitioner&#8230; but had exactly zero clue or exposure to Koryu whatsoever&#8230; http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/110-koryu-corner/95693-koryu-bujutsu.html&#8230; there are people out there who self identify as "preserving the traditions of the samurai"&#8230; but without exception, they have no actual connection to the traditions, the samurai, or anything else.

I have a friend on Facebook who is a teacher of such a system&#8230; it's headed by his father, who inherited it from his teacher in the UK&#8230; but it's got absolutely no connection to anything that they think it does. The demonstrations show absolutely no understanding of Japanese martial arts, structure, or anything else&#8230; but talking to this teacher, he started listing systems that he feels his methods are based in (for the record, no, nothing of the kind). Now, this guy is a lovely man, dedicated to his students and his fathers system&#8230; but honestly, it's nothing like what he thinks it is&#8230; 

It really doesn't matter one jot what someone "self identifies" as. It matters what they actually do.



punisher73 said:


> Some people do define "traditional" as an older art that you can trace a lineage through.  That is why I said the label isn't very useful.



Thing is, it can be&#8230; or, rather, that can be a part of it&#8230; but it's not the defining aspect.



punisher73 said:


> Not sure what thread you are referring to, I've only read this one.



Ha, yeah&#8230; it's an interesting one (ha!)&#8230; if you have a strong constitution, here it is: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17...o-tmas-have-more-difficulty-ring-octagon.html



K-man said:


> Interesting thought.  Can an art that developed at a particular point in time and continues to evolve be termed traditional?



Sure, yep.



K-man said:


> In a modern sense that could describe JKD, BJJ or Krav. All contain elements from earlier styles of fighting.



Hmm&#8230; not sure I'd agree with the assessment of JKD or Krav&#8230; or what the idea of "contain(ing) elements from earlier styles of fighting" is actually about&#8230; 



K-man said:


> Then you have styles that take a a traditional style, take out some of the original teaching and change the emphasis to allow for competition. Here I could list Shotokan Karate and Goju Kai karate. Neither are the same as the original systems. So they are not traditional in one sense but in another sense they are the same as they were 70 odd years ago when they made that change. That puts them in the same age bracket as Krav and BJJ and a little older than TKD. Kyokoshin karate is much the same as when it started, had traditional roots yet is reasonably modern.  A lot of people would consider Shotokan, Goju Kai, JKD and TKD as traditional yet look at BJJ and Krav as modern.
> 
> People might consider Aikido traditional but Ueshiba developed that from Daito Ryu relatively recently as well. Same could be said of Judo. Yet many people think of both of these as traditional.



I see nothing in any of that that would stop any of those systems from being traditional, honestly.



K-man said:


> I don't believe there is one answer until some body sets up a set of parameters to define it. That is what the Okinawans did to define 'Traditional Okinawan Karate'.



How did they define it?



K-man said:


> You're lucky. Believe me, you don't want to go there.



Ha, yeah&#8230; sorry&#8230;


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

Here's the thing, Chris.  No matter how boldly you declare an opinion, you cannot make it fact.  An opinion it remains.   

You seem not to understand that your opinions are just that, and resort to condescension when anyone shares a dissenting opinion.  It makes slogging through your posts difficult, which seems, IMO, to be on purpose.  You like to camouflage your opinions as facts, but opinions they remain.  

The fact is that everyone who self identifies as training in a tma had a valid opinion on the matter.  So, whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or bit, their opinions are as legitimate as your own.  

Being an arrogant prig doesn't make you any more or less correct than other peoples considered opinions in the matter.  

For what it's worth, all of the above is my opinion only.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm&#8230; not sure I'd agree with the assessment of JKD or Krav&#8230; or what the idea of "contain(ing) elements from earlier styles of fighting" is actually about&#8230;


I personally don't believe you can put TMAs in one box. All I was saying was that whatever criteria you chose to define TMA there will be something that few people would call TMA that would fit the same criteria.



Chris Parker said:


> I see nothing in any of that that would stop any of those systems from being traditional, honestly.


That's what I am saying. It all depends. 



Chris Parker said:


> How did they define it?


In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.:asian:



So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.

Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
> :asian:


In a basic leadership course, I train new supervisors in critical thinking and decision making.  Essentially, we talk about giving some thought to the various factors that influence a decision: risk to the company, policies, safety, legality or precedent.  There are dozens of factors that could influence a decision, but if you give some thought in advance to what factors are important to you, it can help you make a sound, wise decision in a moment of crisis.  The point isn't that one thing is more or less important than another.  The point really is that we all have priorities, but that we seldom think about them with intention.  So, in a moment of crisis, we often struggle to reconcile conflicting priorities.  

In the same way, we all have priorities and needs from our MA training.   We all have a list of things we gain from training: health/fitness, self defense skills, confidence, 6 pack abs (well, some people do, I hear), tradition, esprit de corps.  Who knows what else?  We all have a list, and our lists are likely different.  Which brings me back to what I said earlier.  My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

jezr74 said:


> So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.
> 
> Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?


Not at all. The training now is essentially the same as it was at the beginning. Now in Okinawa weapon training is separate, kobudo. Karate is basically unarmed combat so unless a race of people have suddenly grown an extra arm they are the same now as they were then. Grappling is basically standing so if for example you suddenly put down mats and brought in a BJJ instructor it would no longer be traditional. If you suddenly started training fighters for MMA competition it would no longer be traditional. You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around. As to ceremonial ... nothing I have seen. Nothing added, nothing changed, same as, same as.
 :asian:


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around.


And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.


Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole. 

So training like your instructor is only part of it. I would hope that all my students would surpass me in their knowledge and understanding as I have done with a number of mine. I am fortunate to still have a number of guys I look up to. I don't necessarily train as they train and I don't necessarily agree with all they say. But fundamentally the training is the same as it was years ago. The kihon is the same, the kata is the same. The interpretation or application is infinitely variable because that is what makes the system fit your needs. There are no right or wrong interpretations. If I was still in a system that didn't encourage the exploration of the kata then I would agree with your statement of training 'like your instructor'. That, to me, would be mind numbing and I would have given it all away years ago.
:asian:


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you suggesting that a combative sport can't be a martial art? Way to not see past your own limited understanding there...



If the sole purpose of the sport is to be a sport, then no it can't be a martial art.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.
> 
> So training like your instructor is only part of it. I would hope that all my students would surpass me in their knowledge and understanding as I have done with a number of mine. I am fortunate to still have a number of guys I look up to. I don't necessarily train as they train and I don't necessarily agree with all they say. But fundamentally the training is the same as it was years ago. The kihon is the same, the kata is the same. The interpretation or application is infinitely variable because that is what makes the system fit your needs. There are no right or wrong interpretations. If I was still in a system that didn't encourage the exploration of the kata then I would agree with your statement of training 'like your instructor'. That, to me, would be mind numbing and I would have given it all away years ago.
> :asian:


In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring.  You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground.  That's a hole in the training.  But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want.  But that doesn't mean the hole is gone.  It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.  

Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style?  If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional."  My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art.  Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.  

Non-traditional:  BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis

Traditional:  TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido

BJJ, for example, can be considered a traditional MA in some ways, but I don't think it meets the most important test, which is to answer the question above.  BJJ continues to evolve and students are encouraged to explore new techniques and tactics.  The upside down guard video is a good example of this, even if it's not the wisest tactic for self defense.   This doesn't address holes in training, which may exist.  It doesn't address the origin of the style.  It only answers the question, "Is this style traditional?"  And BJJ is not.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.



Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?


Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.



I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range.  I'm not interested in striking.  AND that is a hole in my training.   

I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training.   Why can't you?  

And this is also beside the point of defining tma.   For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma.  Wing chun has holes and is a tma.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Here's the thing, Chris.  No matter how boldly you declare an opinion, you cannot make it fact.  An opinion it remains.
> 
> You seem not to understand that your opinions are just that, and resort to condescension when anyone shares a dissenting opinion.  It makes slogging through your posts difficult, which seems, IMO, to be on purpose.  You like to camouflage your opinions as facts, but opinions they remain.
> 
> ...



Leaving off the passive-aggressive tone there, Steve, no, I'm not dealing with opinion. In fact, I almost never do. I deal in what is, pure and simple&#8230; and this is a case in point. I comment that, when looking at what makes something a TMA, you need to look at actual TMA's, and actual TMA practitioners, rather than just people who (perhaps falsely) feel they are practicing a TMA, backed up with case-studies and evidence of how self-identification as something doesn't mean that that's actually what they are, and you come back by telling me that's just my opinion?

No, Steve. It's quite deliberately taking the idea of "opinion" out of it.



K-man said:


> I personally don't believe you can put TMAs in one box.



It's a method of categorisation, so yeah, you can&#8230; of course, it's a very big box, with a very wide set of parameters&#8230; the issue happens when people start trying to think that all TMA's are the same&#8230; it's like saying that all Asian food is the same&#8230; which is simply not realistic either&#8230; but, by the same token, you can agree that Chinese, Indian, Japanese are all "Asian food"&#8230; but French, Italian, German, English food isn't.



K-man said:


> All I was saying was that whatever criteria you chose to define TMA there will be something that few people would call TMA that would fit the same criteria.



And, again, I personally don't care what people think&#8230; I care about what is.



K-man said:


> That's what I am saying. It all depends.



Okay.



K-man said:


> In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
> :asian:



Interesting. It certainly looks like they're looking at a range of criteria that goes a fair bit beyond "traditional martial art", of course&#8230; 



jezr74 said:


> So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.



Honestly, I don't think that's really a good approach&#8230; keeping bits and pieces, and changing others, leads to confusion and a mess of a system&#8230; it becomes a mongrel, neither one thing nor another&#8230; 



jezr74 said:


> Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?



Ceremonial? Not at all. For the vague "zombie apocalypse"? Even less likely. To be clear, at least as far as Koryu is concerned, arts are kept alive because they still offer relevance to the modern practitioners&#8230; it just isn't necessarily in combative applications in their original context&#8230; but that's going to lead us somewhere that'll require a lot of typing&#8230; 



Steve said:


> In a basic leadership course, I train new supervisors in critical thinking and decision making.  Essentially, we talk about giving some thought to the various factors that influence a decision: risk to the company, policies, safety, legality or precedent.  There are dozens of factors that could influence a decision, but if you give some thought in advance to what factors are important to you, it can help you make a sound, wise decision in a moment of crisis.  The point isn't that one thing is more or less important than another.  The point really is that we all have priorities, but that we seldom think about them with intention.  So, in a moment of crisis, we often struggle to reconcile conflicting priorities.
> 
> In the same way, we all have priorities and needs from our MA training.   We all have a list of things we gain from training: health/fitness, self defense skills, confidence, 6 pack abs (well, some people do, I hear), tradition, esprit de corps.  Who knows what else?  We all have a list, and our lists are likely different.  Which brings me back to what I said earlier.  My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."



So&#8230; pretty much exactly what I said in my first post here, discussing priorities being the major distinction between TMA and non-TMA systems? Gotta ask, then&#8230; why the arguments?



Steve said:


> And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.



"Obvious holes"?!?!

Steve, no. Just&#8230; no.



Hanzou said:


> If the sole purpose of the sport is to be a sport, then no it can't be a martial art.



Who said anything about a sole purpose? And are you really suggesting that wrestling couldn't be used for self defence, or similar? Can you see how you're over-simplifying to the point of inaccuracy here?



Steve said:


> In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring.  You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground.  That's a hole in the training.  But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want.  But that doesn't mean the hole is gone.  It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.


 
Actually, no, Steve, it means that perhaps a different tactical understanding and contextual understanding is in play. Not that there are "holes"&#8230;  



Steve said:


> Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style?  If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional."  My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art.  Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.


 
Okay... 



Steve said:


> Non-traditional:  BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis



Really? BJJ is trained differently now? How so? Are there new methods, sweeps, counters etc? Sure. It's a sporting art, and sporting arts are constantly an arms race&#8230; but it was the same back in the day&#8230; you might even say that BJJ has a tradition of evolving technique&#8230; but the actual training methodology, I'd suggest, is largely the same as it was when Helio started teaching&#8230; TKD can be a sporting oriented school, but you'll still see the traditional trappings there, so I'd argue that all TKD schools are (at heart) TMA&#8230; Arnis is still taught the same way it was years ago&#8230; 



Steve said:


> Traditional:  TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido]/QUOTE]
> 
> So&#8230; muay Thai is traditional? Why is it traditional, but a sporting TKD dojang isn't?
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range.  I'm not interested in striking.  AND that is a hole in my training.
> 
> I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training.   Why can't you?
> 
> And this is also beside the point of defining tma.   For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma.  Wing chun has holes and is a tma.



There is a big difference between "having holes" and having a different contextual and tactical application. Just because it's outside of your (not just you, Steve&#8230; this is aimed at a few others here as well) exposure and experience doesn't make it any less valid.

In other words, they only have "holes" if you don't understand the context.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> I'm not hung up on fighting at any range, but I acknowledge that a fight can happen at any range.  I'm not interested in striking.  AND that is a hole in my training.
> 
> I can freely acknowledge the holes in my training.   Why can't you?
> 
> And this is also beside the point of defining tma.   For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma.  Wing chun has holes and is a tma.


Let's say hypothetically that I was a top class chef specialising in French style cuisine. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't serve asian style food in my restaurant. Some might say that shows there is a hole in my menu. Who gives a toss? If people want Asian food they go to an asian restaurant. 

From my perspective, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have most bases covered.  So perhaps now we could get back to the OP and how to define TMA.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Let's say hypothetically that I was a top class chef specialising in French style cuisine. Let's say, hypothetically, that I don't serve asian style food in my restaurant. Some might say that shows there is a hole in my menu. Who gives a toss? If people want Asian food they go to an asian restaurant.
> 
> From my perspective, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have most bases covered.  So perhaps now we could get back to the OP and how to define TMA.
> :asian:



The metaphor breaks down.  There are at least two people involved in an altercation.  You can choose not to cook Asian food.   No one else is involved.   You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing.  Someone else has influence.  

Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.   

I am talking about defining tma.  You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself.   You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris,first i appreciate the passive aggressive comment, but i think it was more just aggressive.  I'm not good at subtle. 

Second, I do now believe that you cannot distinguish between your opinions and facts.  

Finally, in a thread about how to define a tma, that you believe to be the one guy who knows for fact is funny.  The entire section about having to ask the right people is awesome, if a bit surreal.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> The metaphor breaks down.  There are at least two people involved in an altercation.  You can choose not to cook Asian food.   No one else is involved.   You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing.  Someone else has influence.
> 
> Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.
> 
> I am talking about defining tma.  You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself.   You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.



No, it doesn't. The reason you're feeling it does is that you're wanting to apply a single context to all martial arts&#8230; what K-man and I are saying is that the context of MMA, BJJ, Judo, TKD, whatever is simply not necessarily the same as other systems&#8230; and the idea of "holes" is deeply contextually and tactically loaded. 

We're not engaging in your context. As a result, we don't have to do what you guys do&#8230; or have the same ideas. 



Steve said:


> Chris,first i appreciate the passive aggressive comment, but i think it was more just aggressive.  I'm not good at subtle.
> 
> Second, I do now believe that you cannot distinguish between your opinions and facts.
> 
> Finally, in a thread about how to define a tma, that you believe to be the one guy who knows for fact is funny.  The entire section about having to ask the right people is awesome, if a bit surreal.



Then you missed entirely what I was saying.

To go over it once more, in an effort to define what "TMA" are, I posit that you should only really be looking at actual TMA's&#8230; and actual TMA practitioners. Not people who (possibly falsely) think that's what they do. That's not an opinion, it's an observation. And, bluntly, it's so common sense that I find it amazing that you're arguing against it&#8230; surely, in order to define something, you need to actually look at that thing, yeah?

Really, all I said there was that "self identification" is completely irrelevant. Again, not an opinion, a simple observation and basic common sense. If someone self identifies as a TMA practitioner, and they actually are one, then the relevant fact is that they're genuinely a TMA practitioner&#8230; if they self identify as one, but aren't actually practicing a TMA, then the relevant factor is that what they're doing isn't TMA&#8230; not what they think it is&#8230; and, if someone doesn't think they're a TMA practitioner, but they actually are, again, they're self identification means nothing&#8230; what matters is what they actually do. I really find it incredible that you can argue against that&#8230; especially after I demonstrated it with examples earlier (that you didn't have any argument against, simply resorting to saying "well, that's your opinion"&#8230.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 17, 2014)

TMA is short for three words that people love to argue over, because obviously there is only one very specific meaning when put together, revealed to the chosen few of the true way of course, and everybody else are wrong all the time. 

And red candy IS so much better than the icky blue ones too!!


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> You might want to get some kind of actual understanding of K-man's perspective before you decide that it's not correct&#8230; remember, fighting ain't fighting&#8230; MMA ain't everything&#8230; BJJ has it's problems and limitations&#8230; and a cage proves nothing other than a one-off occurrence in a cage.



Why do you assume that learning to fight on the ground is only limited/applicable to MMA? There's plenty of evidence showing people getting pulled to the ground in a fight (usually by a larger adversary) and getting pummeled. When that happens, the damage to the person in the inferior position is magnified, and can lead to serious injury or even death. Not many people can die from a punch or kick while they're standing. Plenty of people can die from a punch to their head while someone is sitting on top of them, or smacking their head into the concrete.

Then there's the case of females in compromising positions or rape situations. Knowing how to choke, or snap someone's limb from your back is highly useful in that situation as well. This is made even more important because a female is often put into that position by a larger person.

You can't just say "I'll never get put into that position" because its very possible that you (or your students) could be put into that position. Gravity isn't going away anytime soon.

I don't believe anyone said that Bjj is the perfect system, but it has a pretty damn good track record because it addresses a pretty important, yet often neglected combat range. Kman was the one who said he has no holes in his training, not any Bjj exponent on this forum.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> To go over it once more, in an effort to define what "TMA" are, I posit that you should only really be looking at actual TMA's&#8230; and actual TMA practitioners. Not people who (possibly falsely) think that's what they do. That's not an opinion, it's an observation. And, bluntly, it's so common sense that I find it amazing that you're arguing against it&#8230; surely, in order to define something, you need to actually look at that thing, yeah?
> 
> Really, all I said there was that "self identification" is completely irrelevant. Again, not an opinion, a simple observation and basic common sense. If someone self identifies as a TMA practitioner, and they actually are one, then the relevant fact is that they're genuinely a TMA practitioner&#8230; if they self identify as one, but aren't actually practicing a TMA, then the relevant factor is that what they're doing isn't TMA&#8230; not what they think it is&#8230; and, if someone doesn't think they're a TMA practitioner, but they actually are, again, they're self identification means nothing&#8230; what matters is what they actually do. I really find it incredible that you can argue against that&#8230; especially after I demonstrated it with examples earlier (that you didn't have any argument against, simply resorting to saying "well, that's your opinion"&#8230.



Chris, you're a smart guy so I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in arguing "to find a definition of x we should only look at actual examples of x." The problem is that unless you have a definition of x in the first place then you can't specify which examples are actually x and which are not. 

There is no definition of "TMA" in the dictionary. There is no universally accepted definition in the martial arts community as a whole. There is no universally accepted definition among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists. There is no universal agreement among martial artists or self-identified traditional martial artists as to which arts fall into that category. Personally, I don't think it's a tremendously useful phrase.

If you want to use the term meaningfully, then you can define what _you _mean by it and you can argue for why your definition makes a more useful categorization than the other definitions that people use. Claiming that your definition is just a matter of factual observation because all the arts that meet your criteria happen to meet your criteria is circular nonsense.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Why do you assume that learning to fight on the ground is only limited/applicable to MMA? There's plenty of evidence showing people getting pulled to the ground in a fight (usually by a larger adversary) and getting pummeled. When that happens, the damage to the person in the inferior position is magnified, and can lead to serious injury or even death. Not many people can die from a punch or kick while they're standing. Plenty of people can die from a punch to their head while someone is sitting on top of them, or smacking their head into the concrete.
> 
> Then there's the case of females in compromising positions or rape situations. Knowing how to choke, or snap someone's limb from your back is highly useful in that situation as well. This is made even more important because a female is often put into that position by a larger person.
> 
> ...



Oh, Horatio&#8230; you're really not getting what I'm saying.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. 

You're focused on techniques. Pointless. You miss the overall concept of context and tactics. Important. You're missing where I have (citing a post of yours) also agreed that BJJ is a good system for women to learn&#8230; although I have different reasons for such a statement (and, ideally, I'd actually feel that, as a self defence curriculum, my modern material trumps BJJ quite easily&#8230; and, for the record, that's me with experience in BJJ saying that&#8230, so you're missing my actual beliefs and feelings in this arena.

Oh, and for the record, no-one accused BJJ of not having holes&#8230; that accusation was launched at others (K-man specifically)&#8230; and I was pointing out that such an accusation is made without understanding the actual context and tactical mentality of K-man's teachings. Don't get your head out of whack with a perceived attack, there isn't one. We're pointing out that your understanding is really far from the whole story.

Kay?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Chris, you're a smart guy so I find it hard to believe you can't see the circularity in arguing "to find a definition of x we should only look at actual examples of x." The problem is that unless you have a definition of x in the first place then you can't specify which examples are actually x and which are not.
> 
> There is no definition of "TMA" in the dictionary. There is no universally accepted definition in the martial arts community as a whole. There is no universally accepted definition among those who self-identify as traditional martial artists. There is no universal agreement among martial artists or self-identified traditional martial artists as to which arts fall into that category. Personally, I don't think it's a tremendously useful phrase.
> 
> If you want to use the term meaningfully, then you can define what _you _mean by it and you can argue for why your definition makes a more useful categorization than the other definitions that people use. Claiming that your definition is just a matter of factual observation because all the arts that meet your criteria happen to meet your criteria is circular nonsense.



Hey, Tony,

I don't really think it's that circular, honestly. If we were only looking at single systems in isolation, then yeah, I'd be with you&#8230; however we have many, many, many "Traditional Martial Arts" that we can compare and cross-reference. But my point is that accepting that someone says what they do is "TMA", when it plainly isn't, doesn't do a thing when it comes to defining what TMA actually are.

Take a look at the fake "ninjitsu" systems out there&#8230; they're not in any way genuine, they're not in any way "traditional", they're not in any way Japanese in most cases&#8230; should we class them as actually "ninjutsu" as part of an effort to define the art, just because some deluded people think that's what they're doing?

How about if someone trained in a bit of Judo, did some Arnis, added some Capoeira, and called it BJJ? Do we accept that that (hypothetical) "art" actually is BJJ? Or do we compare and contrast it with known BJJ to properly define and categorise it?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, Horatio&#8230; you're really not getting what I'm saying.
> 
> I'm not assuming anything of the kind.
> 
> You're focused on techniques. Pointless. You miss the overall concept of context and tactics. Important. You're missing where I have (citing a post of yours) also agreed that BJJ is a good system for women to learn&#8230; although I have different reasons for such a statement (and, ideally, I'd actually feel that, as a self defence curriculum, my modern material trumps BJJ quite easily&#8230; and, for the record, that's me with experience in BJJ saying that&#8230, so you're missing my actual beliefs and feelings in this arena.



You mentioned MMA twice in the post I quoted, implying that Bjj or ground fighting's importance is mostly cage/sport-based. I was merely pointing out how that belief is nonsense, because ground fighting has very real and important applications within self defense.



> Oh, and for the record, no-one accused BJJ of not having holes&#8230; that accusation was launched at others (K-man specifically)&#8230; and I was pointing out that such an accusation is made without understanding the actual context and tactical mentality of K-man's teachings. Don't get your head out of whack with a perceived attack, there isn't one. We're pointing out that your understanding is really far from the whole story.
> 
> Kay?



No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> You mentioned MMA twice in the post I quoted, inferring that Bjj or ground fighting's importance is mostly cage/sport-based. I was merely pointing out how that belief is nonsense, because ground fighting has very real and important applications within self defines.



It has the potential to have some application&#8230; that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.



Hanzou said:


> No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.



Actually, no&#8230; K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record)&#8230; Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole"&#8230; it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.

Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you&#8230; it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".

You have picked up on the new name, yeah? Got the reference yet?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 17, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> With all the threads about mma vs. tma, Why are tma's having difficulty in the ring, etc.  I thought we could all sit down and hash out what exactly is a Traditional Martial Art?




This all depends upon what the meaning of the word "IS" is. - President Clinton



Also :
Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Men In Black "Imagine" - YouTube


Seriously:

I train and teach two systems that were created in the early second half of the 20th century. They are considered Modern in many aspects compared to other older systems and arts. They are also considered Traditional as people like me have continued the tradition of teaching in the same methods as I was taught in. 

I can count over 20 MMA schools that have opened and closed in my area in the last 15 years and a few more before that as well. They close because they lose their students as usually the colored belt instructor or group leader or study group or what ever is not worried about safety and the training of others and only worried about their own training. As most will not go to a lower rank student to learn they usually are the most skilled in the club and can protect themselves. Others not so lucky as the number of people I have seen come through my small school that were there because someone on purpose broke their arm after then had already tapped out. 

There is a point that injuries happen. And if one pushed themselves and over works something then it is understandable. If one has an accident this is understandable as well. Yet to understand that someone actually just wants to go an break someone else's arm even after they tap just for their own ego and or rep is not good. 

So, I have a saying Perception is Reality. One could be the nicest person in the world, yet if you explode and yell at someone or hurt someone just once others who say and those they talk to will worry about when it will happen again. 

If the predator see you are not paying attention on the street the perception is that you are a victim and you become a target. 

So my perception of MMA is that of Sport the serious professional and all those who want to prove something to themselves and hurt others along the way. 

So, if you are not part of that definition to me then you are part of a TMA. 



NOTE: I am not saying all MMA is bad. I am not challenging people about what they train or study. I have rolled some on the ground. I have also had to protect myself when people would not release after I had tapped out. From people wanting to "Choke me out" (* And I could still talk and explain that they were going to break my neck, as they were trying to teach me move that the instructor did not ask us to work on as they wanted to dominate me and have me be afraid of them from having passed out, too also someone smaller using excessive strength on an armbar and trying to pop their hips after I tapped. In both cases I used techniques that were not allowed in the Sport of MMA and demonstrated the error of their way. 

Also note: I have been beat up and hurt, and had my ribs separated from kicks on the ground in real confrontations, so I know I am not a bad***, I am just someone trying to survive.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey, Tony,
> 
> I don't really think it's that circular, honestly. If we were only looking at single systems in isolation, then yeah, I'd be with you&#8230; however we have many, many, many "Traditional Martial Arts" that we can compare and cross-reference. But my point is that accepting that someone says what they do is "TMA", when it plainly isn't, doesn't do a thing when it comes to defining what TMA actually are.
> 
> ...



The problem is that there is no universal (or even mostly universal) agreement about which arts fall into that box of many, many, many traditional arts. If we mostly agreed upon which arts fall into the TMA category, then we could derive a definition from observing the common characteristics of the examples in that category. If we mostly agreed upon a definition, then we could decide which arts to include or exclude from the category based on the definition. Since we don't have common ground on either starting point, then it's silly for any one of us to declare that our definition or our categorization is objectively the factually correct one.

With regards to your hypotheticals, there is universal acceptance that "BJJ" is the term for the (mostly grappling with a heavy emphasis on groundwork) art coming out of Brazil in the 20th century developed by the Gracie family (and their students) (and Luiz Franca and his students) from an initial introduction to Judo as taught by Mitsuyo Maeda. If someone was to call an unrelated art "BJJ" they would be using the term in a way unconnected to any common usage of the term and would probably be doing it in a conscious attempt to fool people.

"Ninjutsu" gets a little more complicated, since the common usage covers a few options.

There are the actual historical Japanese espionage arts, elements of which may or may not survive to the present day.
There are the X-Kans and their derived splinter organizations, some of which use or have used the "ninjutsu" label even though only 3 of the 9 Takamatsuden arts are identified as ninjutsu and none of those 3 are known for sure to go back further than Takamatsu himself.
There is the movie image of the black-clad assassin disappearing in a puff of smoke.

In the case of folks claiming to train ninjutsu, I'd look at what they're actually claiming their art to be.

If they are claiming to teach a specific historical Japanese art, then I'd look at whether they can back that claim up. (Probably not.)
If they are coming from the X-Kans or their spinoffs, then I'd kind of prefer they didn't call it ninjutsu, since even if the 3 arts in question are legitimate, they make up only a small percentage of the X-Kan training. Still, I'll give them a pass since they might possibly have a link to an actual historical ninjutsu tradition or three.
If they claim to be teaching the fantasy as shown in the movies, then they are delusional or liars since that doesn't exist in the real world.
If they claim to be teaching something else and just using the term ninjutsu, then I would point out that they are using the word incorrectly since it doesn't match any commonly accepted usage.

"TMA" is much more problematic because we don't have agreement on what the term means or which arts fall into that bucket. I commonly see TKD referred to as a TMA and BJJ referred to as not a TMA. How does that make any sense when BJJ is _older _than TKD? BJJ has evolved, but not any more so than TKD. You can find instructors teaching old-school BJJ just as easily as you can find instructors teaching old-school TKD. 

Probably most people would accept the koryu arts as being TMA, but once you move past them you're going to find very little universal agreement.

Depending on who you ask, a TMA might be:

An art that has existed for a certain length of time.
An art that has existed unchanged for a certain length of time.
An art that has existed unchanged since its formulation by its founder.
An art with certain cultural signifiers (rituals, attitudes toward instructors, etc)
An art with an accurate historical record and unbroken lineage of instructors.
An art with a certain set of values (which may vary according to who is offering the definition)
An art with a certain set of training methods (which may vary according to who is offering the definition)

Personally I don't care which definition you use, as long as you make it clear beforehand so I know what you're talking about.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Rich Parsons said:


> I can count over 20 MMA schools that have opened and closed in my area in the last 15 years and a few more before that as well. They close because they lose their students as usually the colored belt instructor or group leader or study group or what ever is not worried about safety and the training of others and only worried about their own training. As most will not go to a lower rank student to learn they usually are the most skilled in the club and can protect themselves. Others not so lucky as the number of people I have seen come through my small school that were there because someone on purpose broke their arm after then had already tapped out.



Yeesh, Rich. Where do you live with all these out-of-control MMA wannabees starting gyms?

I train at a well-established MMA/BJJ gym that has been going for about 15 years so far. I've never seen or heard about anyone refusing to release their sparring partner after a tap. Someone who did that at our gym would be tossed out on their *** so quick it wouldn't be funny. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> It has the potential to have some application that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.



Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.




> Actually, no K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record) Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole" it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.



Except that it is an obvious hole, because not being able to fight from that position is a major disadvantage. This has been proven over and over again. And no, that proof didn't just come from the cage or MMA.



> Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".



I think admitting that I have holes in my training shows a bit more hubris and willingness to learn than stating that my training is perfect and has no holes.

That's just my opinion though.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony,  

I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan.  Whoa, there have been some terrible ones.  Just terrible!  So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan.  He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools.  The mma one was one of the first.  He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training.  Then they rolled.  He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique.  The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything.  Yes, he submitted the instructor twice.  There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Tony,
> 
> I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan.  Whoa, there have been some terrible ones.  Just terrible!  So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan.  He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools.  The mma one was one of the first.  He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training.  Then they rolled.  He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique.  The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything.  Yes, he submitted the instructor twice.  There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.



I wonder if it's primarily the areas without legitimate instructors that have no-nothing knuckleheads popping up to fill the void. Both my current gym and my original gym in Ohio are run by BJJ black belts and have produced successful professional fighters. Any bozo gyms that were opened up in our area would have been facing some stiff competition.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 17, 2014)

Absolutely I would say that this is the case.  I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up.  Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them.  They do not last to long but they are around.

Now back to what is a TMA!!!


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> The metaphor breaks down.  There are at least two people involved in an altercation.  You can choose not to cook Asian food.   No one else is involved.   You can't decide alone that a fight stays standing.  Someone else has influence.
> 
> Also, the stakes are higher in self defense than in cooking.
> 
> I am talking about defining tma.  You're yhe one who's talking about cooking. So unless you're using the royal 'we' consider speaking for yourself.   You may disagree but that doesn't mean my post is off topic.


Agreed, you can't choose to not go to the ground but you can tailor your training so it is less likely you will go to the ground. I have done a small amount of ground grappling, enough I believe to get me out of trouble against most people without extensive ground fighting experience. If I am taken to the ground in a real fight it will be no holds barred. I might get hammered but if I get the opportunity to apply my training it won't be pretty. 

So if you're defining TMA, perhaps you could give us your thoughts on how we can define what I believe is not possible to define without a context.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Agreed, you can't choose to not go to the ground but you can tailor your training so it is less likely you will go to the ground. I have done a small amount of ground grappling, enough I believe to get me out of trouble against most people without extensive ground fighting experience. If I am taken to the ground in a real fight it will be no holds barred. I might get hammered but if I get the opportunity to apply my training it won't be pretty.
> 
> So if you're defining TMA, perhaps you could give us your thoughts on how we can define what I believe is not possible to define without a context.
> :asian:



If you don't know my definition,  you haven't read my posts. :Asian:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 17, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Absolutely I would say that this is the case.  I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up.  Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them.  They do not last to long but they are around.
> 
> Now back to what is a TMA!!!



Here is you virtual gavel.

View attachment $vgavel.jpg


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> I don't believe anyone said that Bjj is the perfect system, but it has a pretty damn good track record because it addresses a pretty important, yet often neglected combat range. *Kman was the one who said he has no holes in his training*, not any Bjj exponent on this forum.


And again you mis-quote. Are you illiterate or just trying to annoy? This is what I actually said. 



> Originally posted by *K-man*
> *From my perspective*, there are no holes in my training. If I wanted to be involved in MMA I would train MMA. I have trained in a number of styles of MA and reckon I have *most* bases covered.



Let me explain it to you again in simple terms. Training is to suit your own needs. If you want to box in the Olympics then you train to that rule set. You don't need to become a specialist wrestler as well. If your desire is to be the next world champion UFC fighter you are going to have to train all areas you are going to encounter in the ring. That includes striking, grappling and ground. I have no desire to do that. I want to train in a reality based system and be proficient in it. I have identified different areas at different times that I felt were required to increase my knowledge. For example, in my earlier karate training we had no grappling at all. I didn't even know there was grappling in karate. To understand that side of my training better I began learning Aikido. Most of that training is directly applicable to my karate. In my earlier training I was taught to strike in the fashion that you dissed in an earlier thread. When I realised that what we were being taught was fundamentally flawed I took steps to learn how to strike more effectively. When I got to train in Okinawa I found I had just reinvented the wheel. The way they were striking was the same as I had discovered in my research.  And it goes on. I have done enough basic grappling to be confident on the ground. My Systema and Krav training is all about getting back off the ground. All that I incorporate into my karate classes. It is interesting to note, there is hardly a technique in Krav that is not in Goju. After all there are a finite number of ways you can strike, bend or twist the body.

So, I am a little amused you say it is me saying I have no holes in my training, which is after all is *from my perspective*, yet it is only BJJ/MMA wannabes that are saying my training is flawed. 

Now before the genuine BJJ/MMA guys jump in, I am not referring to you. I love BJJ and if I was forty years younger I'd be there. I just take offence at people with no knowledge of other people's training or ability sniping at everything that doesn't fit their own model.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> No one accused Kman of anything. Kman himself said that he had no holes in his training. I think that was quite an interesting statement, and wanted to know if he passed that belief onto his students. You're the one who decided to hop in and defend his incredulous statement for whatever reason.


Only incredulous because you either can't read or don't want to accept what is written in the context it is written! I never said I had no holes in my training. I did say I had most bases covered.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> You have picked up on the new name, yeah? Got the reference yet?


I'm not sure that many Americans learn British history.   But then I can't talk ... I barrack for Collingwood. irate4:


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> If I had to genuinely define TMA, it would be about the priorities of the style.  If the *most important* instructional priority at your school is that you do things as much like your instructor as possible, you are likely training in a TMA.


So when you start training in say BJJ for example, you are saying that if the student learns from you then goes and teaches what he has learned, his style is a TMA. But if he adds to it or subtracts from it, it is not. 



Steve said:


> My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."


Again, I would say that would really describe most BJJ that I have seen.



Steve said:


> Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style?  If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional."  My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art.  Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.
> 
> Non-traditional:  BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis
> 
> ...


Hang about .. BJJ is not traditional. Boxing has barely changed at all yet it is not traditional.

Most karate is traditional yet most of it has very little in common with the original system?

I agree that most Aikido is traditional and a lot of the CMAs but I can't see the link to most Karate.




Steve said:


> And this is also beside the point of defining tma.   For example, Bjj has holes and is not a tma.  Wing chun has holes and is a tma.



 And the relevance is? A system will only have holes in it if there is a fundamental aspect missing that makes it unsuitable for its purpose.  



Steve said:


> If you don't know my definition,  you haven't read my posts. :Asian:


I have read and reread all your posts. They seem to lack consistency. 

Oh! By the way ... :Asian: needs a small 'a'.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> So when you start training in say BJJ for example, you are saying that if the student learns from you then goes and teaches what he has learned, his style is a TMA. But if he adds to it or subtracts from it, it is not.
> 
> Again, I would say that would really describe most BJJ that I have seen.
> 
> ...



Kman, I sincerely believe that I've been clear And consistent.   If you want to stop being a smartass and have a genuine question for me, by all means, ask.  I'm happy to explain.  Really.  I'll do my best.  But, if I'm being honest, I don't actually think you have a question.  I think you get my point just fine, and you're just trying to be entirely too clever.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> > Originally Posted by *Chris Parker * It has the potential to have some application&#8230; that's a very different thing to suggesting that not having a highly developed ground fighting "game" is a "hole" in a training construct you don't understand.
> > Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.
> 
> 
> Semantics? Who said anything about needing a "highly developed ground fighting game"? The discussion revolved around having knowledge of fighting on the ground. You don't need to be a black belt in Bjj to fill that hole, but a self defense system that doesn't have at least an intermediate level of ground fighting knowledge would have a pretty decent hole.


I have said time after time that I have a sufficient level of ground fighting skill, most of which is designed to get back off the ground. 



Hanzou said:


> > Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*  Actually, no&#8230; K-man mentioned that some might make the argument that the lack of a "developed ground game" could be considered a "hole", but that that was not considered accurate in the systems he teaches (nor mine, for the record)&#8230; Steve started saying that the lack was a "obvious hole"&#8230; it isn't. That's the point. It's only an "obvious hole" if it's meant to be addressed, or considered valuable enough to dedicate the time to it. In K-man's training, and in mine, it just doesn't have the benefit to justify the trade-off in training other, more practical, and beneficial methods.
> > Except that it is an obvious hole, because not being able to fight from that position is a major disadvantage. This has been proven over and over again. And no, that proof didn't just come from the cage or MMA.
> 
> 
> ...



So what has that to do with me, my training or what I teach? Where is the obvious hole? I have undertaken what I believe is sufficient training for my needs. If I was wanting to climb into an MMA ring tomorrow I admit, there is a hole in my training. Seeing I am never going to be in an MMA ring, why is there an obvious hole? How do you know what I can do on the ground? Your impressions come from your original fallacious proposition that if a style was not represented in the MMA ring it is ineffective.



Hanzou said:


> > Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*  Oh, and your comments like "his incredulous statement" don't help you&#8230; it really just shows that you're unable to see past your own nose, and are unwilling to learn anything beyond what you think is "real".
> > I think admitting that I have holes in my training shows a bit more hubris and willingness to learn than stating that my training is perfect and has no holes.
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I'm glad you admit you have holes in your training and it is fortunate that you are young enough to remedy them. I have had over thirty years to do that so although my training is not perfect and by your definition has some holes in it, I think it pretty much covers everything I need.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeesh, Rich. Where do you live with all these out-of-control MMA wannabees starting gyms?
> 
> I train at a well-established MMA/BJJ gym that has been going for about 15 years so far. I've never seen or heard about anyone refusing to release their sparring partner after a tap. Someone who did that at our gym would be tossed out on their *** so quick it wouldn't be funny. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior.



I am in Grand Blanc, just south of Flint. the Number 20 was low in case I called out on trying to name them. 

There are a few good schools with legitimate instructors. 


Problems are two fold in my opinion. 1) People want to be at the top of the bow chain and open their school. 2) People want to do it their way and make their name as they have an idea that they can change the world because they chae done good in a couple of fights.  






Brian R. VanCise said:


> Tony,
> 
> I do not see to many mma wanabee gyms here in Las Vegas but back in Michigan.  Whoa, there have been some terrible ones.  Just terrible!  So bad one of my students who had been training with us for about a year moved and went north in Michigan.  He was trying to find a place to train so he tried out several schools.  The mma one was one of the first.  He went in, tried a class and was surprised that everyone was so tense in training.  Then they rolled.  He was amazed it was all muscle and very little technique.  The kicker for him why he did not train there was that after rolling with the instructor he realized he wasn't going to learn anything.  Yes, he submitted the instructor twice.  There have been a lot of bad mma gyms in Michigan and I would venture throughout the Midwest.



Yes, some good, and many bad that move and or close up. 




Tony Dismukes said:


> I wonder if it's primarily the areas without legitimate instructors that have no-nothing knuckleheads popping up to fill the void. Both my current gym and my original gym in Ohio are run by BJJ black belts and have produced successful professional fighters. Any bozo gyms that were opened up in our area would have been facing some stiff competition.



As I stated above, there are some. Many people do not like to drive more than 5 miles to get their groceries, pizza or their martial arts training.  
Given as stated above the ego's and people who do not want to put in the work to learn to train others and or themselves then you have what I have seen locally. 




Brian R. VanCise said:


> Absolutely I would say that this is the case.  I know in Michigan the amature mma scene is pretty good and I can remember a lot of and I will call them loosely gyms popping up.  Usually a high school wrestler or some one with even less experience running them.  They do not last to long but they are around.
> 
> Now back to what is a TMA!!!




I apologize Brian for the tangent. I will get back to what is a TMA.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Kman, I sincerely believe that I've been clear And consistent.   If you want to stop being a smartass and have a genuine question for me, by all means, ask.  I'm happy to explain.  Really.  I'll do my best.  But, if I'm being honest, I don't actually think you have a question.  I think you get my point just fine, and you're just trying to be entirely too clever.


Mate I haven't a problem with your position. It is just that you seem to be consistently behind *Hanzou *with his incessant sniping. I assume when you 'like' his post you agree and approve of it.

So let's look at a few posts.



Steve said:


> > Originally Posted by *K-man*  You can argue that without a strong ground game a martial art may have a hole in its training but the Okinawans would possibly argue that they are not training to fight on the ground and if they were to go there they would be trying to get up, not stay rolling around.
> 
> 
> 
> And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.


You jump in to state categorically that there is an obvious hole in their training. I offered the counter arguement which you chose to ignore. I find that offensive and totally lacking in respect as I said they are not training to fight on the ground. It is your opinion and one I suggest is wrong.



Steve said:


> > Originally Posted by *K-man*
> > Not really. I don't look at it as an obvious hole in the training. I was saying that others may suggest that there was a hole. It depends on perspective. I have no desire to fight on the ground and I certainly don't want to fight in a ring. Chances are that I will never need to use my skills in a real situation and even if I did I doubt it would involve staying on the ground. From my perspective there is no hole.
> 
> 
> ...


As I said it is a matter of perspective. You have no idea of my ground skills. As a trained BJJ guy you may well best me in a fair fight but then you might get a nasty surprise in a real one. To tell me I have a hole in my training is again offensive.



Steve said:


> > Originally Posted by *K-man  *
> > Certainly. You guys seem to be hung up on getting down on the ground. Why doesn't Krav incorporate more BJJ? Why doesn't Systema teach more on the ground? What about combatives or Silat? The answer is, none of them are interested in sport. None of them are interested in fighting on the ground. I can't speak for those styles I do not train but certainly I don't believe there is a hole in any of my training.
> 
> 
> ...


Well again, I asked a question that you ignored and you again restated I had holes in my training. You have no idea of my ground fighting ability yet you keep pursuing the issue. If you want to look at my overall training I have holes. For example my knowledge of traditional weapons is woefully inadequate, but since I am more interested in reality based fighting that is pretty much irrelevant. I don't have a vast number of judo like throws in my armoury. To me that doesn't matter because that type of throwing is not part of my training. I don't train jumping or spinning kicks or high kicks for that matter. I'm not saying they can't be useful, just they are not relevant for me. So because I haven't studied ground fighting to a high degree I have a hole in my training. Again, I would suggest that is arrogant on your part. As to the lack of striking being a hole. I would disagree. It is not always necessary or even desirable unless you are into a sport that requires striking skills.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3kucj_b_8

So I'm not trying to be a smartarse and I'm not trying to be clever. I will admit to being a little testy. Perhaps we could discuss things more rationally if you tempered your responses.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have said time after time that I have a sufficient level of ground fighting skill, most of which is designed to get back off the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regarding ground fighting. My coach can get off the ground whenever he wants. I can't. So I would suggest my ground fighting skill is not sufficient.

We call him the slippery gypsy for just that reason.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Regarding ground fighting. My coach can get off the ground whenever he wants. I can't. So I would suggest my ground fighting skill is not sufficient.
> 
> We call him the slippery gypsy for just that reason.


Cool, but are you really training to escape or to submit you partner? I'm not doubting that at the top level you could choose either option. I have no doubt given time on the ground your skills would be much greater than mine but I can live with that. My training is in other directions.
:asian:


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> Cool, but are you really training to escape or to submit you partner? I'm not doubting that at the top level you could choose either option. I have no doubt given time on the ground your skills would be much greater than mine but I can live with that. My training is in other directions.
> :asian:



Stand up sweep submit is the order of our mma. You can't lay under someone for too long or you will get your face smashed in.

We almost never submit people. Underneath unless it is staring me in the face I will be getting on top or standing.

On top unless it is given to me I am punching. So for the most part sub's are a GNP where the other guy just gives his neck or his back so that he can go home.

But we do high pressure wrestling based mma.


Eg.
My coach.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqtZ9HqPJWw


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 18, 2014)

(I'm going to come back to this thread properly later, hopefully tomorrow, to give it the attention some of these answers deserve, but for now)



K-man said:


> I'm not sure that many Americans learn British history.   But then I can't talk ... I barrack for Collingwood. irate4:



Uh no I'm not referencing British history think literature instead


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 18, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> (I'm going to come back to this thread properly later, hopefully tomorrow, to give it the attention some of these answers deserve, but for now&#8230
> 
> 
> 
> Uh&#8230; no&#8230; I'm not referencing British history&#8230; think literature instead&#8230;


_
"There are more things in heaven and earth ..."_


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2014)

Somebody here is _a fellow of infinite jest_....


----------



## K-man (Sep 18, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Uh&#8230; no&#8230; I'm not referencing British history&#8230; think literature instead&#8230;


Goodness, I'm flummoxed. I would have sworn it would have been a one eyed character.  However, thinking back to the original avatar of the little prince I suppose it could link to Hamlet. :hmm:  Then again from all the noise it certainly could be Horatio Hornblower.  
OK! OK! I'll settle for Hamlet.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> I have said time after time that I have a sufficient level of ground fighting skill, most of which is designed to get back off the ground.



Your particular skill in ground fighting wasn't what I was talking about in that quote.



> So what has that to do with me, my training or what I teach? Where is the obvious hole? I have undertaken what I believe is sufficient training for my needs. If I was wanting to climb into an MMA ring tomorrow I admit, there is a hole in my training. Seeing I am never going to be in an MMA ring, why is there an obvious hole? How do you know what I can do on the ground? Your impressions come from your original fallacious proposition that if a style was not represented in the MMA ring it is ineffective.



As has been addressed before, being able to fight on the ground is a skill that goes far beyond just fighting in the cage or competition. There's numerous examples of altercations ending up on the ground, and often times ending there in a decisive manner.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 18, 2014)

With regards to the tangent about "holes" in training.

Every single one of us who trains for real-world violence has holes in our training. The world of violence is too big and varied for any person to be fully prepared for every contingency even if we trained full time every day of our entire lives.

On the other hand, even _trying _to be prepared for every contingency is overkill and probably not the best investment for the limited number of hours we have in our lives.  Unless your profession requires that you regularly deal with violence (soldier, LEO, bouncer, prison guard, etc) or you live in an exceptionally dangerous area or you are making consistently bad decisions in life, you should not be having violent encounters on any sort of regular basis. 

If you do live in that exceptionally dangerous area, instead of devoting thousands of hours training for every sort of possible violence, you'll get more bang for your buck using that time and effort figuring out how to move some place safer.

If you are making bad decisions leading to violence, you'll get more bang for your buck learning how to make better decisions.

If you are a professional  dealing with violence, your job only requires you to become proficient in handling certain types of violent encounters, which leaves great unexplored areas which could be regarded as "holes" in your knowledge.

As martial artists, we have to decide how much knowledge and skill in a given area is "enough" for our likely needs while accepting that there will always be potential circumstances that we have not trained sufficiently for.


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2014)

As I was the one that brought up holes in training, I want to point out that it really wasn't a tangent, although that's what it became.  It was an example.  I'd like to take one more stab at explaining what I meant, because the very true observation that everyone has a hole in their training wasn't the point.  

Rather, it's about one's priorities in training.  We all have holes.  Some martial artists and some styles encourage experimentation in a desire to fill these holes.  You could argue that they all do, but I'm not sure whether that's true or not.  But, we know that at least some do.  Right?  If push comes to shove, a choice must be made.  Is it more important to you or your style that you adapt, or is it more important to preserve the integrity of the style?  

If you're training in Kyudo, you wouldn't modernize your bow.  A compound bow propels the arrow faster and with more power per pound of draw weight than a traditional Yumi bow.  But that's not the point.  Is it?  Can you make the bow more efficient by modernizing it?  Sure, but efficacy isn't the primary goal.  And really, you could say, "I don't ever expect to need my bow in self defense."  And you may be right.  But that in no way makes the fact that you are choosing tradition over an acknowledged deficit.  You're saying, this is more important to me than that... "I could make the bow more efficient, but by doing so, I would no longer be doing 'kyudo.'"

This isn't just "holes."  It's about any other potential factors of training.  Tradition is the act of transmitting a system from generation to generation.  It's the function of passing things as unchanged as possible from one person to another to another.  If other factors, whether it's evolution or modernization, rule sets within competition, filling holes, or anything else, is more important than the passing of the system in its entirety, you are likely not in a "traditional" martial art.

Bottom line, the word "tradition" already has a meaning.  I'm simply suggesting that if we want to know what a "traditional" martial art style is, we look at what "tradition" actually means.


----------

